Forum menu
the only people who care about wheel size are people who ride 26".
the only people who care about wheel size are people who ride 26".
The whole 29er thing has exploded over the last few years with the big mainstream brands getting involved. The reason for the original post was a thought about all the different sizes that are now offered & yet road wheels haven't been subject to any change. The last major technological advance in road bikes was the bluetooth shifting as far as I know.
That's because the road bike market is very fashion-led - people buy the bikes their heroes ride, and the pro bikes are essentially modern copies of 1930s racing bikes because the UCI stifles innovation.
Which is why letting the UCI anywhere near MTB racing is a bad move.
One or two women have told me that size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts.
At the time I was confused but now I realise they must have been talking about wheel sizes.
Singlespeed_Shep - Member
the only people who care about wheel size are people who ride 26".POSTED 27 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
That's so true, 26 er riders are forever moaning about why 29" wheels are from the devil and should be banned.
Get over it.
That's so true, 26 er riders are forever moaning about why 29" wheels are from the devil and should be banned.
Bollocks. What I do object to is being told what is correct when no-one yet has come up with a cogent argument for adopting 29" wheels.
The only place the argument is coming from is the marketing department. They have to justify their existence and unfortunately the vast majority are too thick/gullible to stand up and say "where's the science???".
I'm perfectly willing to accept new technology or ideas as long as someone can give me a good reason to do so.
Bollocks. What I do object to is being told what is correct when no-one yet has come up with a cogent argument for adopting 29" wheels
Rolls better.
But really, don't listen to them. I ride a rigid bike and can happily ignore all the marketing bullshit around suspension.
smaller wheels are lighter, and more aerodynamic, and at tdf speeds that's hugely important
If small is good why are wider rims and tyres more aerodynamic (they offer less rolling resistance too) zipp/HED both state wider is faster and more aerodynamic.
I'm not aware of any research that shows that, and Bicycling Science and other studies disagree. What they might mean is that a few fat spokes are more aerodynamic than lots of thin ones.
I have a copy of that Richards mountain bike book from 1988. An ex girlfriend bought it for me back in 1997. I wasn't impressed as it was so out of date. Now it's pretty interesting
If Moultons are the way forward, why are we all on bigger wheeled bikes? We're all a bunch of idiots!
No. The advantage of big wheels is that they don't fall so far into a hole. On the road (hopefully) there are no holes, so wheel size doesn't matter.
So when everyone goes 29 braking bumps will just get bigger negating some of the usefulness?
As if an extra 3 inches circumference is going to stop your wheel falling into lots of holes.
If Moultons are the way forward, why are we all on bigger wheeled bikes? We're all a bunch of idiots!
Because the UCI doesn't like progress. They prefer pharmacological ways of going faster to technological ones.
If Moultons are the way forward, why are we all on bigger wheeled bikes?
[url= http://www.fudgescyclestore.com/index.php?p=174107 ]Have you seen the price of em[/url]!
MrSmith - MemberIf small is good why are wider rims and tyres more aerodynamic (they offer less rolling resistance too) zipp/HED both state wider is faster and more aerodynamic.
dunno what zipp/hed are on about, but if want to make a thing with low drag, start off with a small thing
So when everyone goes 29 braking bumps will just get bigger negating some of the usefulness?As if an extra 3 inches circumference is going to stop your wheel falling into lots of holes.
Nope just smooth them out, have you not been reading the reviews?
dunno what zipp/hed are on about, but if want to make a thing with low drag, start off with a small thing
If you don't know what they are on about that suggests you do not work in aerodynamics or are qualified to back up your theory that you need to 'start of with a small thing' for low drag? Or maybe you do and know different?
I'm not qualified innaerodynamics but I think I'll take what i have read about HE'D, Zipp and Paul Lew (lew then Reynolds wheels) say as valid. (that wider rims are more aero on a road bike.)
well, i'm convinced.
2 things that affect drag
The drag coefficient and frontal area, usually abbreviated to one function CdA as for an object you can't easily change either, i.e. there's no point quoting Cd for a car, as you can't shrink it.
