That is some poor math there, Steve, and I don't see why you need to be so argumentative. Comparing 23 and 28 is over 20% difference in width. The difference from 47mm to 52mm is about a 10% difference in width, and both are well into the "can handle any surface" size territory. "Whopping 5.3mm" is quite laughable in this case. I'm not saying you can't feel the difference necessarily, but two things are true: the difference between brands and models will have a much bigger impact than the small width difference, and you will be able to do all the same riding on either size.
On Friday, 7 August 2020 at 12:13:40 UTC-7 Steve Palincsar wrote: > On 8/7/20 3:03 PM, Jason Fuller wrote: > > While I should take my own advice when I say this, I think the > > difference between 47c and 2.1" is almost all in one's head > > > The difference between 47 mm ( "47c" is fingernails screeching on a > blackboard) and 2.1" is a whopping 5.3mm. 5.3mm is more than the > difference between a 23mm tire and a 28mm tire; more than the difference > between a 28mm tire and a 32mm tire; more than the difference between a > 38mm tire and a 42mm tire. Those are non-trivial differences, and are > instantly noticeable when riding. "Almost all in one's head?" I doubt > it... > > > -- > Steve Palincsar > Alexandria, Virginia > USA > > -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5aa390a3-de41-471a-998e-de2a05c030cen%40googlegroups.com.
