Folding Bikes - 16" wheels vs. 20" wheels

these two sizes are common for most folders.
Are there advantages to one over the other?
Which would you recommend?

these two sizes are common for most folders.
Are there advantages to one over the other?
Which would you recommend?


Well, 20" tires are easier to find in podunk USA.

16" wheels fold smaller and stronger, but require suspension.

Some folks think fat tires afford adequate suspension, but there is a big weight loss there. There aren't many decent fat tires in this size, either, though the thorn resistant Greenspeed Scorchers might be an option. (The non-TR tires go flat if you look at them funny.)

I prefer the 349 size, but only on a suspended bike, such as the Birdy or Moulton. There is debate about whether efficiency differs by wheel size (given the same tire and road condition), but there is little doubt that an unsuspended wheel in this size will give a harsh ride.

16" wheels fold smaller and stronger, but require suspension. May I kindly suggest such is highly subjective? Or dependent on individual taste?

I have had some 7 bikes.

Microbike which have 12" wheels. No suspension and
I guess why you would have liked to have suspension.
One feel every little thing in the road. So try to find
a friend or neighbor or a dealer that let you test 16".

If it feels ok with you, no need what so ever for suspension
but a need to get used to that it feels rough. All about preferences.

Your bike maybe don't have that feature so reality set the limit to needs.
You have to buy a bike with suspension with a the price you don't want to.

But if price is of no concern then buy the best there is.

I have 20" and 26" and 28" bikes too. sure they are different in comfort.

But needs are highly individual. 12" is much more vibration without suspension.
But it was the only 12" available to me so I had to deal with it. No big deal.

I'm usually very touchy about comfort. I'm an indoor person. Only goes out
if I must to buy food or so. So I sure have needs but it is a compromise with price.

If your priority is comfort when riding then sure buy the best there is. I would.

There was not much choice for me, because I wanted a Brompton. No complains about the tyre size. Now I'm testing the Schwalbe Marathon, till now I only used the Yellow (no Kevlar) Brompton tyre.
I noticed that there is more choice in rims and tyres in 20 inch, and that's a pity because I have seen some very nice wheels on a 20 inch Dahon.
But we can't have it all ...

I have a preference for 16" folders. Maybe it's my road biking background and I'm just used to the road buzz from skinny, high psi 700C tires, but I just don't feel a difference in ride quality between the two sizes when I'm riding on paved roads. The pneumatic tires soak up the road vibration I need.

The difference comes when you ride off-road or going over potholes. Then the smaller tires get "swallowed up" easier by the holes. Under those conditions, a larger wheel is better, but it's questionable whether 20" is large enough.

Of course, a large part of this question depends on air pressure, tire width and tire compound. I guess that's why the subject comes up so often and there never seems to be agreement.

There was not much choice for me, because I wanted a Brompton. No complains about the tyre size. Now I'm testing the Schwalbe Marathon, till now I only used the Yellow (no Kevlar) Brompton tyre.
I noticed that there is more choice in rims and tyres in 20 inch, and that's a pity because I have seen some very nice wheels on a 20 inch Dahon.
But we can't have it all ...

+1

14R

these two sizes are common for most folders.
Are there advantages to one over the other?
Which would you recommend?

Oh.. I'm partial to Tiaoga Comp Pool TA's Their not really a street tire per se, but they're fast and they work well. I might experiment with Bell "Walmart Specials" Why? The next Raleigh Twenty I'm going to overhaul needs a lot of work and I can't afford $50 a-pop tires which is what the Comp Pools set me back. After inspecting the Bells they don't look too bad.. I think they may be a little heavier than comparable upscale tires.

these two sizes are common for most folders.
Are there advantages to one over the other?
Which would you recommend?

You choose the size not by the advantages but what you are going to do with the folder.

If you are going to use the bike in multimode commuting using the bus, then the 16' inch folder is the best way to go. If you have an airplane or small boat, the 16' inch folder is the best way to go. Otherwise, you would be better off with a 20' inch folder.

You choose the size not by the advantages but what you are going to do with the folder.

I agree.

From a performance/comfort perspective, I think that the 20" wheels are the better choice.

For a compact fold, the 16" wheels are the better choice.

these two sizes are common for most folders.
Are there advantages to one over the other?
Which would you recommend?

There are actually four sizes in common use, but bike wheel size naming is confusing, so two of those sizes are called "20 inch" and two of them are called "16 inch".

The four sizes are:
305mm
349mm
406mm
451mm

Birdy also uses the close to 349mm size of 355mm and called it 18inch.

406mm has the most tire options by far.

