Folding Bikes - large wheels are pointless

I don't think anybody ever claimed small wheels are not harsher. I claimed that by judicious choice of tyre pressure and tyres, for practical purposes you can match a small wheel response with a big wheel. The very slightly higher rolling resistance of a small wheel is amply compensated for by aerodynamical advantages.

I think the key thing about rolling resistance is that you only becomes a concern when you can't control the distorted medium. Ergo, if you want to ride on soft ground then the ground will absorb your energy unless you use a large wheel to leave it undisturbed, but if you want to ride on soft tires then there's really no issue because you can choose a low hysteresis material for your tires.

WIth this in mind there's no reason for a smaller wheel to be harsher because the smaller the wheel the difference in construction between the softer tire and the harder one is minimal. Or equivalently a dedicated suspension could provide much the same effect with certain pros and cons to the tire implementation.

Raxel,


Single example? How about almost all world records:
http://www.ihpva.org/hpvarech.htm

^ Uh, yeah. I was just about to point that out, but Makeinu has done so. A great deal of the HPV world records are on small wheels.

Best for everything? No. They would have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every other bike in the world. As we know, there is no "one magic bike"

But your statement that they "can't compete" is utterly false.

Additionally, just to pick a bone with one of your examples, where you talk about the Moulton:

1. The advantage of the Moulton had nothing to do with weight. Why are you bringing weight up? The advantage was in drafting and close quarters aerodynamics.

2. The Moulton has not stayed in the 60s either. Design improvements have carried along with it just as any other bicycle.


3. However almost no small wheeled bikes care anything about weight, firring, stiffness, aerodynamics etc. So nowadays they just cannot compete. I guess you really haven't payed much attention. Bikes like the Moulton are built from the ground up with these things in mind. The AM Speed model is designed for the RAAM, for instance. I can think of several small-wheelers off the top of my head which are renowned for extremely high performance.


Small wheels = Harsh ride, Unstable handling, Low gearing.

Wait, what? Way to blanket statement. Harsh ride is certainly negotiable depending on conditions, but the ride can certainly be comfortable enough with the right tires. Are you downhilling on your folder?

Unstable handling? How do you mean unstable? From what I can recall, handling is primarily derived from the geometry and behaviour of the frame. And good bike manufacturers like Bike Friday have been making their bikes handle like a dream for years, just by adjusting.

Yeah, the gearing is naturally lowered. That's why things like big rings, capreo, the 9t moulton cogset, SRAM dual drive and so on, so forth exist. Big deal. Conversely, I can say "road bikes can't haul lots of crap up big hills very well, the gearing is too high!"

So you fix it. Make it right. Easy. Thanks.

You seem to have some pretty unsubstantiated claims.

So, why is this discussion going on anyways? I don't know, it is kinda pointless. By now, people should already know that there are so many kinds of bicycles in the world for a reason - there are only specialists and jack of all trades, master of none. There is no magic bike, there is no magic wheel.

Bear in mind that I own a number of high performance small wheeled bikes, and used to train and ride with guys with 700c road bikes. I have seen (and ridden) most high performance smallwheelers too. My words are based on my real world experience, not on pointless assumptions.

And AFAIK all HPV records are done on a short, FLAT course using bicycles with FAIRING. Such result has nothing to do with the performance of smallwheelers in real world situation.

I suppose those records were set on rutted city streets with a cobbles section thrown in. Small wheels are great for reducing frontal area on a faired vehicle, which are even farther from a commuter bike than the UCI restrictions. With the Moulton, any advantages that have to do with riding in a pack and drafting hardly apply to cycling for personal transportation.

Here's a somewhat plausible advantage for large wheels. For a touring bike with triple chainrings and a wide gear range, the bike with bigger wheels will require a smaller size difference between chainrings, thereby improving shifting performance. It seems minor now, but this would have been a bigger concern in the past before SRAM dual-drive and chainrings with shifting aids were developed.

