Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-05, 08:28 AM   #1
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
28" vs 26"

Hi guys.

I'm a not very experienced SS messenger. And I've been thinking about something. There are some fixie and SS messengers around and they all have 28" wheels. Heck, even the mountainbikers are switching their wheels!

But wouldn't 26" wheels be a better option? I mean cause messaging includes so much stopping, starting, accelerating and uphill climbing.

Or is the 28":ers really rolling that fast?


-Maybe I should buy a trackbike...
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 08:43 AM   #2
dolface
Iguana Subsystem
 
dolface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: san francisco
Bikes:
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
not really sure what you mean, are you saying that 26" wheels have less inertia than 700's?
dolface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 08:51 AM   #3
Ken Cox
King of the Hipsters
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bend, Oregon
Bikes: Realm Cycles Custom
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Would someone please explain the 26", 28", 700c thing for me?
Don't I hear the dirt guys talking about 29"?
Ken Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 08:58 AM   #4
ryan_c
troglodyte
 
ryan_c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the tunnels
Bikes: Soma DoubleCross, Surly Steamroller, various others
Posts: 1,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
dolface - smaller wheels get better acceleration if that's what you're asking.

ken cox - 26" wheels are what are on mountain bikes, have a 559mm bead seat diameter (bead of the tire), 700c wheels have a 622mm bead seat diameter, as do 29" wheels. 29" is the same as 700c but a wider rim for offroading, more of a marketing term.
I'm guessing that by 28" the original poster is referring to wheels with a 622mm bead seat diameter, a common size. Plus, apparently 622mm has also been called "28 x 1 5/8"

for more info go here http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
ryan_c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 09:02 AM   #5
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolface
not really sure what you mean, are you saying that 26" wheels have less inertia than 700's?

Yes, as I've understood it. The rotating weight is the weight that really counts. But only when accellarating.

I think that's easy to comprehend, to some extent anyway.

And you have to accellerate a little even to just keep the speed you know. (if you are not riding in vacuum, and non friction floor and hubs)
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 10:46 AM   #6
r-dub
likes avocadoes
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: oakland, ca
Bikes: heh, like that info would fit here...
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
fwiw, I'm pretty sure that whatever minute difference there is in inertial moments of 26 v 700 wheels isn't going to drastically affect anyone's performance as a messenger. Training yourself to lock up your bike in under two seconds or climb stairs four at a time would result in a significantly larger improvement in your messengering than fretting over specific bike geometry/component issues.
r-dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 11:29 AM   #7
filtersweep
Senior Member
 
filtersweep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 2,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How can someone put LARGER wheels on a bike?

Secondly, if I follow your logic to its conclusion, wouldn't 12" wheels have even less "inertia"? Shouldn't we all be riding pixie bikes? Or rather a "pixie TALL bike" so we fit? Wouldn't a dahon folding bike be the fastest thing on the road? How about using scooter tires? Casters?

I don't think so.
filtersweep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 11:32 AM   #8
Cynikal
Team Beer
 
Cynikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sacramento CA
Bikes: Too Many
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuliah Ningsih
Yes, as I've understood it. The rotating weight is the weight that really counts. But only when accellarating.

I think that's easy to comprehend, to some extent anyway.

And you have to accellerate a little even to just keep the speed you know. (if you are not riding in vacuum, and non friction floor and hubs)
It is my understanding that larger, thinner wheels has less rolling resistance.
Cynikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 11:43 AM   #9
ofofhy
Chronic Tai Shan
 
ofofhy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PHL/BAL
Bikes: Pake Single Speed
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is one of those weight weenie things that most people dismiss because the actual savings is not that great. You would do better by dropping a few pounds off your body than by doing anything to the bike. Plus the 700C tires are typically narrower resulting in less rolling resistance.

I am sure Boston Trevor has done the calculations at some point...
ofofhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 12:35 PM   #10
dolface
Iguana Subsystem
 
dolface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: san francisco
Bikes:
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuliah Ningsih
Yes, as I've understood it. The rotating weight is the weight that really counts. But only when accellarating.

I think that's easy to comprehend, to some extent anyway.

And you have to accellerate a little even to just keep the speed you know. (if you are not riding in vacuum, and non friction floor and hubs)
ok, i was just trying to understand what you were asking.

i'm pretty sure that unless you're racing at a world-class level the inertial difference between the two sizes is unnoticeable, so i'd say stick with what you have, and don't worry about it.
dolface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 12:39 PM   #11
bostontrevor
Retrogrouch in Training
 
bostontrevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Bikes:
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ofofhy
I am sure Boston Trevor has done the calculations at some point...
Ha! I haven't but now I'm half tempted to go out and track down rotational inertia formulae and figure out what the exact difference is.

Bigger wheels roll over bigger stuff. This was one of the big advantages of the ordinary over the boneshaker. It took Dunlop's pneumatic tire to bring us back to relatively small, equal-sized wheels without rattling our teeth loose.

Some 26" frames can fit 29" wheels. Case in point: the Surly 1x1. I've done some looking at my MB-2 and I think it might work too, but I'm not particularly interested except in an idle "I wonder" sort of way. It messes with the standover height and handling and you need to change up your brakes (there are canti extenders or you can go disc if you have a discable frame).
bostontrevor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 12:43 PM   #12
SpiderMike
eert a ekil yzarc
 
SpiderMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pasadena TX
Bikes: many bikes
Posts: 2,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_c
dolface - ...I'm guessing that by 28" the original poster is referring to wheels with a 622mm bead seat diameter, a common size. Plus, apparently 622mm has also been called "28 x 1 5/8"

for more info go here http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
I have been doing research on this 29er thing. Test rode a full sus 29er, and the rolling was great. Has me wanting to build up a SS29er. Well anyways, I noticed that some refer to them as 28 inch tires, like the Fat Alberts by Schwalbe. Funny on mtbr's 29er forum, some hate hearing the 28 size reference. It wouldn't get the same backlash as posting in here that you just got the sweetest track frame ever, and added a back brake mount, back brake, and a freewheel.
SpiderMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 12:44 PM   #13
jim-bob
hateful little monkey
 
jim-bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: oakland, ca
Bikes:
Posts: 5,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I like 26" wheels, but I'm also not all that tall.

