Two very different manufacturer's views of small wheels
#1
Eschew Obfuscation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,845
Bikes: 2005 Fuji Professional, 2002 Lemond Zurich, Folders - Strida, Merc, Dahon, Downtube, Recumbent folder
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Two very different manufacturer's views of small wheels
I was going through the Dahon website and found the following description of their HammerHead's small wheels:
"Small wheels are slightly higher in rolling resistance, but they are also inherently lighter, faster to accelerate, and most importantly, more aerodynamically efficient. Compared to the fastest 700c race bikes, the Hammerhead gives up a bit of speed but oh my, is this bike ever easy to transport."
But the whole premise of Alex Moulton's research is that high pressure small wheel offer less rolling resistance and are more efficient. Not to mention less inertia and less wind resistance.
So, given these two very contradictory positions made by prominent small-wheel bike manufacturers, what's a poor layman folding bike fan supposed to believe?
Discuss....
"Small wheels are slightly higher in rolling resistance, but they are also inherently lighter, faster to accelerate, and most importantly, more aerodynamically efficient. Compared to the fastest 700c race bikes, the Hammerhead gives up a bit of speed but oh my, is this bike ever easy to transport."
But the whole premise of Alex Moulton's research is that high pressure small wheel offer less rolling resistance and are more efficient. Not to mention less inertia and less wind resistance.
So, given these two very contradictory positions made by prominent small-wheel bike manufacturers, what's a poor layman folding bike fan supposed to believe?
Discuss....
__________________
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,075
Bikes: Trek Domane SL6 Gen 3, Soma Fog Cutter, Focus Mares AL, Detroit Bikes Sparrow FG, Volae Team, Nimbus MUni
Liked 2,322 Times
in
1,220 Posts
I'd want to see data, not opinions. And not theoretical data on wheels, but actual data from complete bikes.
But I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll go with my opinion that small wheels are bad (including the one one front of my V-Rex).
#3
40 yrs bike touring
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Santa Barbara,CA.
Posts: 1,022
Bikes: Bruce Gordon Ti Rock N Road [1989], Fat Chance Mountain Tandem [1988], Velo Orange Neutrino (2020)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Tony Hadland's book the Moulton Bicycle includes the comparative testing of full sized wheels and small 16 inch ones using identical pressure and tire type. These lengthy tests led to the Moulton view of small wheels listed in their Q&A section quoted below:
1. Why the small wheels? The small wheels are an essential feature of the Moulton concept. They offer many advantages.
With only half the rotating mass of the wheels on a 'conventional' bicycle, it is possible to accelerate faster.
They are extremely stiff and much stronger than larger wheels because of the short spokes.
The aerodynamic drag is lower; there is less frontal area and less spoke area causing turbulence to slow you down.
The centre of gravity is lowered, resulting in improved stability.
The small wheels free up space normally occupied by large wheels, allowing luggage to be carried lower. 2. Aren't smaller wheels harder to pedal?
No, because:-
The gears are chosen so that they correspond to pedalling a bicycle with large wheels.
The smaller frontal area results in less aerodynamic drag.
The lower inertia means that you can accelerate faster.
If you are still doubtful, consider the HPVs (Human Powered Vehicles) developed for the ultimate performance - many
of these use the unique 17" Moulton wheels and tyres fitted to the AM series bicycles. 3. Why the space frame?
The construction makes it far stiffer and stronger than conventional frames.
The weight is similar to that of the best conventional touring bicycles - and the Speed model is comparable with the
lightest racing frames. In conjunction with the small wheels it results in a low centre of gravity.
The standard frame size can be ridden by cyclists of almost any size.
The low top tube leads to improved safety and controllability.
The low top tube allows it to be ridden equally easily by men and women; it is also a major advantage for elderly or
disabled riders, who cannot easily ride conventional bicycles. 4. Why suspension?
It allows the advantages of the very rigid small wheels, high pressure tyres and space frame to be enjoyed while giving
a much more comfortable ride than a conventional large-wheeled bicycle. The road shocks experienced on a conventional bicycle are dramatically reduced.
It is a light, simple, maintenance free system.
Improved traction - the wheels do not bounce going through corners or on rough surfaces.
Reduced strain on the wheels - the wheels stay true, spoke nipples stay tight and spoke breakages are extremely
rare. 5. Does it fold?