And AFAIK all HPV records are done on a short, FLAT course using bicycles with FAIRING. Such result has nothing to do with the performance of smallwheelers in real world situation.Perhaps you missed the point: Nobody has said small wheels are better. Just lots of people have pointed out they are not worse. The fact that HPV records are on small wheels amply demonstrates the point that small wheels are not worse. If they were, they wouldn't be using small wheels, would they?

Thats it!
I am off to buy a penny farthing! One big wheel, one small that will settle it !!

(Anyone know where I can get a folding penny farthing)
By the way Mr Grahaem Obree made and raced a penny farthing at least once.

Perhaps you missed the point: Nobody has said small wheels are better. Just lots of people have pointed out they are not worse. The fact that HPV records are on small wheels amply demonstrates the point that small wheels are not worse. If they were, they wouldn't be using small wheels, would they?

Yes, small wheeled bikes have some (maybe theoretical) advantages for some applications. And I agree that IF a good, high-performance smallwheeler is made with cutting edge technology, they will perform almost as good as modern road bikes in CONTROLLED situation.

Personally I love small wheeled bikes and folders, but I don't agree that smallwheelers have a performance advantage in general situation.

Bear in mind that I own a number of high performance small wheeled bikes, and used to train and ride with guys with 700c road bikes. I have seen (and ridden) most high performance smallwheelers too. My words are based on my real world experience, not on pointless assumptions.

And AFAIK all HPV records are done on a short, FLAT course using bicycles with FAIRING. Such result has nothing to do with the performance of smallwheelers in real world situation.

I seriously doubt that you're training with guys on 700c road bikes was in real world situations either. I mean, the title of this thread is "large wheels are pointless" so before submitting your experiences to counter it you have to ask yourself, "did these experiences have a point"? What could possibly be the point of riding 700c road bikes with "the guys"? Were you all running late while going to a party together? It's hard to imagine there being any point at all.

Also, why is it that the naysayers are always pointing to road bikes as if that is the pinnacle of cycling? Road bikes are (and are intended to be) toys for pointless activities and the fact that you need to resort to that arena to even get a foothold against small wheelers basically proves my point: that large wheels are pointless.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "small wheelers are only good for commuting" and then claim "small wheelers are only good for racing" when the fact of the matter is that they are better for both. They are better for everything unless you purposely undermine their advantages by treating them like a large wheeled bike:
- For racing the primary advantage of small wheels is that they better accommodate a more aerodynamic position and a fairing.
- For commuting the primary advantage of small wheels is that they better accommodate suspension options (such as wide tires).
...and the list goes on and on.

Sure, if you purposely discount the advantages to make it "fair" then large wheels have a fighting chance, but otherwise the smaller wheels will win out and if they received the same R&D and marketing they would just completely blow their larger counterparts out of the water.

If you want to go fast, if you want practical commuter/townie, If you want to haul cargo: smaller wheel is best
,but if you want to muck around with the boys, if you want to play UCI bicycle games, if you want to play in the wilderness: larger wheel is best.
There's nothing wrong with that. I like to dance and I'm perfectly happy to admit that it's pointless.

I have studied some penny farthing racers closely ,and the larger wheel seems to finish before the small wheel does.
Point proved larger wheels are (slightly) faster!

I am going to study the uneven wheeled raliegh "choppers" next. I am betting on the small wheel usually finishing first, but if you have ever ridden a "chopper" its by no means certian !
I dont think even Mr Obree was "indiosycratic" enought to ever race one ?

Oh boy ... where to begin? I won't re-hash discussions made elsewhere, namely


Twitchyness? I think that the effect is mainly low trail and most modern bikes being high trail.
The gearing limitations for small wheel bikes. There have been tons of discussions on internal hubs versus derailer drivetrains and I generally favor derailers. I always assumed that there were production/reliability reasons why bicycle chains/cogs don't use a smaller pitch, but given the the present choice, small wheels are at a disadvantage.


Guys like Jobst Brandt say/suggest that spoke tension and other wheel properties have zero/little effect on cushioning relative to tire choice and inflation. I don't recall him ever discussing wheel size but from what I gather the relative effect of tire versus wheel was something like an order of a magnitude. Note that this still leaves open the desire for suspension since someone might still want more cushion than low pressure fat tires provide.