So halving the wheel size would halve the area (like a moulton).
Wider rims reduce Cd by flattening the tyre sidewalls so it presents a more streamlined shape rather than narrow rims which pinch the tyre in again at the bead, you'd get a similar (well, even better) effect running 21mm tyres, but they're uncomfortable and a harder sell to the fatty sportive set.
The reason it makes chuff all difference on an MTB is we're doing half the speed and drag increases with the square of speed (assuming the reynolds number is high enough, which it will be). So things like rolling resistance of the tyre and it's ability to roll over stuff is more important.
A ride on an old Moulton with the correct tyres will quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that they are slow.
They do need a different technique to a larger wheel bike because of their suspension - that would probably come more naturally to the current full suspension generation than it did to mine. A lot of records were taken on the original Moultons before the UCI made them persona non grata. In fact I believe one record still stands.
They don't give the feedback of "fast" like a 700c wheel, but that is because we are conditioned to recognise road vibration transmitted directly into our joints from 120psi tyres as fast - you don't get that high frequency vibration with the Moulton - but look at average times or a speedo, and they are fast thanks to the suspension. The suspension lets the small wheel ride easily over obstacles just like a larger wheel so there is less resistance.
But taking the 26" wheel argument to its extreme - if a 26" mtb wheel is superior to a 29er, then logically a 20" wheel would be even better. We all know that's ridiculous or the trails would be infested with BMX type bikes. If bigger is better in the case of 20" v 26", then surely the same applies for 26" v 29"?
Edit: the last paragraph of the thisisnotaspoon's post says it best.
I theory the larger the rolling dimater the lower the rolling resistance. However Mr Moulton did rolling reistance tests (on a drum) and found the opposite. So air resistance was not the reason.
The suspension lets the small wheel ride easily over obstacles just like a larger wheel so there is less resistance.
So a 26” fs bike is faster than a 29” rigid with everything else being equal? That's not what 29er riders that I know say.
That's because suspension absorbs energy in it's smoothing action, whereas a larger wheel does not.
However I do wonder how much of this is psychosomatic.
Because the UCI doesn't like progress.
Regardless of the UCI and their many faults, I don't think sport necessarily has to be about technological progress at the expense of all else. Road bikes have moved forward in many ways; materials, gearing, aerodynamics, electronics etc. but ultimately the modern road bike is something that a pre war bike racer would recognise as the same machine. I like that direct connection.
I don't think it would be the same if come July we were treated to fairing covered recumbents hooning up the Champs-Elysees.
mangatank - MemberTom Ritchey and Gary Fisher certainly did have the manufacturing capacity by the mid 90s.
Yup, but neither has yet developed a working time machine with which to deliver those tyres to the 1970s.
So a 26” fs bike is faster than a 29” rigid with everything else being equal? That's not what 29er riders that I know say.
Well, no, because a 29er FS would be even smoother.
But less aerodynamic.
In my experience of MTB rims before the late 90s, even 26ers were struggling to have the strength required to get rad and I certainly wasn't giving them nearly the abuse I would these days... 29ers would've crumpled and died if you just looked at them from a funny angle.
Besides that, the geometry of 29ers will forever be compromised by clearance around the junction of the chainstays and BB, not to mention toe clearance for the front wheel... (st)roll on.
As for the future of road bikes, say goodbye to the complexities of designing around larger wheels and say hello to a world of fun:
Hipper that a hippy hippos hip:
I_Ache - Member
So a 26” fs bike is faster than a 29” rigid with everything else being equal? That's not what 29er riders that I know say.
I would expect to find that, all else being equal, and I ride a rigid 29er. However a skilled rider on a rigid bike has about 10" of suspension available if he/she stays out of the saddle, so that can make a nonsense of the comparison.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Wider wheels on a road bike can produce lower overall wind resistance, but they're not more aerodynamic on their own.
More of the spoke is hidden behind the tyre and the wider tyre smooths the flow of air onto the downtube. There could be benefits around the interaction of the air with the forks and calipers too.
