# Wide Rims



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

See subject. Poll will be up in a minute.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Btw, it's okay to post your specific experiences with wide rims, whether they've been yea, nay, or indifferent.


----------



## Randy99CL (Mar 27, 2013)

I just got my wheels and haven't ridden them yet. 

The Easton rims are 19.5mm internal and 24mm external width. My mounted Vittoria Zaffiro Pro 25s measure exactly 25mm wide; I expected them to be wider than that.
Look very aero with a smooth transition.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

I think wide rims are the future...


With that said they will only give you small enhancements in ride quality. Upgrading tubes and tires is more noticeable than getting wide rims alone.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Randy99CL said:


> I just got my wheels and haven't ridden them yet.
> 
> The Easton rims are 19.5mm internal and 24mm external width. My mounted Vittoria Zaffiro Pro 25s measure exactly 25mm wide; I expected them to be wider than that.
> Look very aero with a smooth transition.


Cool... give us a ride report when you do ride 'em.


----------



## vagabondcyclist (Apr 2, 2011)

Zen Cyclery said:


> I think wide rims are the future...
> 
> 
> With that said they will only give you small enhancements in ride quality. Upgrading tubes and tires is more noticeable than getting wide rims alone.


^This. 

Have a set of HED Ardennes GP and the difference is there, but not earth shatteringly so. Tire choice, tube choice, and proper inflation make a bigger difference. And with the wider rim, lowering air pressure is critical to see an improvement in ride quality.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Yet another solution to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.
.
.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Yet another solution to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.


You are SO wrong. The sales department has a problem and getting everyone to buy new wheels (or at least new rims) will solve it.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> See subject. Poll will be up in a minute.


I really need to try them now...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> You are SO wrong. The sales department has a problem and getting everyone to buy new wheels (or at least new rims) will solve it.


And yet, judging by the poll so far, many ppl who've ridden wide rims seem to like 'em.

Contrast that with, say, the ultra-narrow-tire-craze of the late-'80s/early-'90s. Mainstream recreational riders on 20c, 19c, even 18c tires for general road riding ('cuz the industry started OEM'ing that stuff on even entry-level bikes). Pinch flats by the bucketload, and ride comfort? Fugghedaboutit.

Ppl's direct experiences were pretty negative, so ultra-narrow-tires was a trend that died out.

But I don't seem to be hearing from too many ppl riding wide rims and/or tires who are saying, "Oh god, it sucks so bad, what was I _thinking?_", like they were with 18c tires. 

This leads to me to generally agree with Zen's post above... wide rims may really be the future, or at least a big and lasting chunk of the market.

But, of course, still too early to tell for sure.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Zen Cyclery said:


> With that said they will only give you small enhancements in ride quality. Upgrading tubes and tires is more noticeable than getting wide rims alone.


I'm rolling on HED Ardennes FRs, Vittoria Open Corsa Evo IIIs (25mm) and Vredestine latex tubes. This setup is 100% as good as a set of tubulars I had a few years ago. Even better; no glue.


----------



## Randy99CL (Mar 27, 2013)

Obviously, new developments are often driven by marketing hype. We have to judge on our own whether an advantage might be real or not.

I like to take an idea to the extreme to make it easier to visualize.

Imagine a 6" wide round-profile motorcycle tire on a 1" wide rim, compared to the same tire on a 6" rim. Keeping the tire pressure and weight of the bike/rider the same, of course.
On the thinner rim wouldn't the tire have less width so less road contact when leaned while cornering? 
Wouldn't it be much more likely to squirm and flex when cornering?

Theoretically, wider rims make sense to me but we all know that sometimes tiny unaccounted-for factors can drastically affect real-world performance.

Would going from a 19 to 23mm rim make a world of difference? I wouldn't think so but progress is often made with many small innovations adding up to measurable gain.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I notice the difference more with my wide tubular rims (Stinger 6) than my clinchers (Jet 5). I bought both mainly for aero shape, though. I'd bet in a blind test most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in clincher versions, which is small relative to tire choice and psi. 