No - this is a no-compromise high-performance bike, quite unlike any folding bicycle.
But ...
The frame does separate into two parts.
This does not affect the frame rigidity - tests on a brazed-up version of the frame against the normal separable version
showed no difference in rigidity. When separated into the two parts, it easily fits into the boot of a car.
When placed in the carry bag, it can be carried on a train as hand luggage, rather than needing to be placed in the
luggage van of the train - a big advantage given the restrictions on some train services. Users have also transported their AMs as normal luggage on aircraft flights. 6. Is it as good as a conventional bicycle?
It's not just as good as a conventional bicycle, it's better:-
Owners of Moulton bicycles report that after using the Moulton for a week, they never want to ride conventional
bicycles again. Just look at the specification and the performance details. 7. How well does it perform?
An AM bicycle holds the world speed record for bicycles of conventional riding position at 51mph, fully faired.
The AM bicycle has successfully completed the Race Across America (RAAM) - finishing the course of 3117 miles in
10 days 15 hours and 1 minute. Owners of AM bicycles use them successfully for commuting, touring the world and for racing. The APB bicycles are
ideal for commuting, touring and use off-road.
My own real world experience over 20 years of owning several F frame Moultons, an ATB and a Mark 3 seems to confirm at least equal rolling resistance. I do also confess to riding and owning full size bicycles-a touring bike and a mountain and road tandem.
1. Why the small wheels? The small wheels are an essential feature of the Moulton concept. They offer many advantages.
With only half the rotating mass of the wheels on a 'conventional' bicycle, it is possible to accelerate faster.
They are extremely stiff and much stronger than larger wheels because of the short spokes.
The aerodynamic drag is lower; there is less frontal area and less spoke area causing turbulence to slow you down.
The centre of gravity is lowered, resulting in improved stability.
The small wheels free up space normally occupied by large wheels, allowing luggage to be carried lower. 2. Aren't smaller wheels harder to pedal?
No, because:-
The gears are chosen so that they correspond to pedalling a bicycle with large wheels.
The smaller frontal area results in less aerodynamic drag.
The lower inertia means that you can accelerate faster.
If you are still doubtful, consider the HPVs (Human Powered Vehicles) developed for the ultimate performance - many
of these use the unique 17" Moulton wheels and tyres fitted to the AM series bicycles. 3. Why the space frame?
The construction makes it far stiffer and stronger than conventional frames.
The weight is similar to that of the best conventional touring bicycles - and the Speed model is comparable with the
lightest racing frames. In conjunction with the small wheels it results in a low centre of gravity.
The standard frame size can be ridden by cyclists of almost any size.
The low top tube leads to improved safety and controllability.
The low top tube allows it to be ridden equally easily by men and women; it is also a major advantage for elderly or
disabled riders, who cannot easily ride conventional bicycles. 4. Why suspension?
It allows the advantages of the very rigid small wheels, high pressure tyres and space frame to be enjoyed while giving
a much more comfortable ride than a conventional large-wheeled bicycle. The road shocks experienced on a conventional bicycle are dramatically reduced.
It is a light, simple, maintenance free system.
Improved traction - the wheels do not bounce going through corners or on rough surfaces.
Reduced strain on the wheels - the wheels stay true, spoke nipples stay tight and spoke breakages are extremely
rare. 5. Does it fold?
No - this is a no-compromise high-performance bike, quite unlike any folding bicycle.
But ...
The frame does separate into two parts.
This does not affect the frame rigidity - tests on a brazed-up version of the frame against the normal separable version
showed no difference in rigidity. When separated into the two parts, it easily fits into the boot of a car.
When placed in the carry bag, it can be carried on a train as hand luggage, rather than needing to be placed in the
luggage van of the train - a big advantage given the restrictions on some train services. Users have also transported their AMs as normal luggage on aircraft flights. 6. Is it as good as a conventional bicycle?
It's not just as good as a conventional bicycle, it's better:-
Owners of Moulton bicycles report that after using the Moulton for a week, they never want to ride conventional
bicycles again. Just look at the specification and the performance details. 7. How well does it perform?
An AM bicycle holds the world speed record for bicycles of conventional riding position at 51mph, fully faired.