Isn't there an aesthetic balance between wheel and frame?
I always struggle to get past a medium on a 26 MTB because anything bigger looks like a gate.
Same for road bikes, rather than getting hung up on sizes shouldn't the wheel just be proportionate to the frame.
May give the factories a headache admittedly.
Perhaps. But most modern road bikes are hideous- take a blob of melted wax, cover it randomly in stickers. So let this wheel size disaster come, it makes but one more.
So really then I should be getting a mountain bike with bigger wheels, and a road bike with smaller wheels when for years ive been told just the opposite (throws cap on floor and stamps on it)
Isn't there an aesthetic balance between wheel and frame?I always struggle to get past a medium on a 26 MTB because anything bigger looks like a gate.
I agree with this, I've always been between around a 21"ish frame so the biggest benefit to me is that 29" wheels make my bike look normal.
sweepy - Member
So really then I should be getting a mountain bike with bigger wheels, and a road bike with smaller wheels when for years ive been told just the opposite...
No, no, get a roadbike with bigger wheels than those puny 700c and 27" rims. Here's mine 🙂
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8385/8609583417_1f625a3e9f_c.jp g" target="_blank">
Can you substantiate the moultons are faster?
Nobody survived.
Can you substantiate the moultons are faster?
Back to back comparisons are always going to be hard. Same rider, same course, same conditions. I’d be interested to see it done.
The Moulton design relies on more than simply reducing wheel diameter, so it’s not entirely fair to use that as the main proof of wheel size superiority, could such a claim ever actually be made.
A while back, Moulton seem to have been trying to break into the road race and TT scene, and riders on Moultons repeatedly broke the London to Cardiff place-to-place record.
http://www.moultonbuzz.com/2007/10/vic-on-a-moulton-knocks-18-min-off/
To what extent this was a deliberate targeting of a record that most cyclists could have cared less about, I don't know. There's also reference in the comments to Moultons being a pain to ride uphill, so maybe this course was more suitable for them than a hillier TT.
But still, 24 mph average over 6 hours. You don't manage that on a toy.
hmmm - 24mph for 6 hours. I'm sure I could do that on my FS, I just need to find a 144 mile long downhill.
Argument ref 29'ers & 26'ers and braking bumps. Some test somewhere I read on this - Bump develops matching wheel, so 29'er is different size, so frequency of bump changes, mitigating some of the harshness encountered through 26'er braking bumps. If everyone goes 29'er, braking bumps alter to match frequency & 26'ers then ride better through said bumps, as frequency is different to wheel size. Would like to see more on this.
Also seen a test with 26'ers & 29'ers in racing situation. Test determined that 29'er faster on the open stuff, but as trails tightened, the 26'er had faster direction change & acceleration from corner. The "extra grip" marketing is pushing was balanced by faster turn in & exit by 26'er. The results showed seconds per lap, with variations showing both sizes marginally faster, so end result was that is was purely rider preference & riding style, with neither size showing a big enough gap to prove faster (on that particular course, which was claimed to be chosen as a fair mix).
>Moultons were deemed to give an advantage in road racing because the >rider could get a better draft from the rider in front therefore giving >an advantage over standard wheel bikes.
My 5' 0" roadie friend can get a much better draft off me than I can off him without using UCI specified bikes, will the UCI ban him...
Resonance FM had a couple of programmes about the Moulton (still available on their site if you're interested [url= http://thebikeshow.net/?s=moulton&paged=2 ]Moulton Programmes[/url] ). Apparently MIT carried out some rolling tests in the 80s and found that the most efficient wheel size was approx 17" with a high pressure tyre.
[b]Orange Crush[/b]
Resonance FM had a couple of programmes about the Moulton (still available on their site if you're interested). Apparently MIT carried out some rolling tests in the 80s and found that the most efficient wheel size was approx 17" with a high pressure tyre.
Thanks for the link. Well worth a lunch hour listen.
[u][b][url= http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm ]Some data[/url][/b][/u] for those interested.