Another tire sizing system???

"Dan Burkhart" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So buddy comes in the shop today to return a couple of inner tubes he
bought the other day. Sez they were the wrong size. (They were 26 x
1.95-2.125) OK sez I, what size do you need. 26 x 47/54 he replies. Uhh
huhh. Well it appears I am fresh out of 26 x 47/54 tubes I respond in my
puzzlement. Furthermore, I must confess, I have never heard of such a
system but there is much in heaven and earth which I do not know, so I
will consult with the experts, and thereby end the confusion.
A look at sheldon's site makes brief mention of a global sizing system
which looks like it my be the answer. The question to those in the know,
what is the equivalent in sizing we all know and love. Is this a
compatible standard, or is it another new one to add to the confusion.
Dan Burkhart

--
Dan Burkhart

Metric. . . 47 / 54 mm . . . introduced by WTB a few years back to make
tire measurement more accurate and consistent. 47mm should be the diameter
of the casing, 54mm the diameter of the biggest knobs. This is equal to
about 1.85", so the 2.125" tube will work just fine. . .

Dan Burkhart said:

So buddy comes in the shop today to return a couple of inner tubes he
bought the other day. Sez they were the wrong size. (They were 26 x
1.95-2.125) OK sez I, what size do you need. 26 x 47/54 he replies. Uhh
huhh. Well it appears I am fresh out of 26 x 47/54 tubes I respond in my
puzzlement. Furthermore, I must confess, I have never heard of such a
system but there is much in heaven and earth which I do not know, so I
will consult with the experts, and thereby end the confusion.
A look at sheldon's site makes brief mention of a global sizing system
which looks like it my be the answer. The question to those in the know,
what is the equivalent in sizing we all know and love. Is this a
compatible standard, or is it another new one to add to the confusion.
Dan Burkhart

Isn't that the metric equivalent of what he already had in his hand?

Either he's honestly confused or a bit of a goof.

Ron

Dan Burkhart said:

So buddy comes in the shop today to return a couple of inner tubes he
bought the other day. Sez they were the wrong size. (They were 26 x
1.95-2.125) OK sez I, what size do you need. 26 x 47/54 he replies. Uhh
huhh. Well it appears I am fresh out of 26 x 47/54 tubes I respond in my
puzzlement. Furthermore, I must confess, I have never heard of such a
system but there is much in heaven and earth which I do not know, so I
will consult with the experts, and thereby end the confusion.
A look at sheldon's site makes brief mention of a global sizing system
which looks like it my be the answer. The question to those in the know,
what is the equivalent in sizing we all know and love. Is this a
compatible standard, or is it another new one to add to the confusion.

Let me see. You work in a shop, or possibly own a shop, and you didn't
know the above?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Wheels by BFWG said:

"Dan Burkhart" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So buddy comes in the shop today to return a couple of inner tubes he
bought the other day. Sez they were the wrong size. (They were 26 x
1.95-2.125) OK sez I, what size do you need. 26 x 47/54 he replies. Uhh
huhh. Well it appears I am fresh out of 26 x 47/54 tubes I respond in my
puzzlement. Furthermore, I must confess, I have never heard of such a
system but there is much in heaven and earth which I do not know, so I
will consult with the experts, and thereby end the confusion.
A look at sheldon's site makes brief mention of a global sizing system
which looks like it my be the answer. The question to those in the know,
what is the equivalent in sizing we all know and love. Is this a
compatible standard, or is it another new one to add to the confusion.
Dan Burkhart

--
Dan Burkhart

Metric. . . 47 / 54 mm . . . introduced by WTB a few years back to make
tire measurement more accurate and consistent. 47mm should be the diameter
of the casing, 54mm the diameter of the biggest knobs. This is equal to
about 1.85", so the 2.125" tube will work just fine. . .

Well, that's more or less what I had surmised, but I did not actually see the tire, and had to take his word for it that it did not fit. (He did try it you see.)
It occurred to me later that, given his description of the fit, I should have told him he needed to partially inflate the tube to see if it was a fit since it was obvious he had not the way the tube had been so neatly re-installed in it's box.
However, at the time, I was just being open to the possibility that this was just another in the long list of strange and exotic tire sizes I see turning up from time to time.
Dan

quote='G.T.'Dan Burkhart said:

So buddy comes in the shop today to return a couple of inner tubes he
bought the other day. Sez they were the wrong size. (They were 26 x
1.95-2.125) OK sez I, what size do you need. 26 x 47/54 he replies. Uhh
huhh. Well it appears I am fresh out of 26 x 47/54 tubes I respond in my
puzzlement. Furthermore, I must confess, I have never heard of such a
system but there is much in heaven and earth which I do not know, so I
will consult with the experts, and thereby end the confusion.
A look at sheldon's site makes brief mention of a global sizing system
which looks like it my be the answer. The question to those in the know,
what is the equivalent in sizing we all know and love. Is this a
compatible standard, or is it another new one to add to the confusion.

Let me see. You work in a shop, or possibly own a shop, and you didn't
know the above?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons[/QUOTE]

Yes.
Dan