*On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:52:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Daume wrote:700x35 clearance in 1996 is likely different than 700x35 clearance today. It seems like all tires were overstated for width back then, whereas just some are today.*
I suspect the catalog above is slightly newer than the bicycle for sale. You are right, a lot of tires were mismarked and now things are more accurate. But I still doubt Rivendell was advertising frame clearance specs based on a sidewall claim of tire x or y. Also, copy reads "it's designed for modern sidepulls, yet it accommodates tires up to a 700 x 35." *Tim Gavin wrote: Tire clearance doesn't seem to be as standard as you think.* This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that the specs would be off by as much as 7mm. Again, I suspect the catalog refers to a different model year than this bicycle. I could be wrong though--I don't seem to be right as often as I think;^) *Fully lugged wrote: Tire size is always a function of available brakes.* I don't think there were many years in which a sidepull of one brand or another was not produced that could clear a 35mm tire. (Sorry about the awkward construction, need coffee.) On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:52:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Daume wrote: > > 700x35 clearance in 1996 is likely different than 700x35 clearance today. > It seems like all tires were overstated for width back then, whereas just > some are today. > > E > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