I think that the "small wheel in big hole" argument has merit. Particularly for people that ride in less than perfect lighting. I concur with the principle of Jur's counter-argument ...


The one example where a small wheel would suffer badly is in falling into a depression which closely hugs the wheel diameter. In such a case, the whole section of tyre that contacts the depression has to flex and due to the large increase in surface area, the amount of flex is reduced proportionally. Hence such a depression will be extremely harsh and be almost independent of tyre pressure. In such a depression a large wheel could roll over just contacting the edges.

However this argument can be turned on its head - the depression might match the size of the large wheel and it would now suffer the extreme jar, while the smaller wheel would roll down into it and up out the other side.

... however, the distribution of hole sizes favor big wheels. That is, given that we ride on the same roads as autos, as the holes get bigger to severely affect cars, they tend to get repaired. So big wheels rarely suffer.

In principle, small wheel bikes should fit a larger range of riders than those with big wheels due to the reasons stated earlier.

In the end, however, that the predominant wheels sizes are ERTO 559 and 622 do have meaningful implications. And if the merits of small wheels are too small -- although I think that they are real -- to warrant the switching costs, particularly for the average rider referenced by makeinu, then those big wheel implications are here to stay.

Wow Makeinu, you really are passionate about this, aren't you?

Passion is a good thing if it doesn't become too obsessive, be careful that your convictions don't lead you to becoming a bore.

That said, you're probably right about a lot of this, but you're fighting a losing battle because the cycling world is sold on the idea of large wheels being better in general, it's ingrained in their physche....try explaining the benefits of small wheels over large to most cyclists and count the micro-seconds it takes for their eyes to glaze over!! Small wheels bikes will never get the R&D they deserve, unfortunately that's a fact you will have to live with.

My advice, hold to your convictions, but enjoy them.

most roads today are paved well so theres really no need for large wheels unless biking mainly off-road

large wheel design are outmoded....a design carried from the past where roads where extremely rough and mainly dirt then they paved some parts the streets[not for cars or carriages] to make it easy for bicycles [horse carriage dominated the day and automobiles did not exist and came many decades later]

remember the big wheel bike Penny Farthing had bigger wheels than the horse carriages of that era so as not to get bogged down.

personally....I don't need big wheels im done with them adios, bye bye, sayonara, kaput !

My bicycles; 26", 700c and 16" wheels between them all bring me utterly pointless joy. The little one gets me to my ultimately pointless job a bit faster than walking, thus accruing time and money that enable me to engage in pointless large wheeled cycling - one of a number of non-survival oriented activities I partake of - at my leisure. So does this make my small wheelers apparently inherent pointfullness null and void?

Personally I love small wheeled bikes and folders, but I don't agree that smallwheelers have a performance advantage in general situation.In another thread you once mentioned that a friend of yours has a 6kg 700c bike and a 7kg Tyrell (?), and that he regularly trains on an 8km climb with those 2 bikes, and that the small-wheeler is 30s slower.

I have made some assumptions about weight (75kg) and slope (6%) and crunched some numbers, but weight alone would account for a 1% difference in time, whereas 30s on a 8km long 6% slope is quite a bit more than 1%. So at least in this case, something is making the small-wheeler slower. That something could be tyre rolling resistance, less optimal gearing, less optimal bike fit, more flexy frame, more drive train drag especially RD, higher rolling resistance bearings, even placebo effect. The list is quite long. This also is perhaps a point in my argument that a ride experience comes from the whole bike, not just wheel size.

Most folders come with single front chainrings; standard-sized bikes routinely come with doubles and triples...................................................... Comparing a 17 pound road bike to a Carryme is simply absurd; their functions and uses are completely incompatible. For example, there is no way you could use a Carryme if you're in 70-mile group ride in a paceline and averaging 20mph; and there's no way you can fold up a Pinarello Prince for a multi-modal commute. The comparison is fatuous.............................................................