349mm and 305mm are more compact so they let bikes fold down smaller. 305mm is used by Dahon and Downtube, while 349mm is used by the Bike Friday Tikit and Brompton.

451mm is mostly used on the performance oriented Bike Fridays, but I've also seen Swift Folder use it (not on the Xootrs) and some Raleigh 20s used it. 451mm is nice because it still fits into 29-30" suitcases but doesn't require chainrings that are quite as large. The downside is that only narrow high pressure tires are available for it.

I wouldn't get too hung up on wheel/tire size. Pick the right bike for you and let the wheel size follow. I've owned three folding bikes (Swift Folder, Bike Friday NWT, and Bike Friday Tikit). I don't notice any significant differences with the Tikit's 55mm smaller wheels despite my dislike of the stock Schwalbe Marathon tires.

alex

451mm is mostly used on the performance oriented Bike Fridays, but I've also seen Swift Folder use it (not on the Xootrs) and some Raleigh 20s used it. 451mm is nice because it still fits into 29-30" suitcases but doesn't require chainrings that are quite as large. The downside is that only narrow high pressure tires are available for it.


The Xootr will also take 451s. The widest tyre in the 451 size is the Primo Comet (37-451 or 20x 1 3/8 85 psi).

I wouldn't get too hung up on wheel/tire size. Pick the right bike for you and let the wheel size follow. Often for owners of folders, wheel size is a leading factor, not one that follows. Once you've decided that you need a folding bike, the next question is "how small."

Hi
I have had 20” folder and currently have 16” Merc. I like riding better with Merc – due to the better driving position after modifying the bike a little. I can’t say there is any difference in riding between 16 and 20 wheels – the bike geometry is more important.
But where the size difference may show is gear selection: with 20” you can have wider range of rear-derailleur gears, with 16” it’s easier to stick with hub-gear (+front derailleur combination). So I think.
Have a nice holiday season you all.

Well, 20" tires are easier to find in podunk USA.There are many great 20 inch Bmx tires available.

For whatever it may be worth I'll share my first impressions, as I tried three Dahon bikes back to back before deciding to buy. Vitesse D7 (20"), Speed D7 (20"), and Curve D3 (16"). I felt very comfortable on the 20" bikes (other than less than 2 lbs, there is not much difference in the ride, handling or feel between the two 20" bikes). I really did not like the 16". A combination of more bumps transmitted, and a feel of 'bump steer" over the same stretch of pavement made the decision easy for me.

To the OP,
It's like everyone else said the most important thing about wheel size is whether or not it will fit where you need it to. Other than that, larger wheels are marginally better. However, beware that bikes designed with smaller wheels often also have other design characteristics which might make them less rideable.


The difference comes when you ride off-road or going over potholes. Then the smaller tires get "swallowed up" easier by the holes. Under those conditions, a larger wheel is better, but it's questionable whether 20" is large enough.

Has anyone ever heard of this actually happening?

Has anyone ever heard of this actually happening?

Actually flipping over? I don't recall anyone writing that here. Personally, I have had a few close calls with a curb and a larger than normal hole--obscured by grass--off of a well-traveled path in the area.

But is there really any doubt that if one rides a 16", 20", and 27" wheel bike down the same bumpy road that you will notice a difference in ride? Now most people would make different choices of where to ride--even on that same street/road/etc.--with the different size wheels.

Inline skate people feel that wheel diameter changes measured in millimeters affect ride and handling. That is wholly subjective IMO but is it hard to imagine that there is a ride quality difference between a 700C wheel and a 20" one or between a 20" wheel and a 16" one? I have only the comparison between the 700C/20" but it is enough to tell me that I don't want to go any smaller. With quality suspension a small diameter wheel can be made to ride as well as a larger unsuspended one but it should not be a subject of argument as to whether smaller wheels, unsuspended, have a harsher ride, they do. Period.

I saw in my LBS a 16" Dahon with a 9sp cluster. The rear dropout spacing looked as wide as my tandem! Folded the package is so wide that one cannot pass through a standard doorway without first positioning it so it goes through first. This requires both hands. OTOH my 20" Halfway even though it is just as tall folded as the Dahon but a few inches deeper but only 1/2 as wide can pass through a standard doorway beside me, held in one hand, leaving the other one free to hold my latte.

IMO one should get very hung up on wheel size, bigger is better ride quality wise unless suspension ($$$) is budgeted in. Full size (26") wheels are probably too big to make a practical folder. I see them in the catalogs but I wonder who buys them. 16" wheels are obviously the way to go if you need to get around a metro area at the other end of a plane trip but if you want to tour the English or French countryside on your folder I think you might be better served figuring out how to make a 20" folder pack into your luggage. It can be done.