The AM bicycle has successfully completed the Race Across America (RAAM) - finishing the course of 3117 miles in
10 days 15 hours and 1 minute. Owners of AM bicycles use them successfully for commuting, touring the world and for racing. The APB bicycles are
ideal for commuting, touring and use off-road.
My own real world experience over 20 years of owning several F frame Moultons, an ATB and a Mark 3 seems to confirm at least equal rolling resistance. I do also confess to riding and owning full size bicycles-a touring bike and a mountain and road tandem.
#4
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,294
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was going through the Dahon website and found the following description of their HammerHead's small wheels:
"Small wheels are slightly higher in rolling resistance, but they are also inherently lighter, faster to accelerate, and most importantly, more aerodynamically efficient. Compared to the fastest 700c race bikes, the Hammerhead gives up a bit of speed but oh my, is this bike ever easy to transport."
But the whole premise of Alex Moulton's research is that high pressure small wheel offer less rolling resistance and are more efficient. Not to mention less inertia and less wind resistance.
So, given these two very contradictory positions made by prominent small-wheel bike manufacturers, what's a poor layman folding bike fan supposed to believe?
Discuss....
"Small wheels are slightly higher in rolling resistance, but they are also inherently lighter, faster to accelerate, and most importantly, more aerodynamically efficient. Compared to the fastest 700c race bikes, the Hammerhead gives up a bit of speed but oh my, is this bike ever easy to transport."
But the whole premise of Alex Moulton's research is that high pressure small wheel offer less rolling resistance and are more efficient. Not to mention less inertia and less wind resistance.
So, given these two very contradictory positions made by prominent small-wheel bike manufacturers, what's a poor layman folding bike fan supposed to believe?
Discuss....
1. I don't think Alex Moulton purports that small wheels have less rolling resistance. It's that small wheels are lighter and more aerodynamic, while suspension provides low rolling resistance.
2. Dahon doesn't specifically say that the Hammerhead's small wheels are what makes it slower than the fastest 700c race bike. Moultons are also slower than the fastest 700c race bikes and the fastest 700c race bikes are slower than the fastest small wheeled recumbent bikes. Aside from being visually striking, wheel diameter is a minor factor in all respects.
I think the entire concept of one bike being unequivocally faster than another is hogwash. It's a case of horses for courses and a 700c race bike will always be faster than a small wheeled bike in a UCI race because small wheels aren't UCI legal.
Last edited by makeinu; 11-23-08 at 01:01 PM.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 564
Bikes: Brompton H6, Schwinn Mirada, Cruzbike Sofrider. Used to own: ICE B1, 2 F-frame Moultons, Koga Myata Elevation 5000 mtb, Challenge Hurricane, Riese & Mueller Birdy Silver, Actionbent Tidalwave 3
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
#6
Bicycling Gnome
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 55.0N 1.59W
Posts: 1,877
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sesami will no doubt say what he thinks about the arrangement. He has a much wider experience of bikes than I have, but I never felt that bike was slow.
I agree completely.
#7
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,294
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So suspension lets you achieve low rolling resistance without sacrificing weight and aerodynamics.
#8
Senior Member
I have this differently: The wheel size is negligible in rolling resistance (Moulton's findings), the tyre pressure dominates. But the smaller wheel is harsher, so enter suspension to counter that.
But now, another parameter enters the equation - rolling resistance is now actually decreased due to the lessened effect of rolling over small bumps - instead of the whole bike+rider being lifted over a bump, the suspension flexes and just the wheel has to go over.
But now, another parameter enters the equation - rolling resistance is now actually decreased due to the lessened effect of rolling over small bumps - instead of the whole bike+rider being lifted over a bump, the suspension flexes and just the wheel has to go over.
Last edited by jur; 11-23-08 at 04:06 PM.
#10
Senior Member
Originally Posted by schwalbe
Tires with a smaller diameter have a higher rolling resistance [than tires with a larger diameter] with the same tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally greater. In other words the tire is “less round”.
Also, wider tires have less rolling resistance than narrow tires...when both are inflated to the same pressure. But narrow tires can be inflated to higher pressure.
From the Schwalbe site.
__________________
novis rebus studentem
novis rebus studentem
Last edited by timo888; 11-23-08 at 06:20 PM.