You make a lot valid points in the rest of your discussion. Comparing a Pinarello to a run of the mill Carryme is absurd.However, You can compare lets say a Bike Friday Pocket Rocket Pro or Air with a Pinarello when it comes to performance. They will serve the same function. And when it comes to to the multi modal commute thing. The above mentioned Bike Fridays will one up the Pinarello.

Makeinu's statement about 20 inch wheels has a lot of merit. There are a lot of advantages to that format especially when you take everything into concideration. Most of the bias to the "small wheel" is political in nature and comes from the manufacturers and UCI. And who do you think the average consumer will follow?

quote

" Most of the bias to the "small wheel" is political in nature and comes from the manufacturers and UCI. And who do you think the average consumer will follow?"


The average customer I feel is actually going for smaller wheels on average over time. Ie mountain bikes are now more popular than 700c road bikes by a massive factor than in the last 20 years. Most Hyrids use slighly smaller wheels than 700c. Folders are becoming more popular worldwide espically in japan and capital cities. It may only be a small move ,but it is a trend. Simular quality road bikes are more expensive than simular quality mountain bikes IMO. Due to this demand/suppy. Last Time I bought a large wheeled bike the best value was a mountian bike. I converted it in to a faster bike more like a hybrid. As hybrids were very expensive like for like then also. 20" Bmx bikes are much more mainstream than they have been for years. So Although its only a small shift, the average customer is opting for bike sytles with smaller wheels than in the past.

quote

" Most of the bias to the "small wheel" is political in nature and comes from the manufacturers and UCI. And who do you think the average consumer will follow?"


The average customer I feel is actually going for smaller wheels on average over time. Ie mountain bikes are now more popular than 700c road bikes by a massive factor than in the last 20 years. Most Hyrids use slighly smaller wheels than 700c. Folders are becoming more popular worldwide espically in japan and capital cities. It may only be a small move ,but it is a trend. Simular quality road bikes are more expensive than simular quality mountain bikes IMO. Due to this demand/suppy. Last Time I bought a large wheeled bike the best value was a mountian bike. I converted it in to a faster bike more like a hybrid. As hybrids were very expensive like for like then also. 20" Bmx bikes are much more mainstream than they have been for years. So Although its only a small shift, the average customer is opting for bike sytles with smaller wheels than in the past.

Funny ... anecdotally, I got the sense that more hybrid/conventional bikes were using 700c. I don't go mountain biking, but just based on the number of models, it seems like more 29-inch models are being offered now.

In another thread you once mentioned that a friend of yours has a 6kg 700c bike and a 7kg Tyrell (?), and that he regularly trains on an 8km climb with those 2 bikes, and that the small-wheeler is 30s slower.

I have made some assumptions about weight (75kg) and slope (6%) and crunched some numbers, but weight alone would account for a 1% difference in time, whereas 30s on a 8km long 6% slope is quite a bit more than 1%. So at least in this case, something is making the small-wheeler slower. That something could be tyre rolling resistance, less optimal gearing, less optimal bike fit, more flexy frame, more drive train drag especially RD, higher rolling resistance bearings, even placebo effect. The list is quite long. This also is perhaps a point in my argument that a ride experience comes from the whole bike, not just wheel size.

Let's not open this can of worms. As an electrical engineer, jur, you have to ask yourself what is the output impedance of the source? Once fed back through the complexity of the human body a 1% difference in energy at the pedals could account for almost any difference in time given the same source energy. As I've pointed out many times, if this sort of analysis could accurately model the relevant factors of human ability then we'd be able to conclude that all humans have equal (and, in fact, infinite) ability to lift weights, which is obviously false. So it should be no surprise that this very same loading phenomenon evades a similar analysis in cycling.

At best we can say whether two setups are roughly equivalent (due to the input/output properties), but attributing those differences to various factors is beyond our ability; at least without an extensive analysis of the psychological and physiological factors modulating the internal losses (and ultimate capacity) of the human body.