It might be me but I don't see a lot of 16" folders on the road. That in and of itself is a good reason to consider very, very carefully why and if you really need one.

H

IMO one should get very hung up on wheel size, bigger is better ride quality wise unless suspension ($$$) is budgeted in. Full size (26") wheels are probably too big to make a practical folder. I see them in the catalogs but I wonder who buys them. 16" wheels are obviously the way to go if you need to get around a metro area at the other end of a plane trip but if you want to tour the English or French countryside on your folder I think you might be better served figuring out how to make a 20" folder pack into your luggage. It can be done.
Are you saying any of the above based on personal experience?

I have both 12" and 20" and have no experience of 16".

The difference I notice between 12" and 20" is how the small wheel sense every small thing in the street. small gravels that is not noticed on the 20" makes the 12" vibrate. Apart from that I prefer the 12" cause it allows me to use it where the 20" would never be allowed to enter.

so it is more about what purpose one have.

But I am skeptical about 6" wheels like the A-bike. Would I really ride well on that one?

I feel good using my 12" wheel foldable bike.

The very bad thing is the tires. 20" has so many more different qualities to choose among.
I bought a bmx version to use in winter for the 20" foldable. Don't know if such exists in
good quality for 12".

Here is my flickr.com link and on a ESLA double kickbike there is a BMX looking 12" rear wheels and they are a core to use. I bought in second hand and the owner had put them there and me too lazy to replace them. It is my experiment 4wheeler to see how it deal with snow and ice. It is too big and heavy to use in commuter transportation. people trip and fall to the ground so it is not practical in crowded buses or trains. But works in my food store. They accept it as a bigger Rollator/Walker type of aid for old people.

The bike vibrate like being mad on the knobs of the BMX patterns. I sound like a chain saw when I use it. People stare at me. :)

http://flickr.com/photos/8233858@N05/sets/72157600645923733/

IMO one should get very hung up on wheel size, bigger is better ride quality wise unless suspension ($$$) is budgeted in. Full size (26") wheels are probably too big to make a practical folder. I see them in the catalogs but I wonder who buys them. 16" wheels are obviously the way to go if you need to get around a metro area at the other end of a plane trip but if you want to tour the English or French countryside on your folder I think you might be better served figuring out how to make a 20" folder pack into your luggage. It can be done.

It might be me but I don't see a lot of 16" folders on the road. That in and of itself is a good reason to consider very, very carefully why and if you really need one.


I've done countryside touring on my 349mm (the larger of the 16" sizes) folding bicycle with no problem.

Tires make a bigger difference than the wheel size. Harsh tires like the Schwable Marathon in 406mm feel worse than supple tires in 349mm.

I'd really look at other aspects of the bicycle first, then narrow down on wheel size. If you want a compact and fast fold then 406mm isn't a great option.

Calling it 16" or 20" is silly due to the real sizing that I mentioned above. In reality there are rim sizes at approximately 2" increments.

I have no experience doing "Dirt" biking down hill or in muddy country tracks off road? But if we find somebody who have ride this bike they could tell if the very small wheels makes it difficult.
Look here. http://www.clou.at/clou_datenuk.html



Technical Data:

Handlebar: Height 74 to 91 cm
Seat: 55 to 93 cm
Brakes: Rear and front drum brake
Folding pedals
Internal 3 or 5 gear hub with grip shifter
Tire: 3.00x4" with inner tube


Now these wheels are wide but small mini scooter wheels? Maybe Italian Vespa? How does one translate 3.00x4" to ordinary wheel size? somewhere between 12 and 16" maybe.

The guy who made this folding bike make them in for hand. Welding them together at a workshop as far as I know. He most likely makes "stunts" on them too. I ve seen pics on it. So that could explain why he didn't use ordinary wheels. It is a special made bike for his needs as I get it.

the folding tech is very similar to the Mobiky way of folding. Try to see any differences and tell me. Both of them are pat pend so that is kind of surprising. I mean what is different about the way they fold?

ok back to wheels. He use Scooter wheels cause that is the only thing strong enough to allow the jumping down from stones to sharp edgy lower stones of road? Or when they do the stunts they jump up and down with the bike all the time.

I've been over my handlebars more than once on my (now deceased) Dahon D3. Once it was in mid-traffic with a near-death experience. That was my turning point into a Brompton (longer wheelbase, same wheel category though, almost same size).

If you want a compact and fast fold then 406mm isn't a great option.

Is fast folding really a big distinction between 16" and 20" wheels?

