I tend to trust matrices published by WTB and Rene Herse because there's evidence they really put some thought into it and in all likelihood have written notes on things they've tried if not formally tested. Whereas other sources will just have a sentence or two and it feels like a lawyer's take on it. Often in the sizes I've checked, it feels like 2:1 is a soft rule of thumb and I think we like those sort of easy ratios. But in real life, we've all seen and probably ran well over 2:1 as @ttoshi described. My wife's 1990s era Rock Lobster hard tail runs 2.3" tires on IIRC Open Pro rims with 15mm ID or such (almost 4:1) and that was totally the norm. Looks like Jan's ETRTO chart repost generally suggests up towards 3:1 and that feels like a good hedge against the possibility that modern light weight rims are perhaps less overbuilt (so maybe more tire size/pressure sensitive?) than what we had in the past. Admittedly conjecture on my part.
No offense to anyone, but I discredit any chart which doesn't seem to clarify between outer and inner rim width (although admittedly it's probably inconsequential), and uses "c" vocabulary when what they mean is "millimeters" because Sheldon long ago showed us c's irrelevance in the modern world of rim standards. I'm a snob on colloquial terms which happen to dilute meaning. But hey, I think a lot of perfectly good people in this world would rather refer to rim width in "c" because that saves three syllables off the tongue. -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/05a4549e-c058-44b5-ad23-1b145b7a2d63n%40googlegroups.com.
