Wider and wider

[Markymark]

That's a bad bike, where are the mudguards?

Mud? This isn’t some kind of northerners’ bike. It would be ridden on pristine tarmac in beautiful sunshine.

 

[Venod]

32mm is just what we had in the 70/80's everything is getting recycled :-)

I was running 18 or 20 mm in the 70/80's can't remember running any wider.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I was running 18 or 20 mm in the 70/80's can't remember running any wider.

Ah you didn't run 27 X 1 1/4 " then :-)

 

[Venod]

Ah you didn't run 27 X 1 1/4 " then :-)

I had forgot about them, probably my first proper bike circa 1966, tubs I remember being 700c, when did 700c become the norm ?

 

[rogerzilla]

I have a feeling that the pendulum will swing back in a few years' time and people will laugh at the idea of touring-width tyres on road racing bikes. The weight! The aerodynamic drag! The looks!

 

[Smokin Joe]

I had forgot about them, probably my first proper bike circa 1966, tubs I remember being 700c, when did 700c become the norm ?

I think all "Lightweight" clinchers were 1.1/4" back in the day. Even the best of them were stiff and unforgiving which was why sprints and tubs were essential for racing, even among complete rookies.

 

[rogerzilla]

I had forgot about them, probably my first proper bike circa 1966, tubs I remember being 700c, when did 700c become the norm ?

Mid-1980s. Racing bikes moved to 700c well before that (700c, while strictly a wired-on size, has the advantage of interchangeability with tubular rims, so you can design a bike to take either with no change in brake reach, steering geometry or BB height) but good quality touring bikes were still shipped with 27" wheels until about 1985. Some bargain basement bikes still had 27" wheels after that.

 

[HLaB]

By chance I discovered today that the TREK Emonda will take 32mm tyres as opposed to the supplied 28mm. The ride seemed fine and there is plenty of clearance around the frame. The bike has disc brakes so tyre limitations arise with from frame dimensions not the brake calipers.

Is there any reason not to big up?

The extra weight/aero drag outweighs the rolling benefit? Although if you are more interested in comfort IMO there's no reason not to big up if you can

 

[lane]

I run 32 tubeless - like to keep up with the modern marketing trends.

 

[Wobblers]

Mud? This isn’t some kind of northerners’ bike. It would be ridden on pristine tarmac in beautiful sunshine.

"Pristine tarmac"? For London, pristine broken glass is more likely...

 

[Markymark]

"Pristine tarmac"? For London, pristine broken glass is more likely...

Only if the LR in front chucks the empty bottle of Bolly out the window.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

By chance I discovered today that the TREK Emonda will take 32mm tyres as opposed to the supplied 28mm. The ride seemed fine and there is plenty of clearance around the frame. The bike has disc brakes so tyre limitations arise with from frame dimensions not the brake calipers.

Is there any reason not to big up?

No reason at all.

I have a Domane ALR 5 Disc which is very similar, although slightly less 'aggressive' than the Emonda.

It came fitted with some Bontrager 32mm's (although I swapped these for 32mm Marathon Supremes). The ride is excellent with plenty of grip in corners.

You could probably go bigger at the back although the limiting factor would be the FD clearance - if you have one of the newer R series with a short arm you may well be fine as these were designed to accommodate wider tyres.

I dispensed with my 'compact' short arm FD as it seemed very difficult to set up properly (bizarrely Trek USA said the same in a virtual chat that I had with them) and reverted to the far easier to set up 105 5801 long arm which in-extremis still clears the tyre by around 5mm.

 

[MichaelW2]

On my old Audax style road bike I preferred 32 for rougher riding including tracks and trails, dark winter nights, but 28mm for faster rides on the road and in summer.
On my current commuter bike I use Big Apple fat slicks on 26" rims and love them for zipping around town. Esp good for cobbled streets.

 

[gbs]

You could probably go bigger at the back although the limiting factor would be the FD clearance - if you have one of the newer R series with a short arm you may well be fine as these were designed to accommodate wider tyres.

SD: I am impressed by your techsavvy comment. I am at the other end of the spectrum and take what I am given without question. I have looked at the FD mech; there seems to be good clearance but I cannot see any marking to suggest "R series" or otherwise. Next time I go to the retailer (Evans of Wimbledon) I will enquire. Thank you for your informed interest.

MichaelW2's comment re 32 mm in the wet and 28mm in the dry accords with my intuition. I will be running tubeless tyres in both conditions so the comfort factor is already considerable with the narrower tyres.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Joking aside you do realise your 1.75" width tyres are 44mm so even wider than 32mm or 37mm. Are you saying the latter are extremely narrow?

I actually use 2.25" tyres if the truth be known, does that make me a bad person?