Dahons and Downtubes fold fast. Not as fast as the tikit; but more than reasonable.


Calling it 16" or 20" is silly due to the real sizing that I mentioned above. In reality there are rim sizes at approximately 2" increments.

Definitely can create some confusion. Related to the comment above, I guess we should be thinking about folders with regards to their purpose versus tire size (commuter/performance/etc.).

Actually flipping over? I don't recall anyone writing that here. Personally, I have had a few close calls with a curb and a larger than normal hole--obscured by grass--off of a well-traveled path in the area.

I actually flipped over once, but as best as I can tell the main problem was wheel base, not wheel size. The sink hole was about the size of the wheel base and as the front wheel was climbing out of the hole the rear wheel became unweighted as it sunk into the hole. All the weight shifted to the front and the bike flipped.

I don't think close calls count because it's too difficult to say what would have actually happened had your curb/hole been a bit bigger.


But is there really any doubt that if one rides a 16", 20", and 27" wheel bike down the same bumpy road that you will notice a difference in ride? Now most people would make different choices of where to ride--even on that same street/road/etc.--with the different size wheels.

Roughness is different from a wheel getting "swallowed up". The former is a question of comfort while the latter is a question of safety.

I'm also not entirely convinced that a a smaller wheel necessarily gives a rougher ride on all terrain. No doubt a smaller wheel will transmit higher frequency undulations, but I'm not convinced that higher frequency undulations are always less comfortable than lower frequency undulations and, in fact, I wonder whether the actual input frequencies presented by the road might be closer to those more easily transmitted by larger wheels.


Inline skate people feel that wheel diameter changes measured in millimeters affect ride and handling.

That's entirely different. The wheels are rigid, the method of propulsion is different, and the relative scale of the wheels/road is different.

20" bicycle wheels do not ride on roads with 20x the imperfections at 20x the speed of those traveled by inline skaters with 1" wheels.


That is wholly subjective IMO but is it hard to imagine that there is a ride quality difference between a 700C wheel and a 20" one or between a 20" wheel and a 16" one? I have only the comparison between the 700C/20" but it is enough to tell me that I don't want to go any smaller. With quality suspension a small diameter wheel can be made to ride as well as a larger unsuspended one but it should not be a subject of argument as to whether smaller wheels, unsuspended, have a harsher ride, they do. Period.

It's not hard to imagine at all. The question is what bearing do such imaginary assessments have on reality.

Hi
Reading this thread I have started to wonder on what kind of roads people ride with their folders – is it on cobble stones only? That would surely require good suspension for any bike.
I have covered about 1500 km with Merc since May. We have asphalted cycling paths in Finland – potholes big enough to be dangerous for a 16” wheel are very rare – there are even roller-skaters here.
Hub gears are quite nice in winter time – I oil the gears with motor oil. So far the gears have worked fine in -10 C temperatures – that’s about the coldest so far - exceptionally warm. And foldability of 16” bike is nice: after biking in dirty conditions, I fold the the bike, throw the cover over it and take it for a shower in my apartment. I do regularly 20 …30 km rides with Merc despite the weather and just love the ride.
This – as the others in this thread – is opinion. Take different bikes for a test drive till you find a bike you’ll fall in love with.

Is fast folding really a big distinction between 16" and 20" wheels?

Dahons and Downtubes fold fast. Not as fast as the tikit; but more than reasonable.


I said fast and compact for a reason. The Swift Folder folds very swiftly (hence the name), but the fold isn't very small.

I don't think close calls count because it's too difficult to say what would have actually happened had your curb/hole been a bit bigger.

Well, a lot of this is conjecture. And if one flips over, it is just as difficult to say what would have happened if the hole was a bit smaller/wheel a bit bigger.


Roughness is different from a wheel getting "swallowed up". The former is a question of comfort while the latter is a question of safety.

I'm also not entirely convinced that a a smaller wheel necessarily gives a rougher ride on all terrain. No doubt a smaller wheel will transmit higher frequency undulations, but I'm not convinced that higher frequency undulations are always less comfortable than lower frequency undulations and, in fact, I wonder whether the actual input frequencies presented by the road might be closer to those more easily transmitted by larger wheels.

A rough ride would also affect handling and braking. So there is a component of safety. I think that the two are related to a similar characteristic of wheel size, but agree that the magnitude of the effect on safety is quite different.

I am still thinking about the frequency and size of road imperfections and whether a big wheel would be "rougher" as a consequence. My initial thought is that there are a bunch of minor imperfections that are barely perceptible by a rider. However, the big ones ... or series of "medium" imperfections are what we notice and remember. Those I have a hard time seeing how a small wheel would produce "better" results--whatever better means--than a big wheel.