I run a 22 attack on the Jet front, which tested fastest according the Hed. I don't feel any difference between a 24 Force on the rear compared to a 23 4000s, though the Force is definitely higher volume. 

The tubular is a different story. The tire bed is much larger on a wide rim. The entire base tape of a 23mm tubular is in contact with the tire bed. This eliminates any potential feeling of tire squirm - and it also reduces any worry about rolling a tire in a crit since there is so much contact area. If anything, it makes me nervous about training on the tubulars, since getting a tire off is a bear.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Yet another solution to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.
> .
> .


OK, go back to your retro bike with wooden spokes.......................

On a serious side,
I would not call 19mm rims (external) a problem by any means. I think the wider rims are an improvement to a good set up.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Notvintage said:


> I'm rolling on HED Ardennes FRs, Vittoria Open Corsa Evo IIIs (25mm) and Vredestine latex tubes. This setup is 100% as good as a set of tubulars I had a few years ago. Even better; no glue.


25c is the ticket on a wider rim. I definitely like to run slightly lower pressure most of the time. 

I think the only place that tubies are still superior to wide tubeless clinchers are in cross. Nothing can beat the feel of a tubular offroad.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I guess that I should lace up a new rear with one of my MA40's, so that I can be with the "IN" crowd. (I've already have a front wheel with an MA40 that I haven't used in 10 years)


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> I guess that I should lace up a new rear with one of my MA40's, so that I can be with the "IN" crowd. (I've already have a front wheel with an MA40 that I haven't used in 10 years)


ATJB (According to Jobst Brandt™), the MA2 is actually the coolest rim ever made. 

MA40 had the silly anodizing n' such. 

Rims (Jobst Brandt; Hans-Joachim Zierke)


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I have used them since forever

Mavic A319s on my touring bike, they are great with my 32c touring tyres.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Never had a problem with a CD rim.


----------



## echotraveler (Mar 28, 2011)

I use Boyds that are 23mm wide. I cant really tell the difference from my 2010 ksyrium elite. This rims are supposed to be ridden with less psi, but i have maintained my pressure up (120psi) always.

On the other hand wider rims means wider tyres. A 23mm tyre will most likely end up being 25mm on this rims. My gp4000s were rated 23mm, but were 25mm. Currently im riding Veloflex master 25s, many report them beun 23mm but i get 25mm.

For discussion sake, this wider rims would be the answer to the fatter tyre trend...


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Yet another solution to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.


I was just as clueless until I rode a set. I was totally sold in a mile, and sold all my narrow rims. Now tubless. . . Yes, looking for a problem applies.


----------



## Apexrider (Oct 10, 2011)

Wanted to give it a try, but my frame has not enough chain stay clearance to run rims like the Zipp 303 and Enve 3.4. Instead I went for the 20.8mm wide Reynolds Thirty Two rim. I've also got the Stan's Alpha ZTR 340 with an internal rim width (17mm) that's almost the same as the Zipp 303.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

echotraveler said:


> On the other hand wider rims means wider tyres. *A 23mm tyre will most likely end up being 25mm on this rims.* My gp4000s were rated 23mm, but were 25mm. Currently im riding Veloflex master 25s, many report them beun 23mm but i get 25mm.
> 
> *For discussion sake, this wider rims would be the answer to the fatter tyre trend...*


*
*
Maybe, or maybe not.  It depends. 

Tires do become a bit wider when mounted on wider rims, but not all '23mm_'_ tires will become 25mm when mounted on a wide rim. Usually because said tire wasn't a true 23mm tire to begin with. Some are, some aren't. 

Some are actually 21-22mm tires, despite being labelled as 23c, and all putting them on a wide rim does is finally make them the 23mm they were supposed to be, more or less.

Why is that? Well IMO, it's 'cuz of the buying public and its fascination with light weight. 

A tire-manufacturer can make a really nice, light but still good-performing 23mm tire that is actually 23mm (on a narrow rim)... OR, it can make a really nice, even lighter 21-22mm tire and LABEL IT as '23mm'. And it will be lighter, all else being equal, than the tires that actually are 23mm.

