Main difference between riding 16" and 20" wheels?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Main difference between riding 16" and 20" wheels?
I'm looking into getting a folding bike and would like to know what the main differences between riding on 16" and 20" wheels are? I've riding 20" wheels before (but not on a folding bike) but not 16".
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm looking into getting a folding bike and would like to know what the main differences between riding on 16" and 20" wheels are? I've riding 20" wheels before (but not on a folding bike) but not 16".
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
Also read:
https://www.google.no/search?q=small...hrome&ie=UTF-8
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,380
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
8 Posts
I'm looking into getting a folding bike and would like to know what the main differences between riding on 16" and 20" wheels are? I've riding 20" wheels before (but not on a folding bike) but not 16".
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
https://www.bikeforums.net/folding-bi...ead-first.html
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,462
Bikes: Trident Spike 2 recumbent trike w/ e-assist
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1321 Post(s)
Liked 374 Times
in
288 Posts
When I was test riding, the only real difference I noticed was that big cracks and potholes were not only more jarring on the smaller wheel, but sometimes would affect my steering if I was not very careful. Kind of like going over railroad tracks with a regular bike, as an example. As long as you pay attention to what you are doing (which means good lights if you ride at night), it is fine. I ended up with 20" wheels because the roads I use are just the crappiest and will probably never get fixed.
#6
Banned
There are 4.. 349 is a High pressure performance 16". 305 , rim smaller tire wider ..
451 and 406 are the 2 in 20".. 406 is the most common as its the BMX bike size..
A 349 - 32 (Schwabe Kojack) at 100+ psi , if its slow the rider is just slacking.
Measured difference is the circumference, so for a measured mile the number of times a 20" wheel
will rotate, vs A 16" wheel can be calculated..
./.
451 and 406 are the 2 in 20".. 406 is the most common as its the BMX bike size..
A 349 - 32 (Schwabe Kojack) at 100+ psi , if its slow the rider is just slacking.
Measured difference is the circumference, so for a measured mile the number of times a 20" wheel
will rotate, vs A 16" wheel can be calculated..
./.
Last edited by fietsbob; 09-08-16 at 10:24 AM.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 922
Bikes: Wheeler Mtn bike, Strida 5.0, Tern Link Uno, FSIR Spin 2.0, Dahon Mu P8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
a 16" and 20" would be only equal if the roads are perfect I find. BUT if you have typical roads with lots of cracks and potholes then the ride between the two would be huge, with the 20" being the much better ride. This is from experience because I own a 26" bike 20" bike and a 14" tire size folder and commute daily with them swapping rides often for fun. on my commute there's sections that are just feeling like cobbles and with my 20" I already feel like it slows down due to the wheel size angle of attack. While with my 26" I barely feel any slowdown as it floats over pretty much all of it without a hiccup. Forget about the 14" with that I just try to avoid it all together. Also the tires I'm using for the 20" is schwalbe surpreme in the front and big apple in the rear, while the 26" is on fat franks, the bike accelerates like a slow truck but once it gets moving it's nice.
I would only choose a 16" wheelsize if space is a concern on where you need to park it or where you are taking it through.
I would only choose a 16" wheelsize if space is a concern on where you need to park it or where you are taking it through.
Last edited by Azreal911; 09-08-16 at 09:22 AM.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
thanks for the links. Ill be sure to check them out.
Azreal - It sounds like 16" wheels might not be the way to go. I noticed the lack of steering stability with 20" wheels so the issue would be greater magnified with 16" wheels, correct?
Azreal - It sounds like 16" wheels might not be the way to go. I noticed the lack of steering stability with 20" wheels so the issue would be greater magnified with 16" wheels, correct?
#9
LET'S ROLL
I'm looking into getting a folding bike and would like to know what the main differences between riding on 16" and 20" wheels are? I've riding 20" wheels before (but not on a folding bike) but not 16".
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?
gearing, type of tire would have more of an effect. In this video; I'm on a 16inch wheeled folding bike passing
bikes with bigger sizes; 20, 26, 700, etc.:
Have gone up and down steep hills many times with my Brompton; 9W, River Rd., Little Red lighthouse, etc.