Clearly smaller wheels are an inherently lighter design element and the example of a 6kg 700c road bike compared to a 7kg 20"er only goes to prove that any negative influence of small wheel size is miniscule compared to market forces or switching costs. After all, if wheel size were the reason then we'd see similar differences between equally unpopular formats such as 16" vs 20" bikes or 12" vs 20" bikes or between similarly equipped commuter bikes (like a Brompton vs an Electra), but I don't think we can reasonably say we do.

I would never contest that small wheels incur a significant cost of lower popularity and standardization. However, my contention is that this cost does not come to bear in any practical application. Does it come to bear when pointlessly pacelining on 70-mile group rides? Yes. But it does not come to bear in true performance applications, where designs are typically custom anyway, nor does it come to bear in day to day riding, where the demands of safety and comfort such as wide tires and suspension options (such as a thudbuster, which many larger wheeled frames cannot clear) more than outweigh those costs.


Comparing a Pinarello to a run of the mill Carryme is absurd.

Or maybe comparing a Carryme to a run of the mill Pinarello is absurd. One is a useful vehicle with durable parts, rack, and fenders while the other is a toy. That's why one of them has a useful function while the other is relegated to pointless activities like pacelining on 70-mile group rides. And don't fool yourself thinking that the latter is "performance", it's not, it's playing. Performance is going faster than any other human has gone before. The only thing compromised by small wheels are childish games and other pointless activities.

And AFAIK all HPV records are done on a short, FLAT course using bicycles with FAIRING. Such result has nothing to do with the performance of smallwheelers in real world situation.

I don't understand this logic.

1. Are you saying that lowrider recumbents don't hold many unfaired records?

2. What does fairing have to do with wheel size? You can put big wheels on recumbents. If larger wheels were advantageous, wouldn't the faired record holders be using them? [btw, occasionally you do see a large wheel in back]

Funny ... anecdotally, I got the sense that more hybrid/conventional bikes were using 700c. I don't go mountain biking, but just based on the number of models, it seems like more 29-inch models are being offered now.

You're right. There's also a growing interest in custom bikes using 36" rims now that there are better tires being made for them.

More people like bigger wheels. It isn't a conspiracy, it isn't fashion.

I've got several small wheel bikes, and they're great for certain applications, but c'mon. This argument is silly.

...nor does it come to bear in day to day riding...
This is your whole point, isn't it? You'd save people a ton of energy they could be using to actually ride their bikes if you just said you like the 20" size for utility and other slow ass applications, and be done with it.

The problem with you argument is its inherent contradiction when you've already admitted that different wheel sizes ARE necessary for different riding applications. Wheel size is significant if you're talking about less mundane utility such as mountain biking, fixed gear riding, or even unicycling.

You're right. There's also a growing interest in custom bikes using 36" rims now that there are better tires being made for them.



Great ,I was woundering where I would get a tyre for my penny farthing !

Penny farthings usually have front wheels in the 46 to 52 inch range.

I can see small-er wheelers becoming more acceptable to the mass market over time but you have decades of aesthetic prejudice to get over. BMX is mass market and is a pretty specific application but I could see it opening some doors if someone came out with a multi geared bmx-ey looking bike and solved the great-big-long seatpost problem aesthetically.

But there's the problem - most people think that small wheeled bikes just look a bit 'funny' and frankly, I agree - I just don't mind riding a funny looking bike because its a) boringly practical and b) fun.

So when it comes to choosing a bike the punter will apply what they know about the world from first-hand experience; that bigger wheels go over rough surfaces more smoothly than little wheels. They'll also decide that the big wheels look nicer and no amount of battering with logic about rolling resistance etc. will convince them otherwise.

Penny farthings making a comeback though? Now that's pointless :)



where can I get one?

