vickster
Legendary Member
None of it (it's not a car tyre)
Diameter and width only
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Diameter and width only
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
there 26x1.5
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
559 is the way the measure tyres = 26 " 17 is the internal rim width
andrew_s
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gloucester
Tyre and rim sizes 101:
ISO sizes, which are the definitive numbers, are small & large numbers like 559x17 (rim) or 37x559 (tyre). The numbers are dimensions in millimetres.
The important number is the larger of the two; in this case, 559 (mm).
This is the diameter of the flat shelf inside the rim that the tyre bead sits on. Both tyre and rim have to be the same size, or either you won't be able to fit the tyre, or the tyre will blow off the rim when you try pumping it up, if it's not fallen off before you get that far.
Road bikes and 29-er mountain bikes use 622 mm rims and tyres
27.5" mountain bikes (aka 650B) use 584 mm rims and tyres.
The smaller number is the interior width of the rim, or the exterior width of the tyre.
These are more flexible, but as a rule of thumb the minimum tyre width for a rim would be the next standard width wider than rim width plus 6 mm (6 mm being the typical difference between interior and exterior rim width), and the maximum tyre size would be double that.
So, in the case of your 17 mm wide rim, the narrowest allowable tyre would be 25 mm wide, and the widest 50 mm. For off-road use, you might like to increase both min and max sizes a little.
Inch sizes are historical, confusing, and best ignored.
Back when rims were made by the tyre makers, tyres were sized by outside diameter, and were generally a nice round number, as was the width/height (bike tyres are circular in cross section on the inside).
So you'd get fat 26 x 2" tyres, and thinner 26 x 1 1/2" tyres, both of which were 26" diameter on the outside, but which used different rims. The 2" wide tyre would use a rim that was 26" - (2 x 2") = 22" across, and the 1 1/2" tyre would use a rim that was 26" - (2 x 1 1/2") = 23" across. If you convert 22" and 23" to mm, you get, lo and behold, 559 mm and 584 mm.
The French did similar, but their nice round tyre diameters were 700 mm, 650 mm etc, and they referred to narrow, medium, wide, and wider tyre widths as A/B/C/D rather than giving exact widths (I think there was a little flexibility in the A/B/C/D tyre widths, so they got the same size rims as the British inch sizes).
Later on, rims were made by other companies, and the tyre manufacturers had to make tyres to fit existing rims, so you'd see tyre sizes like 26 x 2 x 1 1/2", which was a 1 1/2" tyre to fit a rim that was originally for a 26 x 2" tyre.
When mountain bikes came along, the Americans correctly decided that this was all too complicated, so they standardised on the rim size for a 26 x 2" tyre (because that was the readily available fat tyre size at the time), dropped the 2" bit of the original specification, and changed from fractions to decimals, so your 26 x 2 x 1 1/2" tyre became a 26 x 1.5" tyre.
For wider use, confusion still reigned, because there were several different 26" sizes, and more than one of several of the other whole inch sizes. You'd even occasionally get tyre makers putting the wrong numbers on the tyre.
Therefore the standards committee (ETRTO) came along and said "thou shalt quote tyre and rim sizes in millimetres, as follows...", and the tyre and rim makers did, or at least made the millimetre sizes available by putting them on the tyres and rim labels. The only remaining task is to get all the bike shops to use them.
Pressures:
The 1.5" and 2.1" on your rim label aren't maximum and minimum tyre sizes as such, but the sizes at which the maximum pressures to the right apply. At any given pressure, the wider the tyre, the more the pressure tries to push out the rim flange. So, if you have a 1.5" tyre fitted, you shouldn't use a pressure higher than 90 psi/6 bar or you are risking rim failure, but if you have a 2.1" tyre fitted, you shouldn't go higher than 60 psi/4 bar.
ISO sizes, which are the definitive numbers, are small & large numbers like 559x17 (rim) or 37x559 (tyre). The numbers are dimensions in millimetres.
The important number is the larger of the two; in this case, 559 (mm).
This is the diameter of the flat shelf inside the rim that the tyre bead sits on. Both tyre and rim have to be the same size, or either you won't be able to fit the tyre, or the tyre will blow off the rim when you try pumping it up, if it's not fallen off before you get that far.
Road bikes and 29-er mountain bikes use 622 mm rims and tyres
27.5" mountain bikes (aka 650B) use 584 mm rims and tyres.
The smaller number is the interior width of the rim, or the exterior width of the tyre.
These are more flexible, but as a rule of thumb the minimum tyre width for a rim would be the next standard width wider than rim width plus 6 mm (6 mm being the typical difference between interior and exterior rim width), and the maximum tyre size would be double that.
So, in the case of your 17 mm wide rim, the narrowest allowable tyre would be 25 mm wide, and the widest 50 mm. For off-road use, you might like to increase both min and max sizes a little.
Inch sizes are historical, confusing, and best ignored.
Back when rims were made by the tyre makers, tyres were sized by outside diameter, and were generally a nice round number, as was the width/height (bike tyres are circular in cross section on the inside).
So you'd get fat 26 x 2" tyres, and thinner 26 x 1 1/2" tyres, both of which were 26" diameter on the outside, but which used different rims. The 2" wide tyre would use a rim that was 26" - (2 x 2") = 22" across, and the 1 1/2" tyre would use a rim that was 26" - (2 x 1 1/2") = 23" across. If you convert 22" and 23" to mm, you get, lo and behold, 559 mm and 584 mm.