I said fast and compact for a reason. The Swift Folder folds very swiftly (hence the name), but the fold isn't very small.

My bad. Someone turned off the Boolean logic processor this morning.

I know this will echo what has been said many times in this thread and elsewhere, but....

There are numerous differences among the two 16" and two 20" wheel sizes, but for the most part these differences have comparatively little to do with wheel size. A Downtube Mini and a Brompton, for example, are very different bikes, and if you are chosing between them, I don't think the wheel diameter is going to be a big factor; you'll do better to focus on the wheelbase (Brompton is longer) gearing (do you want an 8-speed hub?), the way they fold, the kinds of tires you can get for them, the price, the prestige, etc.

Tires and frame geometry have much more effect on the ride quality than the diameter of the wheels.

Well, a lot of this is conjecture. And if one flips over, it is just as difficult to say what would have happened if the hole was a bit smaller/wheel a bit bigger.

Well, yeah, but did you stop to inspect the road after you had your close call? I did after I flipped over.


A rough ride would also affect handling and braking. So there is a component of safety. I think that the two are related to a similar characteristic of wheel size, but agree that the magnitude of the effect on safety is quite different.

I would think that, if you have the nerves to stay focused, a smaller wheel should have better handling and braking because the wheels can better fit between bumps and, thus, have more traction.

In any case, a rough ride can be compensated for with a suspension seatpost, wider tires, etc, but there's nothing you can do to compensate if the wheels can't safely traverse the pavement.


I am still thinking about the frequency and size of road imperfections and whether a big wheel would be "rougher" as a consequence. My initial thought is that there are a bunch of minor imperfections that are barely perceptible by a rider. However, the big ones ... or series of "medium" imperfections are what we notice and remember. Those I have a hard time seeing how a small wheel would produce "better" results--whatever better means--than a big wheel.

Well, consider a single sharp medium sized discontinuity on a smooth road. Although a larger wheel will have a more gradual motion as it goes up/down it will also hit the bump sooner and leave the bump later. A small wheel, on the other hand, experiences a larger jolt of shorter duration. If the bump is large enough then you'll have to get light in the saddle either way and, since your knees are such good shock absorbers, it won't matter which jolt is more intense as much as how long you'd have to stay light in the saddle. So, in this case, the larger wheel would be more uncomfortable because it would force you to get light in the saddle longer. In my city, these kinds of imperfections are the most common: large sharp discontinuities isolated from each other by ten or more feet.

...at least that's how I rationalize the fact that I find very little difference in comfort between my 26", 20", and 8" wheeled bikes.

I'm not concerned about differences in barely perceptible imperfections...after all, they're barely perceptible.

I am still thinking about the frequency and size of road imperfections and whether a big wheel would be "rougher" as a consequence. My initial thought is that there are a bunch of minor imperfections that are barely perceptible by a rider. However, the big ones ... or series of "medium" imperfections are what we notice and remember. Those I have a hard time seeing how a small wheel would produce "better" results--whatever better means--than a big wheel.

Oy vey. This thread is beginning to get mired in typically American pseudoscience/subjectivity. The Finnish rider who observed that riding conditions in his country allow 16" folders to function effectively has my envy. I don't think it is necessary to travel to Northern Europe to experience such as there are many American cities and towns where the roads are relatively well maintained but metropolitan New York City is not one of them!

It is a fact of geometry that the larger the diameter and therefore circumference of a wheel the less the angle between a line (the ground) and the wheels edge (circuference). The extreme of this example is the large wheel of a Penny Farthing bicycle. A 60" in diameter wheel has a VERY smooth ride because the upward (or downward) accelleration upon reaching a road irregularity increases gradually whereas a smaller diameter wheel even if the eventual displacement is the same reaches the same acceleration much more abruptly. We feel that as road shock and therefore at the exact same speed over the exact same road the rider of the larger wheel will feel much less shock coming from the road and will be much more comfortable. That is assuming the road surface is reasonably even. On a typical NYC street the rider of a 16" folder will be forced to a speed some number of mph slower than the rider of a 20" or he may damage his wheels or damage himself. Or he can learn to become an active component and ride out of the saddle. This of course impacts comfort and endurance.

The preceding paragraph is hard science. It is not subjective.

H

Oy vey. This thread is beginning to get mired in typically American pseudoscience/subjectivity. The Finnish rider who observed that riding conditions in his country allow 16" folders to function effectively has my envy. I don't think it is necessary to travel to Northern Europe to experience such as there are many American cities and towns where the roads are relatively well maintained but metropolitan New York City is not one of them!

