Tubes marked wrong size...

[Ecnerwal]

Just got a couple of Kenda tubes from the LBS - in boxes marked
26x1-3/8, also marked that way on the tube itself - and they are clearly
27 inch tubes - there's no way they will fit in the tire (yes,
definitely a 26, which fits correctly on the definitely 26 inch wheel)
without folding.

Anyone else seen this?

Irritating, at the very least - bike was supposed to be up and running
today, the old tube is shot and not reusable.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Apr 24, 2:35*pm, Ecnerwal <LawrenceSM...@SOuthernVERmont.NyET>
wrote:
> Just got a couple of Kenda tubes from the LBS - in boxes marked
> 26x1-3/8, also marked that way on the tube itself - and they are clearly
> 27 inch tubes - there's no way they will fit in the tire (yes,
> definitely a 26, which fits correctly on the definitely 26 inch wheel)
> without folding.
>
> Anyone else seen this?
>
> Irritating, at the very least - bike was supposed to be up and running
> today, the old tube is shot and not reusable.
>
> --
> Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

I've had some tubes act like they would only go in folded, but by
inflating them a bit first and making sure to work the tube out into
the casing as I worked my way around the wheel, it went in without
folding. Others go in with no hint of folding. Don't know if that is
the case with yours now.

Joseph

[Marcus Coles]

Ecnerwal wrote:
> Just got a couple of Kenda tubes from the LBS - in boxes marked
> 26x1-3/8, also marked that way on the tube itself - and they are clearly
> 27 inch tubes - there's no way they will fit in the tire (yes,
> definitely a 26, which fits correctly on the definitely 26 inch wheel)
> without folding.
>
> Anyone else seen this?
>
> Irritating, at the very least - bike was supposed to be up and running
> today, the old tube is shot and not reusable.
>
26 x 1 3/8 wheels are not the same size as mountain bike 26" wheels
590mm or 597mm vs 559mm diameter.

Perhaps this is the problem.

Reference http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html


Marcus

[Ecnerwal]

In article
<83cd04f0-92da-41ca-b775-cf44a7a9d2fa@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've had some tubes act like they would only go in folded, but by
> inflating them a bit first and making sure to work the tube out into
> the casing as I worked my way around the wheel, it went in without
> folding. Others go in with no hint of folding. Don't know if that is
> the case with yours now.
>
> Joseph

That's what I thought at first - but when lightly inflated and worked in
with great care, still very much too long. I had bought two and have
returned one. I left the box for the other in the garage, and will
either return it later or use it on a 27 inch, if I have a 27 inch that
needs one in the pile of bikes to fix up - perhaps I'll take a picture
of it installed in a 26 inch tire and put it up somewhere. It's almost
comical when it's not screwing up plans to get a bike on the road now
(then it's both infuriating and puzzling).

Followup: returned to LBS#1 - they tell me to just stuff the tube in
folded. 30 years of cautions against pinching tubes cause me to think
they are delusional and full of it. They claim to have a better-fitting
tube in Presta (I'm a Schrader user by preference and long habit). I
take the precaution of trying it (and hey, it's Presta, it costs almost
twice as much!) before leaving the store - too long as well, though not
by as much.

I go to LBS#2, they have a tube (in Schrader) that actually fits
correctly, as I expect one to, without folding. LBS#2 may become my new
default LBS. Bike is on road.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

[landotter]

On Apr 24, 11:30 am, Marcus Coles <marco...@ody.ca> wrote:
> Ecnerwal wrote:
> > Just got a couple of Kenda tubes from the LBS - in boxes marked
> > 26x1-3/8, also marked that way on the tube itself - and they are clearly
> > 27 inch tubes - there's no way they will fit in the tire (yes,
> > definitely a 26, which fits correctly on the definitely 26 inch wheel)
> > without folding.
>
> > Anyone else seen this?
>
> > Irritating, at the very least - bike was supposed to be up and running
> > today, the old tube is shot and not reusable.
>
> 26 x 1 3/8 wheels are not the same size as mountain bike 26" wheels
> 590mm or 597mm vs 559mm diameter.
>
> Perhaps this is the problem.

Yup. the dweebs at LBS #1 are the problem. Bull**** flows like sewage
at bike shops, just recently I've heard, "nice wheels ya built, but
the spokes should be looser to act as suspension." and "We don't have
that Schwinn oddball size." in reference to a 1/2" pedal.

[Ecnerwal]

In article <025bbb38$0$26930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca> wrote:

> 26 x 1 3/8 wheels are not the same size as mountain bike 26" wheels
> 590mm or 597mm vs 559mm diameter.

LBS#1 handed that size (26x1-3/8) tube to my wife (along with the tire)
when I asked her to drop in and pick up one 26x1.5 tire and 2 26x1.5
tubes. Price of gas is silly and she was going to a store next door to
them anyway.

They sell the tire, but don't have a correct size tube to fit it? And
their solution is to fold up the excess length? Not encouraging.

The Presta tube they had was in fact, marked 26x1.5-1.75 - and was still
too long by a significant, though lesser, amount.

LBS#2 wins.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

[Michael Press]

In article <LawrenceSMITH-CB8D7E.13562524042008@news.verizon.net>,
Ecnerwal <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:

> In article <025bbb38$0$26930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca> wrote:
>
> > 26 x 1 3/8 wheels are not the same size as mountain bike 26" wheels
> > 590mm or 597mm vs 559mm diameter.
>
> LBS#1 handed that size (26x1-3/8) tube to my wife (along with the tire)
> when I asked her to drop in and pick up one 26x1.5 tire and 2 26x1.5
> tubes. Price of gas is silly and she was going to a store next door to
> them anyway.
>
> They sell the tire, but don't have a correct size tube to fit it? And
> their solution is to fold up the excess length? Not encouraging.
>
> The Presta tube they had was in fact, marked 26x1.5-1.75 - and was still
> too long by a significant, though lesser, amount.
>
> LBS#2 wins.

Look on the tire. What is the ISO mm reading.
Does the writing read 622 _anywhere_?
How about 559? 597? Come on, we're trying to help.
Any number between 559 an 635.

--
Michael Press

[Ecnerwal]

In article <rubrum-71BFCC.16142624042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Look on the tire. What is the ISO mm reading.

The tire size chart mentioned by Marcus already made all things clear
including what bozos LBS#1 were being.

http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html

LBS#1, being asked for a 26x1.5 tire and two 26x1.5 tubes, sold a 559
tire with tubes appropriate (per Mr. Brown's chart) for about a 590-597
rim. I suspect there might reasonably be enough slop in the tube to fit
either of those sizes well enough. But not to fit a 559.

Their solution for the extra (roughly 3.8 inches, per calculation - a
significant chunk, per observation) tube was to fold it up inside the
tire. Their second try at a tube was marked in a manner that should have
fit, but was also too long (but not by as much).

LBS#2 had a tube marked the same as LBS#1's second try, of a different
brand, which actually fits. Done. 3x more difficult that it should have
been, but done.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by