Author: tpbWPadmin

A recent posting on FaceBook reminded me yet again of what a poor job our industry does of educating the consumer. My small effort to right this wrong is this eLetter, which I hope will clear up the continuing miasma surrounding yet again…wheel sizes!

Here’s the gist of the post:

“I have a 650 Brand X. I also have a 650 Brand Y. I now ride a 700 Brand Z. What a HUGE difference when I went from the 650 tire to the 700. I never realized how much more work you do on the 650. One revolution of the 700 tire goes 15 inches further than the 650. Over the course of 50 miles, that is a lot of ground to make up.”

Now, while I’m thrilled to hear this person is thoroughly enjoying her new ride and is a faster cyclist for it, I sincerely doubt the wheel size has anything to do with it.

For the record, the difference in circumference between a 650c and a 700c wheel is about 5.2 inches, not 15. But that’s not really the point. No matter what size your wheel is, it has to “push off” the road to in order to turn. And that push can be traced back to you, when you ”push off” on the pedals. Through the magic of gearing, the 650c rider won’t work any harder to make this push happen than the 700c rider.

Let’s dig a little deeper into the wheel issue. From this point on, I’m using information from the 2nd Edition of Bicycling Science, by Frank Rowland Whitt and David Gordon Wilson, Chapters 5 and 7.

Not to upset the math-phobic, but take a look at this equation, which calculates how much power a cyclist exerts on the pedals. I’ve highlighted all the instances of “m” in red. It stands for “mass”, or weight, loosely speaking. If we can make “m” smaller, then power will be smaller as well. In the general scheme of things, the weight of the wheels may only represent 1 or 2% of the total weight of rider and bike, but it still accounts for something. Lighter wheels: less power needed.

Have you ever heard the expression that saving a pound on the wheels is like saving two pounds on the frame? That’s because not only do you have to move the mass of the wheels down the road, they’re turning at the same time, so you also have to rotate their mass. A wheel with less mass is easier to work with on both counts. Again, it’s not much work, since the rotation of the wheels accounts for only about 3% of the total kinetic energy (think of that as mass in motion) of the bike, but it’s work nonetheless. Score another one for the 650c wheel.

So why all the hard feelings about the 650c wheel? Well, it does have a bit more rolling resistance than a larger wheel. The smaller the wheel, the more the tire deforms under load. And when it deforms, it creates more rolling resistance. For similar tire models, widths, materials and inflation pressures, you’d see your speed decline from about 12.5 mph to 12.3 mph with a 650c tire. For faster speeds, the decline is less because air resistance becomes much more of a hindrance than rolling resistance. Following through with this idea, a 50 mile ride would take you 4.2 minutes longer on 650c wheels.

So, there’s a tradeoff going on here — less mass, less power required; more rolling resistance, more power required. But then there’s another factor: your mind. If you think you’re fast and cool, you are! Attitude will trump wheel size any day of the week.

But the question has to be asked: why are so many manufacturers jumping ship on the 650c size? Because it’s a lot cheaper to build a bike line around one tire size than two or three. That’s another whole topic to be addressed in another Cycling Savvy eLetter.

Tailwinds!

This eLetter is about challenging our perception of the definition of a “good” bike. I thought a visual presentation of how we regard bicycles would be cool way to put things in perspective. So I’ve come up with a grid to illustrate my point. Even if you shun math, I think you’ll find this very palatable. We tend to evaluate bikes based on their weight and stiffness. So one axis on the graph is for weight, the other is for stiffness. Simple.

Let’s begin with “ugly” bikes. Most riders would agree that a bike that weighs too much isn’t a good thing. There are pros and cons to that argument, but for now, let’s just assume that we’re talking about a tank, not about a bike that weighs 16 pounds or even one that weighs 23 pounds. The bike we’re concerned with is a boat anchor! And not only does it weigh a lot, it’s really stiff. Every piece of grit on the road feels like a boulder. The constant chattering from the road wears the rider down. Here’s where that ugly bike would fit on my grid:

I think we’d all agree that even if we gave this ponderous bike a little more flexibility, it would improve slightly since the it wouldn’t rattle our bodies as much as its stiffer counterpart, but it still wouldn’t have that “lively” feel we’d like. So, I’ll call this bike “Bad” since it still doesn’t achieve the ride I’d like.

Now that I’ve eliminated bikes in the lower half of the grid, it’s time to take a look at the upper half. This is the world the bike media tells us is biking nirvana. In particular, every bike aspires to land in that upper right quadrant: the world of stiff and light. Read any review of a bicycle and you’ll find that references to stiffness (more is better) and weight (less is better) abound. This combination is indeed the essence of speed. Well….it’s perceived to be…..

Still vacant is the upper left quadrant, where light weight bikes that aren’t super-stiff reside. In our quest for ever stiffer bikes, we’ve neglected this quadrant, but it turns out that it’s home to something we crave as much as speed: comfort. Are the two mutually exclusive???

Not only is the frame’s ability to absorb some road shock enhanced when it can flex, but it can also spring back and return energy to the drivetrain (i.e., help you turn the pedals).

Think about it. When you feel comfortable on your bike, you can usually keep riding strong for a longer time than when you’re not comfortable. The bike works with you. When I feel this way on my bike, I think of it as a harmony in which the bike “plays” the road like a musician might play an instrument. The road, the bike and the cyclist all contribute to the ride rather than working against each other. Yep, we’re all bouncing around, but the whole is greater than the sum of our parts, so to speak.

Recently, there’s been a revival of interest in this interplay of frame stiffness, rider comfort, speed and (ultimately) rider efficiency. While no one has yet to subject these anecdotal sensations to truly rigorous testing done across a broad sampling of riders, power meter testing with a small sample has verified that efficiency (I want to go fast, but be comfortable, too) is indeed rampant in the upper left quadrangle. So give it the respect it deserves!

Tailwinds,

Sign up to receive my Cycling Savvy eLetters.