It is a fact of geometry that the larger the diameter and therefore circumference of a wheel the less the angle between a line (the ground) and the wheels edge (circuference). The extreme of this example is the large wheel of a Penny Farthing bicycle. A 60" in diameter wheel has a VERY smooth ride because the upward (or downward) accelleration upon reaching a road irregularity increases gradually whereas a smaller diameter wheel even if the eventual displacement is the same reaches the same acceleration much more abruptly. We feel that as road shock and therefore at the exact same speed over the exact same road the rider of the larger wheel will feel much less shock coming from the road and will be much more comfortable. That is assuming the road surface is reasonably even. On a typical NYC street the rider of a 16" folder will be forced to a speed some number of mph slower than the rider of a 20" or he may damage his wheels or damage himself. Or he can learn to become an active component and ride out of the saddle. This of course impacts comfort and endurance.

The preceding paragraph is hard science. It is not subjective.

Really? Hard science? Where is the scientific evidence that a 16" wheel may be forced to damage his wheels if he doesn't slow down on a typical NYC street? Where is the scientific evidence that the sensation of shock on a bicycle corresponds primarily to peak vertical acceleration? Or the scientific evidence that the sensation of shock is even a primary cause of discomfort in typical riding conditions?

There are some posts about wheel size in this forum containing hard science, but yours is as much subjective pseudoscience as any of the other posts in this thread.

Well, yeah, but did you stop to inspect the road after you had your close call? I did after I flipped over.

Actually, I do stop and look at the cause of my close calls. I do it to update my priors regarding what is and is not safe. I don't know whether my stop-and-looks come up to the standard of an inspection.


I would think that, if you have the nerves to stay focused, a smaller wheel should have better handling and braking because the wheels can better fit between bumps and, thus, have more traction.

In any case, a rough ride can be compensated for with a suspension seatpost, wider tires, etc, but there's nothing you can do to compensate if the wheels can't safely traverse the pavement.

Perhaps. Although it is difficult to think about what is a reasonable amount of concentration without considering velocity. Essentially, I think that as you go faster, these perturbations become increasingly distracting.

It would be a similar concept as with handling. The highly responsive steering that is a plus at slow speeds is a liability at fast speeds.


Well, consider a single sharp medium sized discontinuity on a smooth road. Although a larger wheel will have a more gradual motion as it goes up/down it will also hit the bump sooner and leave the bump later. A small wheel, on the other hand, experiences a larger jolt of shorter duration. If the bump is large enough then you'll have to get light in the saddle either way and, since your knees are such good shock absorbers, it won't matter which jolt is more intense as much as how long you'd have to stay light in the saddle. So, in this case, the larger wheel would be more uncomfortable because it would force you to get light in the saddle longer. In my city, these kinds of imperfections are the most common: large sharp discontinuities isolated from each other by ten or more feet.

...at least that's how I rationalize the fact that I find very little difference in comfort between my 26", 20", and 8" wheeled bikes.

I'm not concerned about differences in barely perceptible imperfections...after all, they're barely perceptible.

Hmmmm ... well, one can apply different levels of effort to make one "light" such that for different size jolts one is lighter for bigger jolts than smaller ones. Moreover, it seems to me that it is easier to keep spinning through jolts of a certain size such that the more gradual lift and fall of the bigger wheel results in more spinning.

More generally, in reference to the comments regarding tire size and geometry, tire width -- controlling for pressure and tire composition/construction -- definitely has a huge effect on "roughness". Although I should point out -- as was mentioned earlier in the thread -- that roughness and the probability of a catastrophic event are related but are not the same thing. That written, it has been pretty difficult for me to figure out the relative magnitude of the effects of tire width, tire diameter, and bike geometry (and their interactions). There are also some limitations to the variability of these individual effects. For instance, it might be optimal from the perspective of riding comfort to have a 16" wheel bike have a wheelbase of 50". But a bike with such a wheelbase -- let along a folding bike -- poses its own problems.

Oy vey. This thread is beginning to get mired in typically American pseudoscience/subjectivity. Ah, well, what did you expect....
The Finnish rider who observed that riding conditions in his country allow 16" folders to function effectively has my envy. I don't think it is necessary to travel to Northern Europe to experience such as there are many American cities and towns where the roads are relatively well maintained but metropolitan New York City is not one of them! Well, I ride a 16" folder in NYC... but more on that a little later.