And Joe Blow Cyclist then looks up the tire weights on the internet and goes, "Oh yeah, I want THAT one (the true 21-22mm tire), it's like 15 grams lighter." And he just assumes that it must be 23c 'cuz it says so. Go figure. 

I think things are getting better on this, and tire-makers 'cheat' less than they used to, but it's still an issue. 

A rider doesn't really don't *know* that a '23mm' tire he or she bought is actually 23mm 'til they mount it on a narrow rim and measure it (or hear from someone who has the same model and has)... and if it's undersized, then it probably isn't going to be 25mm when mounted on a wide rim. 

(unless perhaps we're talking a very VERY wide rim, like some of the Bontragers, which are 27mm(_!_)).

It's less of an issue if you ride 25c or 28c tires, as the buyers of those are less fanatical about having the very lightest tire, so those sizes seem to run true to size more often (or even a bit large). 

That may change if 25c eventually becomes 'the new standard', though.

.


----------



## poff (Jul 21, 2007)

3.4 SES is so good....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

dbl post


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Poll's at 80 votes... judging by the results so far, most ppl who've ridden wide seem to like it, and most ppl who haven't want to at least try it. 

Encouraging news for wide rim makers. And probably for whichever tire makers that have been cranking out their top models in not only 23c but 25c as well.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Yet another solution to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.
> .
> .


I 1000% agree.

When you look at the TDF's average speed in 1973 to today there is only a 3 mph gain, 3 miles an hour due to aerodynamics, lighter bikes, better bike materials, wind tunnel testing, scientific nutrition, illegal doping, and yet all we get is a 3 mph gain over all those years of advancements. But wait, there's more this story, back in 1973 the total miles raced in the TD was 500 miles longer, and they had steeper grades to climb, so in reality all the technology has done NOTHING!!! It's the lessor miles and the lessor degree and amount of climbs that has pushed the average speeds up.

We're all being sold a bill of goods.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

froze said:


> I 1000% agree.
> 
> When you look at the TDF's average speed in 1973 to today there is only a 3 mph gain, 3 miles an hour due to aerodynamics, lighter bikes, better bike materials, wind tunnel testing, scientific nutrition, illegal doping, and yet all we get is a 3 mph gain over all those years of advancements. But wait, there's more this story, back in 1973 the total miles raced in the TD was 500 miles longer, and they had steeper grades to climb, so in reality all the technology has done NOTHING!!! It's the lessor miles and the lessor degree and amount of climbs that has pushed the average speeds up.
> 
> We're all being sold a bill of goods.


Yeah, it's interesting how Greg Lemond's average time trial speed of 54.545 kph in 1989 wasn't beaten until 2005 by Dave Zabriskie, and his average speed was only .131 kph faster.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SauronHimself said:


> Yeah, it's interesting how Greg Lemond's average time trial speed of 54.545 kph in 1989 wasn't beaten until 2005 by Dave Zabriskie, and his average speed was only .131 kph faster.


Amazing, just amazing considering how they shove all this technology down our throats and it seems to have done nothing. And how do we know the time trial was hindered by wind with either of the two? I have a sneaking feeling that if you took a TDF racer in his prime and transported him 35 years into the future with his equipment to todays TDF, he would be the overall leader...and I bet by a wide margin!!!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

froze said:


> I 1000% agree.
> 
> When you look at the TDF's average speed in 1973 to today there is only a 3 mph gain, 3 miles an hour due to aerodynamics, lighter bikes, better bike materials, wind tunnel testing, scientific nutrition, illegal doping, and yet all we get is a 3 mph gain over all those years of advancements. But wait, there's more this story, back in 1973 the total miles raced in the TD was 500 miles longer, and they had steeper grades to climb, so in reality all the technology has done NOTHING!!! It's the lessor miles and the lessor degree and amount of climbs that has pushed the average speeds up.
> 
> We're all being sold a bill of goods.