The difference in acceleration, all other things being equal, is pretty much negligible.
jim-bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-05, 12:46 PM   #14
SpiderMike
eert a ekil yzarc
 
SpiderMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pasadena TX
Bikes: many bikes
Posts: 2,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostontrevor
...Some 26" frames can fit 29" wheels. Case in point: the Surly 1x1. I've done some looking at my MB-2 and I think it might work too, but I'm not particularly interested except in an idle "I wonder" sort of way. It messes with the standover height and handling and you need to change up your brakes (there are canti extenders or you can go disc if you have a discable frame).
This might help you with your wondering

Surly 1x1 convert http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...0&highlight=28

IRO Mia convert http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=101784
SpiderMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 02:39 PM   #15
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by r-dub
fwiw, I'm pretty sure that whatever minute difference there is in inertial moments of 26 v 700 wheels isn't going to drastically affect anyone's performance as a messenger. Training yourself to lock up your bike in under two seconds or climb stairs four at a time would result in a significantly larger improvement in your messengering than fretting over specific bike geometry/component issues.

Well I'm just alot into (trying to) optimizing my life. I'm also about to buy a new bike so I have to figure out witch way to go.

For me it's pretty clear 28" wheels is the best for road racing, I mean that's what everybody use.

While messaging is still on the road it's very different I think from racing. I terms of slowing down or stopping all the time just to take up the speed again. And also a smaller wheel would be tougher, witch is a big issue when messaging as everything wears and brakes.

So, the bottom line is: If a 28" wheel is optimal for road racing then a smaller wheel would be optimal for messaging.

Question is if the optimal is closer to 26" or not.


Or... of course I could be missing something. I generally do in my quest to optimize my life.
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 03:26 PM   #16
bostontrevor
Retrogrouch in Training
 
bostontrevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Bikes:
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You're thinking too hard.
bostontrevor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 04:17 PM   #17
DiegoFrogs
Senior Member
 
DiegoFrogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Bikes: Centurion and Carlton touring bikes, junky Helkama city bike
Posts: 2,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You could put thinner, lighter tires on your 700c wheels... I just put some 700x32's on a wheel that had been running 700x23's for 6 months in order to handle the local potholes and unpaved paths/river trail, and I noticed the HUGE difference in inertia (in the opposite direction). I may go back to the 23's when the road crew has had time to patch up all the winter potholes, but by then I'll want the 32's to deal with the snow.

The design of the rim is more of an issue than it's nominal diameter. If I RELIED on my bike, I don't think I'd have a problem with a little extra rotational inertia if it built a stronger wheel.
DiegoFrogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 06:46 PM   #18
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostontrevor
You're thinking too hard.
I know... But I can't help it.
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 07:05 PM   #19
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoFrogs
I just put some 700x32's on a wheel that had been running 700x23's for 6 months in order to handle the local potholes and unpaved paths/river trail, and I noticed the HUGE difference in inertia (in the opposite direction).
This really supports my theory! *very exited* Do your bike feel heavier when climbing uphill or is it just slow when accellarating? Or both?
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-05, 07:48 PM   #20
DiegoFrogs
Senior Member
 
DiegoFrogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Bikes: Centurion and Carlton touring bikes, junky Helkama city bike
Posts: 2,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've mostly felt it while accelerating, but it's a tradeoff that I'll make to have a more comfortable ride. The difference probably isn't that great, and I may even ride faster since I don't feel as though I have to slow down for poor road conditions, and I may just be a little too "Detail-oriented" or "anal-retentive", depending on your point of view. I still prefer the ride of the thicker, lower pressure, grippier tire to the one that may be faster.
DiegoFrogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-05, 06:02 AM   #21
p3ntuprage
Senior Member
 
p3ntuprage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: birmingham
Bikes: a tvt soon to become a s/s...
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
?

fsnl
sparky
p3ntuprage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-05, 09:42 AM   #22
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, well... Maybe that one wouldn't be my first choice for messaging despite it's small wheels and great looks.
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-05, 02:27 PM   #23
travsi
i don't stop
 
travsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: basel, switzerland
Bikes: soma rush, giro
Posts: 1,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p3ntuprage
?
i've ridden one of these bikes, it was quite smooth, comfortable and felt almost like a road bike. but the sight of it was enough not to want one.
travsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-05, 07:40 PM   #24
honduraz10
Bikes are Fun
 
honduraz10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
there is a alight benefit for 26 wheels as stated above but wouldnt the increased friction produced by hubs rotating at a higher rpm cancel it out?
honduraz10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-05, 12:28 AM   #25
Zuliah Ningsih
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by honduraz10
there is a alight benefit for 26 wheels as stated above but wouldnt the increased friction produced by hubs rotating at a higher rpm cancel it out?
Off course your reasoning is right to some extent but I don't think the hubs increased speed friction will be noticable, though the bearings will wear out a little bit faster.

No the big wheels advantage is the ground will relatively towards the wheels be more flat if the wheels are bigger. And that is very noticable. We all know a flat road is faster than a rough one.

But I also think the lesser inertia with smaller wheels is noticable. But it's only when starting and a little bit when accelerating and uphill.

Off course you are rolling all the time and only accelerating sometimes...
Zuliah Ningsih is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 PM.