It is a fact of geometry that the larger the diameter and therefore circumference of a wheel the less the angle between a line (the ground) and the wheels edge (circuference). Yes, agreed, and well said. But you leave out the variable of tires, which is IMHO more important.
The extreme of this example is the large wheel of a Penny Farthing bicycle. A 60" in diameter wheel has a VERY smooth ride because the upward (or downward) accelleration upon reaching a road irregularity increases gradually whereas a smaller diameter wheel even if the eventual displacement is the same reaches the same acceleration much more abruptly.Have you actually ridden a penny-farthing? I did, once; I worked at a shop where we locked one to the bike rack out front every day, and one day I rode it around the block. It was very uncomfortable. In fact these miserable contraptions also had the nickname "boneshaker," that's how rough the ride was. This was, no doubt, due to the quality of the tires: solid rubber!
We feel that as road shock and therefore at the exact same speed over the exact same road the rider of the larger wheel will feel much less shock coming from the road and will be much more comfortable. That is assuming the road surface is reasonably even. And assuming the tires are the same.
On a typical NYC street the rider of a 16" folder will be forced to a speed some number of mph slower than the rider of a 20" or he may damage his wheels or damage himself. Or he can learn to become an active component and ride out of the saddle. This of course impacts comfort and endurance. Well, that depends on too many factors to list. My NYC riding is from Penn Station to the Upper East Side, almost every day, except for rides from the Upper East Side to the Hunterspoint Ave LIRR station most afternoons in the summer; and I ride from Penn Station to Brooklyn College every couple of weeks. All my NYC riding is on a Downtube Mini with 16" wheels. Now, I grant you that the quality of the road makes it difficult to maintain a good speed all the way down Flatbush Ave, but that is really the only place where it becomes an issue, and there are far more troubling issues, such as traffic and insane drivers and road debris, which are unrelated to wheel size; and I really don't think a slightly larger wheel is going to make much difference.


The preceding paragraph is hard science. It is not subjective. Very funny, but jokes are easier to identify if you use smileys!:p

I am not a physicist, nor an engineer. I cannot put up graphs and tables to make my case. If there are others that have, thats great, but obviously they have not succeeded in their attempts any more than I using layman's English. I despair whenever I see these circular arguments around something for which there should be no argument. Shoot me for trying yet again to enlighten people who wish to cling to their subjective perceptions of factual things. I wonder how many unused 16" folders are moldering away in closets and cupboards and the like because their owners based their purchase strictly on the persuasive subjectivity of arguments like Makeinu's and rhm's. On giving more consideration to how well it would fit, folded, in the aforementioned cupboard than how well it might actually 'ride'. My post was not meant to discount 16" folders out of hand but tell the posters that are trying to claim that a 16", 20", and 26" wheel have identical ride qualities that their claims run counter to a considerable body of written data.
Data collected and published by far more qualified individuals than myself.

H

May I kindly suggest such is highly subjective? Or dependent on individual taste?

I have had some 7 bikes.

Microbike which have 12" wheels. No suspension and
I guess why you would have liked to have suspension.
One feel every little thing in the road. So try to find
a friend or neighbor or a dealer that let you test 16".

If it feels ok with you, no need what so ever for suspension
but a need to get used to that it feels rough. All about preferences.

Your bike maybe don't have that feature so reality set the limit to needs.
You have to buy a bike with suspension with a the price you don't want to.

But if price is of no concern then buy the best there is.

I have 20" and 26" and 28" bikes too. sure they are different in comfort.

But needs are highly individual. 12" is much more vibration without suspension.
But it was the only 12" available to me so I had to deal with it. No big deal.

I'm usually very touchy about comfort. I'm an indoor person. Only goes out
if I must to buy food or so. So I sure have needs but it is a compromise with price.

If your priority is comfort when riding then sure buy the best there is. I would.

Very true that it is subjective. Some argue that suspension speeds up small wheels when ridden properly. If this is true, it be hard to argue that slower and harsher are more desirable.

Incidentally, I'm using Marathons on my bike rather than Stelvios, as I'm in thorn territory. (They have done their job on the trailer wheels and on my partner's Marathon Racers.) The difference in rolling resistance is too great to be subjective.

Hmmmm ... well, one can apply different levels of effort to make one "light" such that for different size jolts one is lighter for bigger jolts than smaller ones. Moreover, it seems to me that it is easier to keep spinning through jolts of a certain size such that the more gradual lift and fall of the bigger wheel results in more spinning.

Yeah, but is it always true that intensity trumps duration? Are there not some scenarios where it would be preferable to take all the discomfort at once and others where it would be preferable to spread it out? Moreover, would not this preferential distinction also be a matter of personal taste?