The French did similar, but their nice round tyre diameters were 700 mm, 650 mm etc, and they referred to narrow, medium, wide, and wider tyre widths as A/B/C/D rather than giving exact widths (I think there was a little flexibility in the A/B/C/D tyre widths, so they got the same size rims as the British inch sizes).
Later on, rims were made by other companies, and the tyre manufacturers had to make tyres to fit existing rims, so you'd see tyre sizes like 26 x 2 x 1 1/2", which was a 1 1/2" tyre to fit a rim that was originally for a 26 x 2" tyre.
When mountain bikes came along, the Americans correctly decided that this was all too complicated, so they standardised on the rim size for a 26 x 2" tyre (because that was the readily available fat tyre size at the time), dropped the 2" bit of the original specification, and changed from fractions to decimals, so your 26 x 2 x 1 1/2" tyre became a 26 x 1.5" tyre.
For wider use, confusion still reigned, because there were several different 26" sizes, and more than one of several of the other whole inch sizes. You'd even occasionally get tyre makers putting the wrong numbers on the tyre.
Therefore the standards committee (ETRTO) came along and said "thou shalt quote tyre and rim sizes in millimetres, as follows...", and the tyre and rim makers did, or at least made the millimetre sizes available by putting them on the tyres and rim labels. The only remaining task is to get all the bike shops to use them.
Pressures:
The 1.5" and 2.1" on your rim label aren't maximum and minimum tyre sizes as such, but the sizes at which the maximum pressures to the right apply. At any given pressure, the wider the tyre, the more the pressure tries to push out the rim flange. So, if you have a 1.5" tyre fitted, you shouldn't use a pressure higher than 90 psi/6 bar or you are risking rim failure, but if you have a 2.1" tyre fitted, you shouldn't go higher than 60 psi/4 bar.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Sloth
Senior Member
559x17 (rim) or 37x559 (tyre). The numbers are dimensions in millimetres.
Can I ask, where is the link between the 559x17 rim and the 37x559 tyre? I cant get my head around how the numbers relate to each other? The 559 is obviously the same but not the 17 and 37.
Sorry but numbers just aren't my thing.
Can I ask, where is the link between the 559x17 rim and the 37x559 tyre? I cant get my head around how the numbers relate to each other? The 559 is obviously the same but not the 17 and 37.
Sorry but numbers just aren't my thing.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Sloth
Senior Member
I think I'll go for 559/42(1.6") or 40(1.55") but I want to ensure the tyre is not too low a top to bottom profile (not width) as to look silly on a MTB but also not so thick a profile as to catch on my bike forks or rear mud flap?
Are they standard then as a previous response said there were no markings on the tyres to indicate the profile depth?
Are they standard then as a previous response said there were no markings on the tyres to indicate the profile depth?
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
To sort out the 'profile' bit: the tyre will, whatever type it is, be essentially tubular in cross-section. To ensure you are happy, check those ETRTO markings on your current tyres. From what I can see of the bike, you won't be able to fit tyres that are too big. You'd need to get wider rims first.
Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, there is NO profile on bike tyres as in a height against width. My car tyres are 225/55 16, where the 55 is the percentage of width that the height is, and there is simply no such thing, that I'm aware of, for bicycle tyres.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Sloth
Senior Member
Thanks.
I think I'm sorted now.
I would like advice on the tread though?
I would like something with as little tread as possible to reduce drag and increase roll etc. but also bearing in mind it will be used in the winter on country lanes (not off-roading though).
I don't want to be skidding and slipping in the wet either.
The Schwalbe Marathon Supreme HD HS469 Folding Tyre - 26 Inch 559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres/2...on-supreme-hd-hs469-folding-tyre-26-inch-559/ seems a good one but is it too slick for winter use?
Other options given are Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard Folding Tyre - 26 x 1.75 Inch 42-559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres/panaracer-pasela-tour-guard-folding-tyre-26-x-175-inch-42559/ and the Vittoria Revolution Tech Tyre with Reflex - 26 x 2.00 Inch 50-559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres-l...on-tech-tyre-with-reflex-26-x-200-inch-50559/
I like the look and idea of the Schwalbe Marathon Supreme HD but am unsure if there is enough tread/grip for winter?
Any suggestions please?
I think I'm sorted now.
I would like advice on the tread though?
I would like something with as little tread as possible to reduce drag and increase roll etc. but also bearing in mind it will be used in the winter on country lanes (not off-roading though).
I don't want to be skidding and slipping in the wet either.
The Schwalbe Marathon Supreme HD HS469 Folding Tyre - 26 Inch 559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres/2...on-supreme-hd-hs469-folding-tyre-26-inch-559/ seems a good one but is it too slick for winter use?
Other options given are Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard Folding Tyre - 26 x 1.75 Inch 42-559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres/panaracer-pasela-tour-guard-folding-tyre-26-x-175-inch-42559/ and the Vittoria Revolution Tech Tyre with Reflex - 26 x 2.00 Inch 50-559 https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres-l...on-tech-tyre-with-reflex-26-x-200-inch-50559/
I like the look and idea of the Schwalbe Marathon Supreme HD but am unsure if there is enough tread/grip for winter?
Any suggestions please?
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
tread is a misnomer and generally doenst have any affect unless your offroading or riding in snow as due to the width of the tyre and pressure water disperses anyway so you better with a slicker tyre as more rubber is in contact with the road and it more down to the tyre composition
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
So long as not going off road, they will be fine.