Penny farthings making a comeback though? Now that's pointless :)
where can I get one?

http://www.hiwheel.com/

To the OP: I find your argument that ludic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic) activities are "pointless" to be rather base and ignorant. Playful endeavors are intrinsic to human (and animal) existence, often comprising the most meaningful and transcendent moments of our existence. The very fact that many people enjoy commuting by bicycle is due to the element of play that this brings into their daily life. Activities whose only "point" is to offer humans the possibility to engage their efforts and immaginations in cultivating and feeding their appetite for play are the engines of social change and innovation, the testing grounds for the human spirit, and the stage wherein we reconcile ourselves with the human condition. As Johan Huizinga states in the foreword to his book **** Ludens:
"...it was not my object to define the place of play among all other manifestations of culture, but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play."
Off road biking, dancing, spinning in place or mindless humming are all equally as important as the latest biomedical research or your getting to the office on time.
I aggreee that small wheels are a good thing, but there are many "points" in this discussion that you are just not getting.

Big wheels take up more space inside the fairing. Same reason small wheels leave more room for cargo on cargo bikes. Neither consideration can be used to determine the relative performance of small wheels vs big wheels. It's like every pejorative thing said about small wheels could be true, and small wheeled bikes would still be fastest in a race where faired aerodynamics trumped all other considerations. If fairings weren't allowed, you might be able to game the rules with a large disc front wheel that completely sheltered the rider from the wind.

Wow that was an exhausting but informative and great read. I learned a lot tonight! Thanks everybody.

I had no idea small wheels had so many advantages! Wow.


It is plain wrong to blame UCI for everything. People are buying "ordinary' bicycles NOT because UCI are forcing them to. They are because they suit their needs better. 99.9% of the people don't know what UCI is anyway, and 99% of bikes are not built for any kind of competition.

No dude, people are not buying what suits their needs better. People are buying what they THINK suits their needs better.


In nutshell, if small wheeled bikes are indeed superior than large wheeled bikes, bicycle companies will make them and people will buy them regardless of what UCI says.

Bicycle companies will make bicycles that they think will SELL. And if most people think that bicycles with 26"/700c wheels look better and/or perform better then that is what they will BUY.

The fact is that bicycles with 20" wheels simply LOOK much more different than your classical road bike. And LOOKS are a big deal to consumers.



That said, you're probably right about a lot of this, but you're fighting a losing battle because the cycling world is sold on the idea of large wheels being better in general, it's ingrained in their psyche....try explaining the benefits of small wheels over large to most cyclists and count the micro-seconds it takes for their eyes to glaze over!! Small wheels bikes will never get the R&D they deserve, unfortunately that's a fact you will have to live with.

My advice, hold to your convictions, but enjoy them.

Hahahah I laughed at that cause it's so true!!! and I agree... about the R&D... you can dump billions into creating the ultimate, most amazing bike in the world, and it so happens to have small wheels that simply LOOK kind of silly, and just because of THAT single aspect, you will already lose a large % of your potential customers. Most people are not as smart (or technical) as these guys on the bike forums! You guys are amazing!

Thanks for the crazy read.

wheels are round,,no points

...................Here's a somewhat plausible advantage for large wheels. For a touring bike with triple chainrings and a wide gear range, the bike with bigger wheels will require a smaller size difference between chainrings, thereby improving shifting performance. It seems minor now, but this would have been a bigger concern in the past before SRAM dual-drive and chainrings with shifting aids were developed.

Hmmmm...............Have you heard of Capreo???????

wheels are round,,no points


unless they have a deep knobbly tread in which case they are effectively polygonal rather than circular.

Here's a somewhat plausible advantage for large wheels. For a touring bike with triple chainrings and a wide gear range, the bike with bigger wheels will require a smaller size difference between chainrings, thereby improving shifting performance. It seems minor now, but this would have been a bigger concern in the past before SRAM dual-drive and chainrings with shifting aids were developed.


The flip side of this agurement though is that smaller wheeled bikes can have smaller gaps in between gearing than a larger wheeled bike.

Something that I feel is an advantage on a road bike with 21 speeds or more. I use 11-24 (or smallest I can find) for my dual drive 349 folding road bikes.

wheels are round,,no points

Actually wheels are approximately disk shaped. Get in to the third dimension dude.