I am not a physicist, nor an engineer. I cannot put up graphs and tables to make my case. If there are others that have, thats great, but obviously they have not succeeded in their attempts any more than I using layman's English. I despair whenever I see these circular arguments around something for which there should be no argument. Shoot me for trying yet again to enlighten people who wish to cling to their subjective perceptions of factual things. I wonder how many unused 16" folders are moldering away in closets and cupboards and the like because their owners based their purchase strictly on the persuasive subjectivity of arguments like Makeinu's and rhm's. On giving more consideration to how well it would fit, folded, in the aforementioned cupboard than how well it might actually 'ride'. My post was not meant to discount 16" folders out of hand but tell the posters that are trying to claim that a 16", 20", and 26" wheel have identical ride qualities that their claims run counter to a considerable body of written data.
Data collected and published by far more qualified individuals than myself.


Obviously 16", 20", and 26" wheels do not have identical ride qualities, but to the best of my knowledge there is no considerable body of data which demonstrates that the difference in ride quality is definitively better with larger wheels.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the small amount of data that does exist suggests that smaller wheels might be better...and, yes, I am an engineer (although not one that deals with mechanics or structures).

In any case I, for one, wonder how many unused 20" folders or full sized nonfolders are moldering away in closets, garages, and the like because their owners based their purchases strictly on the persuasive subjectivity of arguments like yours which suggest that things like naive intuition are an acceptable substitute for actual facts; Bicycles moldering away because their purchasers gave greater preference to, perhaps, imperceptible or even inferior ride characteristics than the actual circumstances which might allow said ride to take place at all. If you want to argue that the facts are on your side, then present them, but I personally despair at the number of false myths accepted by the bicycle enthusiasts such as yourself under the irrational, yet, persuasive pretense that "there should be no argument". There should always be an argument, especially when the conclusion seems obvious because the more obvious the truth is the easier it should be to settle the argument.

Yeah, but is it always true that intensity trumps duration? Are there not some scenarios where it would be preferable to take all the discomfort at once and others where it would be preferable to spread it out? Moreover, would not this preferential distinction also be a matter of personal taste?

In reference to the last question, I always thought that personal taste is the trump suite. It was never my intention to suggest otherwise.

Always? Almost certainly not. And -- since we keep switching between comfort and safety -- it could be the case that a frequent series of medium jolts are more dangerous than one big jolt.

... I wonder how many unused 16" folders are moldering away in closets and cupboards and the like because their owners based their purchase strictly on the persuasive subjectivity of arguments like Makeinu's and rhm's.
Or yours, for that matter! But I don't sneer; many people buy bikes that they end up not using for one reason or another, and if they want to blame the people who have advised them in that purchase, they have that right. I suspect there are more 'mountain bikes' moldering away in garages than folding bikes in closets; but that's a discussion for a different forum.
... . My post was not meant to discount 16" folders out of hand but tell the posters that are trying to claim that a 16", 20", and 26" wheel have identical ride qualities that their claims run counter to a considerable body of written data.
Data collected and published by far more qualified individuals than myself.
Okay, but I would never argue that! My point --in agreement with Vik, I think-- was that different bikes ride differently for a number of reasons, among which wheel diameter is only one. I don't see how you can have a problem with that point. I, too, am neither an engineer nor a physist, nor a scientist of any kind; but I do ride bicycles quite a bit, with wheel sizes ranging from 16" to 27". The biggest factors in ride quality, in my humble opinion, are tires (diameter, pressure, etc.) and frame geometry (angles, length of wheelbase, suspension, etc.). Wheel diameter is a big factor only in fold size. The reason I ride a folding bike is because I need to fold it two or more times every day, and the Downtube Mini is at the upper limit of acceptable folded size. If your question is, would I ride a bike with bigger wheels if I didn't need to fold it, the answer is probably yes; but it's not a relevant question since in fact I DO need to fold it. Aside from that, this is the folding bike forum, and if my bike didn't fold, I wouldn't be posting here at all.
Cheers!
Rudi

... I personally despair at the number of false myths accepted by the bicycle enthusiasts ... under the irrational, yet, persuasive pretense that "there should be no argument". There should always be an argument, especially when the conclusion seems obvious because the more obvious the truth is the easier it should be to settle the argument.

+1! Yow!

... especially when the conclusion seems obvious because the more obvious the truth is the easier it should be to settle the argument. (italics mine). Unfortunately the human animal is most resistant to the obvious. Using your logic universally there should be no explanation for the continued existence of devoutly religious people. We should all be atheists or at the very least agnostic.

H