#11
Eschew Obfuscation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,845
Bikes: 2005 Fuji Professional, 2002 Lemond Zurich, Folders - Strida, Merc, Dahon, Downtube, Recumbent folder
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I, too, tend toward the Moulton theory (but that may just be cognitive dissonance, since I own two Moulton bikes ). The mystery to me is why Dahon's official website would concede that small tires are intrinsically inferior in rolling resistance? What studies have they done, I wonder? Pretty poor marketing, I'd say....and I'm a SmoothHound/Hammerhead fan!
.
.
.
.
On a totally different topic (is it kosher to hijack your own thread? ) While I was changing over to the Capreo setup on my SmoothHound, I took a ride with the stock 55t chainring and the 9-26 Capreo cassette. I had the bike over 41mph (downhill) and was still pushing gears with the 55/9 combination and 20" wheels. It was exhilarating to say the least! I had to quit at 41mph because of road conditions, but there was still room to go on the gearing! Crazy fast. Now I have a very happy setup with 53/39 in the front.
.
.
.
.
On a totally different topic (is it kosher to hijack your own thread? ) While I was changing over to the Capreo setup on my SmoothHound, I took a ride with the stock 55t chainring and the 9-26 Capreo cassette. I had the bike over 41mph (downhill) and was still pushing gears with the 55/9 combination and 20" wheels. It was exhilarating to say the least! I had to quit at 41mph because of road conditions, but there was still room to go on the gearing! Crazy fast. Now I have a very happy setup with 53/39 in the front.
__________________
#12
not either one of them, because they lack objectivity.
I'd want to see data, not opinions. And not theoretical data on wheels, but actual data from complete bikes.
But I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll go with my opinion that small wheels are bad (including the one one front of my V-Rex).
I'd want to see data, not opinions. And not theoretical data on wheels, but actual data from complete bikes.
But I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll go with my opinion that small wheels are bad (including the one one front of my V-Rex).
#13
Senior Member
Let's say the rims are the same width, and that we have two wheels, one 700mm Ø and the other 305mm Ø. We will ignore the tire wall height for the sake of simplicity. The circumference (Π * Ø) of the larger is 700 * 3.14 = 2200 (roughly) and the circumference of the smaller is 305 * 3.14 = 958. If there's a 25mm deformation along the tire surface, on the larger that is 25/2200 (.011) and on the smaller it is 25/958 (0.2), about double.
Regards
T
P.S. But again, as was mentioned on the Schwalbe site and by others earlier in the thread, at higher speeds, air resistance is far more important than rolling resistance, and smaller narrower tires offer less air resistance, so what little the small wheel loses in rolling resistance it more than makes up for in large reductions in air resistance -- if it's a narrow tire.
P.P.S. But none of these nuances makes any meaningful difference unless you're racing.
__________________
novis rebus studentem
novis rebus studentem
Last edited by timo888; 11-24-08 at 05:36 AM.
#14
Eschew Obfuscation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,845
Bikes: 2005 Fuji Professional, 2002 Lemond Zurich, Folders - Strida, Merc, Dahon, Downtube, Recumbent folder
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The Schwalbe site explains such an assertion: given the same inflation pressure, a tire of a specified diameter will be less out-of-round than a tire whose diameter is smaller. The absolute "squish" or deformation area is the same for both tires, but the tire with the larger diameter, and thus having the greater circumference, has proportionally less deformation, i.e. is less out-of-round than the smaller. The more out of round, the greater the resistance. The larger the circumference, the more gradual the ascending arc of the tire; the smaller the circumference, the more abrupt the arc. To state the thing in extreme terms, if you had to fashion a wheel made out of wood in a polygonal shape, would you rather ride a small pentagon or a larger duodecahedron?
Let's say the rims are the same width, and that we have two wheels, one 700mm Ø and the other 305mm Ø. We will ignore the tire wall height for the sake of simplicity. The circumference (Π * Ø) of the larger is 700 * 3.14 = 2200 (roughly) and the circumference of the smaller is 305 * 3.14 = 958. If there's a 25mm deformation along the tire surface, on the larger that is 25/2200 (.011) and on the smaller it is 25/958 (0.2), about double.