I hate getting in the way of a good rant (I love good rants actually), but your stats are a bit off.

Avg speed of the TDF winner in 1973: 33.407 kph (20.76 mph)
Fastest of the modern TDFs (2005): 41.654 kph (25.88 mph)

...or over a 5 mph difference, not 3. Which is pretty big. 

Even if you compare to the 2012 TDF, it's a 4 mph difference.

If you do this rant in the future, use the 1971 TDF instead. It was freaky-fast for the era, with an average speed of 23.8 mph. Of course, Merckx was the winner. 

You are right about the '70s TDFs being longer, though. But the REALLY long TDFs were back around the World War 1 era, or in the '20s. Some of those were 5500km (3500 miles(!)), or about 2000km longer than the TDF is now, and about 1500km longer than the '73 TDF.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> I hate getting in the way of a good rant (I love good rants actually), but your stats are a bit off.
> 
> Avg speed of the TDF winner in 1973: 33.407 kph (20.76 mph)
> Fastest of the modern TDFs (2005): 41.654 kph (25.88 mph)
> ...


5 mph is not a big difference when you consider the mileage differences and the climbing differences. Like I said, take a TDF winner from the 70's and his equipment and bring him to this time and he would be the hands down winner. I think that's because the old timers trained a lot harder due to all the climbing they had to do...but I'm only guessing.

And the speeds actually have dropped over the last 2 TDF's; anyway you can see more of it here, but this chart does not show how much more climbing they use to do; see: Tour de France Statistics


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Average speed is not the sole criterion by which to evaluate performance/value.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

froze said:


> 5 mph is not a big difference when you consider the mileage differences and the climbing differences.


Actually, 5mph is huge. All else being equal, it takes about 70 percent more power to ride at 26mph on the flats as opposed to 21mph, i.e. night and day.

Even climbing, it takes almost 30 percent more power to ride 25 percent faster. 




> Like I said, take a TDF winner from the 70's and his equipment and bring him to this time and he would be the hands down winner.


Maybe, if you gave him EPO. Or his name was Merckx.




> And the speeds actually have dropped over the last 2 TDF's; anyway you can see more of it here, but this chart does not show how much more climbing they use to do; see: Tour de France Statistics


Yeah, I already saw that page, that's the stats I was already quoting to you. :wink5:

Anyhoo, you finally have the correct info now, so my work is done.


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

I agree - 5 mph increase is a quantum leap. If I could boost my yearly average speed by 1/2 mph I would be elated.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ok here's a question for everyone.

Who thinks that a wider rim/tire will allow them to corner faster? If you think so, can you please share with us the reasons why?


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> ok here's a question for everyone.
> 
> Who thinks that a wider rim/tire will allow them to corner faster? If you think so, can you please share with us the reasons why?


Lets turn this question around. Do you notice that high performance cars and motorcycles have wider tires? Why? If you can answer that question then you answered your own question.


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

Live in the mountains. Like the wide rims for cornering. 
Like the 19mm ones for climbing.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

froze said:


> Lets turn this question around. Do you notice that high performance cars and motorcycles have wider tires? Why? If you can answer that question then you answered your own question.


Wider tires provide better wears, not necessarily better cornering traction.

For example, small 250cc motocycles with smaller tires can take corners at a higher speed then 1000cc bikes with bigger tires.

The answer doesn't look to be a simple one to me.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Wider tires provide better wears, not necessarily better cornering traction.
> 
> For example, small 250cc motocycles with smaller tires can take corners at a higher speed then 1000cc bikes with bigger tires.
> 
> The answer doesn't look to be a simple one to me.


Your "analogy" is flawed, a 1000cc weighs much more the a 250cc and is also physically bigger both of these having a bigger impact then a few more mm in tire width.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> Wider tires provide better wears, not necessarily better cornering traction.
> 
> For example, small 250cc motocycles with smaller tires can take corners at a higher speed then 1000cc bikes with bigger tires.
> 
> The answer doesn't look to be a simple one to me.