Never had an issue. Stability will be affected more by head tube angle/rake and maybe wheelbase. I feel in
control when riding my folder with 16 in. wheels:
__________________
One day: www.youtube.com/watch?v=20X43026ukY&list=UUHyRS8bRu6zPoymgKaIoDLA&index=1
One day: www.youtube.com/watch?v=20X43026ukY&list=UUHyRS8bRu6zPoymgKaIoDLA&index=1
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 311
Bikes: Dahon Curve D8 (Sturmey Archer X-RF8), Crius Smart 3.0 5 speed
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
One nice thing with small wheels is that you can accelerate quickly from stopped.
#11
master of bottom licks
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lou-evil, Canned-Yucky USA
Posts: 2,210
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Wheel size has little to do with speed for the majority of riders. Speed is a matter of gearing choices and the rider's abilities.
As for ride quality/characteristics it's more than just a matter of wheels size. You have to take the bike's build and geometry as well as tire choice into consideration... along with other factors.
As for ride quality/characteristics it's more than just a matter of wheels size. You have to take the bike's build and geometry as well as tire choice into consideration... along with other factors.
#12
Part-time epistemologist
Ceteris parabis ...
(1) folded size
(2) you would expect smaller wheels to have more resistance
(3) the smaller wheel will lower geometric trail
(4) you have greater tire/rim/spoke selection -- especially nice ones -- in 406/20".
(5) gearing is lower with 16" wheels.
Now you can compensate for these things but often run into limits in one way or another.
(1) folded size
(2) you would expect smaller wheels to have more resistance
(3) the smaller wheel will lower geometric trail
(4) you have greater tire/rim/spoke selection -- especially nice ones -- in 406/20".
(5) gearing is lower with 16" wheels.
Now you can compensate for these things but often run into limits in one way or another.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#13
Senior Member
It's just physics and a sliding scale of compromises. All else being equal (eg, tires/geometry), the smaller the wheel:
- the quicker the handling, less stability at speed
- the more jarring the ride, less inherent "suspension"
- the lesser the roll-over capability over obstacles
- the smaller the fold
If all you need to do is store/transport a bike inside a trunk without weather/theft concerns, then a 26" wheeled bike that folds in half can give you a full normal bike experience, including mountain biking. A 20" folds a lot smaller, is squarely in the "suitcase" category of where I'm willing to take my bike, and can do some mild off-roading, but is just a little too big/unwieldy to frequently take "inside" with me and therefore gets lock-up a lot. For me, a 16" bike crosses into the "carry-on" size category for me (particularly if it wheels well while folded like a Brompton), and now I'm willing to take it inside a Starbuck, or grocery store, etc.
So, while the larger wheels can be ridden more places, more comfortably, the smaller wheels can taken more places, more comfortably. Where you want be along that continuum is a very personal decision, but the real answer is, of course, to have a few across the whole spectrum.
- the quicker the handling, less stability at speed
- the more jarring the ride, less inherent "suspension"
- the lesser the roll-over capability over obstacles
- the smaller the fold
If all you need to do is store/transport a bike inside a trunk without weather/theft concerns, then a 26" wheeled bike that folds in half can give you a full normal bike experience, including mountain biking. A 20" folds a lot smaller, is squarely in the "suitcase" category of where I'm willing to take my bike, and can do some mild off-roading, but is just a little too big/unwieldy to frequently take "inside" with me and therefore gets lock-up a lot. For me, a 16" bike crosses into the "carry-on" size category for me (particularly if it wheels well while folded like a Brompton), and now I'm willing to take it inside a Starbuck, or grocery store, etc.
So, while the larger wheels can be ridden more places, more comfortably, the smaller wheels can taken more places, more comfortably. Where you want be along that continuum is a very personal decision, but the real answer is, of course, to have a few across the whole spectrum.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fife Scotland
Posts: 2,053
Bikes: Airnimal Chameleon; Ellis Briggs; Moulton TSR27 Moulton Esprit
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3291 Post(s)
Liked 827 Times
in
583 Posts
Wheel size has little to do with speed for the majority of riders. Speed is a matter of gearing choices and the rider's abilities.