Regards
T
Let's say the rims are the same width, and that we have two wheels, one 700mm Ø and the other 305mm Ø. We will ignore the tire wall height for the sake of simplicity. The circumference (Π * Ø) of the larger is 700 * 3.14 = 2200 (roughly) and the circumference of the smaller is 305 * 3.14 = 958. If there's a 25mm deformation along the tire surface, on the larger that is 25/2200 (.011) and on the smaller it is 25/958 (0.2), about double.
Regards
T
__________________
#15
SWS: Small Wheel Syndrome
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 728
Bikes: Bike Friday Pocket Rocket/PedalForce RS2/Specialized Rock Hopper Xtracycle/Periscope Hammerhead
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Has winter come early??? It's too early for the fear and self-loathing threads.
I still need to see this mythical TSR and challenge it to a race.
Sir, the gauntlet has been thrown.
I still need to see this mythical TSR and challenge it to a race.
Sir, the gauntlet has been thrown.
#16
Senior Member
#18
Bicycling Gnome
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 55.0N 1.59W
Posts: 1,877
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#19
Senior Member
If you'll consult the Schwalbe site, you'll see from their graph that rolling resistance is by far the least important of the various resistances: air, gradient, and rolling. [Not much friction resistance in a properly maintained bike.] The smaller wheel's aerodynamic benefits at speeds above 20 km/h are far more significant to overall performance at speed than the slowing effect of its greater rolling resistance, vis-a-vis a larger wheel with tires inflated to the same pressure. Below 20km/h, air resistance and rolling resistance are of roughly equal importance (see where lines 1 and 3 cross).
Key to Schwalbe graph (x-axis shows speed, y-axis shows resistance):
1 Rolling resistance
2 Gradient resistance
3 Air resistance
4 Total resistance (1+2+3)
Regards
T
__________________
novis rebus studentem
novis rebus studentem
Last edited by timo888; 11-24-08 at 12:33 PM.
#21
Eschew Obfuscation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,845
Bikes: 2005 Fuji Professional, 2002 Lemond Zurich, Folders - Strida, Merc, Dahon, Downtube, Recumbent folder
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Me on the TSR and you on the XtraCycle with the two kids, right?
The winner would definitively prove whether small wheels are faster or not (I think).
__________________
#22
Banned.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You see, rolling resistance is defined by the force which pushes backwards from the road surface as a wheel rolls forwards. There are two ways for this to happen:
1. If you're rolling over a surface which suddenly turns up 90 degrees and becomes a wall then the force of rolling resistance will be whatever force necessary to stop a mass moving at your velocity as you hit the wall. Wheel size, tire material, tire pressure, etc, won't have anything to do with it.
2. If you're rolling over a perfectly flat, perfectly smooth surface then the tire and surface will both deform into little bumps (ie miniature walls) which, in turn, push back against you as you crash into them.
Rolling resistance on real surfaces will obviously be a combination of the two. A soft wheel reduces #1 and a hard wheel reduces #2. So the configuration with the lowest rolling resistance on real surfaces will depend on the smoothness of the surface and shape of its permanent bumps.
That being said, I think the key to the Moulton concept is that both a large wheel and a suspended wheel reduce both #1 and #2 and since adding a suspension is both lighter and more aerodynamic than enlarging a wheel, small suspended wheels involve fewer compromises on typical road surfaces (although one can still find scenarios/experiments for which another configuration is better).
#23
Eschew Obfuscation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,845
Bikes: 2005 Fuji Professional, 2002 Lemond Zurich, Folders - Strida, Merc, Dahon, Downtube, Recumbent folder
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Regardless of whether the claim of faster small wheels is due to lower rolling resistance or other factors, I am still mystified as to why Dahon would say that small wheels are slower in their marketing pieces....
__________________
#24
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,294
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, they also sell a number of bikes with "full size" wheels.
#25
Senior Member
I heard that reference in a Youtube video with Dr. Moulton that was about 10 minutes long. A quick search just now didn't yield it. I'll see if I can't find it later.
Regardless of whether the claim of faster small wheels is due to lower rolling resistance or other factors, I am still mystified as to why Dahon would say that small wheels are slower in their marketing pieces....
Regardless of whether the claim of faster small wheels is due to lower rolling resistance or other factors, I am still mystified as to why Dahon would say that small wheels are slower in their marketing pieces....
Regards
T
__________________
novis rebus studentem
novis rebus studentem