Checking in with Dr. Alex Moulton
#1
Palmer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,625
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 1,821 Times
in
1,059 Posts
Checking in with Dr. Alex Moulton
Despite Moultons never having made a folding bike, most of the small BF Moulton crowd seems to be on this list.
Interesting article in the London Financial Times here:
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef313bc8-7a3...nclick_check=1
or here:
https://tinyurl.com/5ptuy7
tcs
Interesting article in the London Financial Times here:
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef313bc8-7a3...nclick_check=1
or here:
https://tinyurl.com/5ptuy7
tcs
#3
Banned.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Moulton is also entering the final stages of producing an autobiography...this means proofs to correct"
"2. Rolling resistance is lower for small wheels, due partly to their having a smaller contact-point with the road. The deformation of the tyre or the road surface also has an effect."
I'd like to see the proof.
Last edited by itsajustme; 09-08-08 at 07:49 PM.
#4
Palmer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,625
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 1,821 Times
in
1,059 Posts
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Albany, WA
Posts: 7,393
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
link without registration
"Moulton is also entering the final stages of producing an autobiography...this means proofs to correct"
"2. Rolling resistance is lower for small wheels, due partly to their having a smaller contact-point with the road. The deformation of the tyre or the road surface also has an effect."
I'd like to see the proof.
"Moulton is also entering the final stages of producing an autobiography...this means proofs to correct"
"2. Rolling resistance is lower for small wheels, due partly to their having a smaller contact-point with the road. The deformation of the tyre or the road surface also has an effect."
I'd like to see the proof.
Regarding rolling resistance of small wheels, there are several aspects to consider:
1. The basic geometry consideration, that road bumps will slow a smaller wheel down more than a larger wheel, due to the fact that bumps have a bigger effect on a smaller wheel. Hence rolling resistance of an smaller, infinitely hard wheel is more.
2. But wheels are not infinitely hard, they are pneumatic. Road bike tires reach the optimum for typical road surfaces at about 110psi; anything more and the rolling resistance may actually increase because the tyre can no longer deform and smoothly roll over irregularities. So at this sort of pressure or slightly lower, the rolling resistance between the 2 sizes due to bumps become indistinguishable as the tyre effect dominates.
3. Due to the fact that a smaller wheel has a rounder contact patch compared to a bigger wheel, less of the tyre deforms, so resistance may actually be lower for the smaller wheel.
4. Put the smaller wheel on suspension, and bigger bumps begin to weigh in the small wheel's favour.
5. Aside from this, wind resistance dominates rolling resistance by a big margin.
Last edited by jur; 09-08-08 at 10:57 PM. Reason: point 1 was not clearly put.
#7
Banned.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Regarding rolling resistance of small wheels, there are several aspects to consider:
1. The basic geometry consideration, that road bumps will slow a smaller wheel down more than a larger wheel, due to the fact that bumps have a bigger effect on a smaller wheel. Hence rolling resistance of an smaller, infinitely hard wheel is more.
2. But wheels are not infinitely hard, they are pneumatic. Road bike tires reach the optimum for typical road surfaces at about 110psi; anything more and the rolling resistance may actually increase because the tyre can no longer deform and smoothly roll over irregularities. So at this sort of pressure or slightly lower, the rolling resistance between the 2 sizes due to bumps become indistinguishable as the tyre effect dominates.
3. Due to the fact that a smaller wheel has a rounder contact patch compared to a bigger wheel, less of the tyre deforms, so resistance may actually be lower for the smaller wheel.
4. Put the smaller wheel on suspension, and bigger bumps begin to weigh in the small wheel's favour.
5. Aside from this, wind resistance dominates rolling resistance by a big margin.
1. The basic geometry consideration, that road bumps will slow a smaller wheel down more than a larger wheel, due to the fact that bumps have a bigger effect on a smaller wheel. Hence rolling resistance of an smaller, infinitely hard wheel is more.
2. But wheels are not infinitely hard, they are pneumatic. Road bike tires reach the optimum for typical road surfaces at about 110psi; anything more and the rolling resistance may actually increase because the tyre can no longer deform and smoothly roll over irregularities. So at this sort of pressure or slightly lower, the rolling resistance between the 2 sizes due to bumps become indistinguishable as the tyre effect dominates.
3. Due to the fact that a smaller wheel has a rounder contact patch compared to a bigger wheel, less of the tyre deforms, so resistance may actually be lower for the smaller wheel.
4. Put the smaller wheel on suspension, and bigger bumps begin to weigh in the small wheel's favour.
5. Aside from this, wind resistance dominates rolling resistance by a big margin.
Point #3 is an interesting one which I've considered myself. Although one would think that, perhaps, a contact patch spanning fewer degrees of tire would imply less deformation and, thus, less rolling resistance. However, one must consider that since the contact patch is wider, each degree also flexes more. The wikipedia gives the equation, F=W*a/r, for the force of rolling resistance, which seems to clearly imply that for a wheel of equal stiffness and elasticity the wider contact patch does, indeed, have greater rolling resistance (although no derivation for the formula is given). However, it appears that locomotive train engineers along with Dr Moulton feel that the increased stiffness gained by using small diameter wheels more than compensates by reducing the coefficient of rolling friction, a.
I would love to hear Dr Moulton lecture on the topic because I doubt his autobiography will go into sufficient detail.
Last edited by itsajustme; 09-09-08 at 09:36 AM.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster...UK
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
enough theory...take a look at these photos taken on Saturday at the home of Alex Moulton..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/worksmoulton/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/worksmoulton/
#9
Senior Member
I agree. Who cares about theory when there are so many pretty things to look at. Yummy!
--sam
--sam