As for ride quality/characteristics it's more than just a matter of wheels size. You have to take the bike's build and geometry as well as tire choice into consideration... along with other factors.
As for ride quality/characteristics it's more than just a matter of wheels size. You have to take the bike's build and geometry as well as tire choice into consideration... along with other factors.
Exactly so....both my Moultons prove this point.
__________________
"Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". Francis Bacon
"Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". Francis Bacon
#15
Part-time epistemologist
Later Moultons seem to have switched to 406. Although I think that for most folks, choosing between 16 and 20" should be based on something other than performance.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#16
born again cyclist
when i bought my first folder 10 years ago, i test rode a variety of 20" and 16" wheel folders.
i much preferred the ride quality of the 20" wheel for chicago's FAR less than perfect streets.
and i wasn't looking for absolute maximum compactibility, so i went with a 20" wheel folder.
it seemed like the best balance between ride quality and folded size for what i was looking for.
but if you're planning to take your folder on a bus/train for everyday multi-modal commuting, then a smaller wheel is probably the better way to go.
i much preferred the ride quality of the 20" wheel for chicago's FAR less than perfect streets.
and i wasn't looking for absolute maximum compactibility, so i went with a 20" wheel folder.
it seemed like the best balance between ride quality and folded size for what i was looking for.
but if you're planning to take your folder on a bus/train for everyday multi-modal commuting, then a smaller wheel is probably the better way to go.
Last edited by Steely Dan; 09-09-16 at 02:33 PM.
#18
Senior Member
Having a Brompton, a Birdy with 18" wheels, and another Birdy with 20" wheels, i find that the bigger wheels are faster. All three bikes are fitted with Kojaks, the Birdies have similar gearing. The Brompton has the tallest gearing, but can't keep up with either Birdy.
If I am going to take a flight, the Brompton will go with me because it folds the smallest. For long rides and tours, I'll use the 20" Birdy.
If I am going to take a flight, the Brompton will go with me because it folds the smallest. For long rides and tours, I'll use the 20" Birdy.
Last edited by Sangetsu; 09-16-16 at 06:17 PM.
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
thanks for the info guys. I think I'm sold on the 20" wheels as I don't really need the portability of the 16" size. It sounds like that would be the main consideration.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Victoria BC Canada & La Quinta CA USA
Posts: 351
Bikes: Birdy Red 8 speed, Birdy Blue 21 Speed, Birdy Monocoque 24 Speed, 2002 Devinci Desperado, 1996 Rocky Mountain Hammer Race
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What is best for different surfaces and needs depends upon a lot more than just wheel diameter.
If comfort on rough pavement or cobbles is a high priority, the tires will be a major factor and if tires are similar the most comfortable folding bike I have found is Birdy.
Although tire diameter is significant and the Birdy's tires are only 355's (not much larger than a Brompton's), its road tuned suspension on both wheels provides greater comfort on rough roads than any 20" folder or any road bike that I have ridden. Even hard-tail (front suspension only) 26" tire mountain bikes in my experience need tires that are much wider or tubeless to achieve equivalent comfort.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,989
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
This thread is making my head hurt. I can get someone wondering about the difference between 700C and 26", but the difference between 16" and 20" is STARK. On a track maybe not, but in the real world, no maybe about it. Oh, of course you can design a suspension or something to level the playing field but... I don't know... for $500 I can get a decent 20" folder. The (possibly) equivalent 16" folder will cost $1500. For me that's a deal-breaker. And we haven't even talked about GEARING. Has anyone in this thread observed that even on a 20" a 53T x 11T top gear will likely underwhelm? A 16" folder is for a specific niche of usage IMO. If I had a boat or small airplane I might consider one. I can't see bothering to make a comparison with a 20". There isn't any. You either need one or you do not.