You are partially right, wider tires do wear better, but not right about the cornering aspect.

Wider tires will always corner better than narrower tires. Reason you don't see 72" wide tires on motorcycles is due to the space it would take but more importantly the horsepower required to overcome the tires is greater and thus not logical. So there becomes a fine line between horsepower needed for speed, acceleration and handling. On a tiny 250cc motorcycle you don't need wide tires like a 1000c bike because it would make the 250c bike too slow, sluggish, and poor mpg. Same is true with bicycles, there comes a point where the width of the tire will slow the bike down due to the human powerplant not being able to overcome it making the bike too slow and making it to difficult to ride for 100 miles, which is why you don't see mountain bike size tires being raced at the TDF.

We do have science to back up the claims that wider tires handle better, in addition to wearing longer, but also the science reviews what the limits of the width needs to be so as not to rob power from the rider.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> Encouraging news for wide rim makers. And probably for whichever tire makers that have been cranking out their top models in not only 23c but 25c as well.


I think as more and more road bikes transition to disc brakes it'll really let wheel makers jump to wider and new rim designs.


----------



## SprinterX (May 21, 2012)

jmorgan said:


> Your "analogy" is flawed, a 1000cc weighs much more the a 250cc and is also physically bigger both of these having a bigger impact then a few more mm in tire width.


^^^^
Agreed


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

upstateSC-rider said:


> I think as more and more road bikes transition to disc brakes it'll really let wheel makers jump to wider and new rim designs.


Possibly. But I'm not convinced that everyone road-riding (or even the majority) are going to want discs, no matter how hard the industry is pushing them right now.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Possibly. But I'm not convinced that everyone road-riding (or even the majority) are going to want discs, no matter how hard the industry is pushing them right now.


I hope not! That's all we need is another trend to make a major system obsolete! I also found out that disk brakes are not as aero as the current braking system and they weigh more, not to mention cost more and have more maintenance issues. And why do we need them when standard rim brakes work great? Well there is an answer for that...CF wheels, CF wheels don't dissipate the heat well at all nor stop as well as aluminum rims, so disk brakes are the only answer they have at this time.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Hmm... given the poll results (which I thought would be less decisive than they have been), perhaps a better poll question might've been:
*"Do you think wide rims will be the new standard soon?". :idea:
*
Seems like either that, or co-standard with current 19-20mm rims at least. They are really taking off, and some companies are even going still wider, like HED.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

froze said:


> I hope not! That's all we need is another trend to make a major system obsolete! I also found out that disk brakes are not as aero as the current braking system and they weigh more, not to mention cost more and have more maintenance issues.
> 
> And why do we need them when standard rim brakes work great? Well there is an answer for that...CF wheels, CF wheels don't dissipate the heat well at all nor stop as well as aluminum rims, so disk brakes are the only answer they have at this time.


It does seem like the bike/component industry is hell-bent on pushing us into ever greater complexity and expense, yes. I'd even call it a strategy of theirs.

Disc brakes = more expensive. CF wheels = a LOT more expensive. 

Electronic shifting.... well, you get the idea.

I'm not a Luddite. There are new developments/trends that can be helpful, yet don't significantly increase the weight/cost/complexity of a road bike. Stuff like wide rims/tires, and 11-speed (though I don't like how 11spd worsens wheel dish).


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

No matter how much you shill it I will not buy any wide rim, carbon other other, aside of the ones on my touring bike rrr:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> No matter how much you shill it I will not buy any wide rim, carbon other other, aside of the ones on my touring bike rrr:


Buy what makes you happy, Salsa. But it seems clear at this point that the industry and buying public overall are going in a different direction than 19mm rims. 

That said, I don't think they're going to stop making narrow rims either, so... win-win. And y'know, I'm in the same boat regarding my love for low-profile box-section rims.

Btw, what's "carbon other other"? :confused5:


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> ok here's a question for everyone.
> 
> Who thinks that a wider rim/tire will allow them to corner faster? If you think so, can you please share with us the reasons why?


