-
I wouldn't have noticed the Crust's wheels at all from just the photo.
Wheels and tyres are the same size in the photo. @kjlem was talking about the stated tyre clearance.
It is odd. The only thing I can think of is that they wanted a tucked rear end, and the front is a result of the fork crown and legs choice. But I don’t know enough about frame building to prove that.
Also lugs. Doesn’t that limit your geo freedom?
Tijs-
Yes that's right, this is what is written in the article
Before installing so much as a seat post, I knew I wanted even more tire clearance than the frame allowed. To do this I had the brake bridge removed and re-brazed to match the clearance of the fork, which enabled me to run a 700×42 tire front and rear.
Would've made more sense if it was like this from the beginning no?
-
The only thing I can think of is that they wanted a tucked rear end, and the front is a result of the fork crown and legs choice
It will be this. Tyre/chainring compromise
kjlem
PhilDAS
See this makes more sense because of faster accelleration in the rear (smaller wheel) and better rollover in the front. At least in MTB.
Either way would make no difference whatsoever on road(ish), wouldn't it? I wouldn't have noticed the Crust's wheels at all from just the photo.