Actually wheels are approximately disk shaped. Get in to the third dimension dude.

well if you want to get really pedantic (and lets face it, this thread is no stranger to pedantry) then topologically speaking are bicycle wheels not essentially toroidal?

and what's the point of a toroid?

Actually wheels are approximately disk shaped. Get in to the third dimension dude.

Ah but wheels become dented and broken in TIME, you missed a demention! Theres FOUR!

wheels are round,,no points

I beg to disagree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgbWu8zJubo).

The flip side of this agurement though is that smaller wheeled bikes can have smaller gaps in between gearing than a larger wheeled bike.

??? I believe that with a given ratio of wheel size to front crank size, gaps between gears are identical. Has nothing to do with absolute wheel size.

??? I believe that with a given ratio of wheel size to front crank size, gaps between gears are identical. Has nothing to do with absolute wheel size.

True. but a 700C bike would have to be specailly set up to achive the same ratios and possibly use dual drive, or cespro and a smaller front cog to achive simular gaps and the same range( I have not checked the maths I admit). Simular issues to smaller wheels needing gearing up I feel. Not better, simply differnet properties.

Ah but wheels become dented and broken in TIME, you missed a demention! Theres FOUR!

There are 13 dimensions, but only 8 of them could contain a tangable bike wheel. The other 5 could contain a wheel but it could never get out. The remaining 8 dimenstions contain mainly choppers and penny farthings.

Probable misinterpration of string theory. I think I could have gone "array" somewhere!

There are 13 dimensions, but only 8 of them could contain a tangable bike wheel. The other 5 could contain a wheel but it could never get out. The remaining 8 dimenstions contain mainly choppers and penny farthings. Probable misinterpration of string theory. I think I could have gone "array" somewhere!
Yeah, that's a pretty bad butchering. ;) In theory the 5th and higher dimensions are "curled up" into the 3 spatial dimensions visible to standard human perception; they're too small to be directly observed by any device humanity can ever build. And Calabi-Yau spaces don't particularly resemble spoked wheels....

http://bccp.lbl.gov/Images/600px-Calabi-Yau.png

Glad to see everybody lightened up. :-P

Pretty obvious that ALL WHEELS ARE POINTLESS!

They are round.... where's a point in anything that's round?:D

Capreo is much newer than small wheels. By the time it came out, Shimano had long since improved chainring shifting to the point that indexed shifting on a muddy mountain bike was possible, and this consideration was less important. Also, smaller cogs / tighter chain wraps are less efficient (read that somewhere in this forum), smaller cogs wear faster, and low numbers of teeth mean larger ratio jumps with one tooth differences.

Also, larger absolute size differences between chainrings will also require a longer derailleur cage, and the smaller the wheel, the shorter the cage can be before it scrapes the ground (assuming conventional mounting, which is probably as hard to change as wheel size conventions).

and what's the point of a toroid?

It can be used as a bike wheel. Approximately.

Yeah, that's a pretty bad butchering. ;) In theory the 5th and higher dimensions are "curled up" into the 3 spatial dimensions visible to standard human perception; they're too small to be directly observed by any device humanity can ever build. And Calabi-Yau spaces don't particularly resemble spoked wheels....

[/IMG]

Granted I may have paraphrased a bit ! , but all dimensions are equally filled with choppers and penny farthings, thats been proven.

Granted I may have paraphrased a bit ! , but all dimensions are equally filled with choppers and penny farthings, thats been proven.

Is a trike with small wheels 50% less pointless than a small wheeled bike?

Now, yes, there are a few very specialist applications for which factors make small wheeled bikes inferior. These are, namely, riding off paved roads and competitions for which small wheels are simply disallowed. However, as I've said from the beginning, these applications are by their very nature pointless and, thus, the large wheeled bikes which they justify are also pointless.


Hey Africa, get with the program, riding off paved roads is pointless... You too Asia :)

Is a trike with small wheels 50% less pointless than a small wheeled bike?

No, small wheeled trikes do not exist in string theory, so they are completely pointless. I could be wrong.

hmmm.... seems like the OP has run for the hills...