One ride, and you'll immediately see the difference. That's all that needs to be said. But, if you do need an explanation: you usually ride at a slower pressure, and therefore get a bigger contact patch. Plus, the tire deforms less which also improves your handling.

I've had 2 major gripes when going to wider rims, and one minor one: First is a fault of the manufacturer -the weld seams aren't smooth (Velocity A23's). The second could also be blamed on the design - Standard Velox tape gets stuck to the tires, making tube changes challenging, with a good chance of the tape needing to be replaced. Plastic rim strips have also worked their way sideways, and I got a flat due to the tube popping through the nipple opening.
The last minor gripe is I can't fit 25's on the rims because my frame is too narrow! It's minor because 25's on a 19mm rim give me roughly the same contact patch as I do on 23 rims with 23 tires.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Peanya said:


> One ride, and you'll immediately see the difference. That's all that needs to be said.


This is so true. I get my HED Ardennes, put 25mm Vittorias on and was so floored i sold a new pair of Campagnolo Bullet Ultra 50s and a set of DT Swiss wheels. I will NEVER ride a narrow rim again. It was night and day difference.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Notvintage said:


> This is so true. I get my HED Ardennes, put 25mm Vittorias on and was so floored i sold a new pair of Campagnolo Bullet Ultra 50s and a set of DT Swiss wheels.
> 
> I will NEVER ride a narrow rim again. It was night and day difference.


Somewhere, Salsa just fainted.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Wait until 26 rims become the new "new and improved" he'll sell those sh*tty 23 rims to get the newest, and will wonder why he didn't do it before.

Maybe they could cut the intermediate steps and go direct to a 29er with drop bars or an urban assault bike


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Wait until 26 rims become the new "new and improved" he'll sell those sh*tty 23 rims to get the newest, and will wonder why he didn't do it before.


LOL, they're way ahead of you. ENVE, Bontrager, and I think Zipp all have 26-27mm wide rims already. And the new HED 'Plus' rims are 25mm. 




> _Maybe they could cut the intermediate steps and go direct to a 29er with drop bars or an urban assault bike_


Don't fear change, Salsa. 23mm tires on 19mm rims was never the most aero (or comfortable) setup anyway. 

But even if 23mm rims eventually become the new standard, it's not like some manufacturers won't keep on making the old-fashioned narrow rims. And then there's NOS and eBay too. 

/ that's the cool thing about cycling... you can almost always find a way to get the older stuff if you want


.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

SystemShock said:


> Somewhere, Salsa just fainted.


Hhaha. . Well, there is solace in the fact I'm still running Campy 10 speed.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Notvintage said:


> Hhaha. . Well, there is solace in the fact I'm still running Campy 10 speed.


LOL. Well, with Salsa, there are certain 'rules' to follow (as established by him in prior post conversations):

– No tires wider than 23mm. 23mm and below = racer, 24mm and above = you're on a 'touring bike' setup now. 1mm more literally will do it. Apparently the line is that fine. :lol:

– No rear cog larger than a 27. Mainly 'cuz Salsa runs a 27. If you have a 28t cog, then BAM! Touring bike. All you guys running 11-28 are outta luck.

– NO compact cranks. Not ever. Not even with 52/36 or 52/38 rings. Even though pro racers have used compact in major tours on mountain stages. Apparently, they were tourists on touring bikes, and didn't even know it! :skep:

– Stem can't be too high. Not sure exactly where the cutoff is, but rest-assured, if it's even 1mm higher than the poseur squad... err, biking gods dictate, then you're outside of racing-bike land again. 

– Rims... same deal. No technological progress... err, deviance from tradition is allowed. Rims can't be wider than 19-20mm, period. Again, 1mm is the difference between life and death, so ppl running those new 21mm wide DT rims... yer outta luck, you 'tourists', you. :lol:


It's fascinating, actually. It's like Salsa has created a whole new set of arbitrary rules, for those who somehow don't feel like the original Velominati 'Rules' were silly enough. :crazy:


----------

