Originally Posted by Temeraroius
You are totally wrong, it is easier to accelerate with smaller wheels because there is lower rotational inertia.
There are no two 10# barbells in any gym that weigh the same.
I did a little demonstration for a friend the other day. I took off my wireless cyclo-computer and handed it to him. I flipped my bike upside down. I braced my thumb against the fork and flicked the front wheel with just my pinkie finger (this is a 29er wheel (and a "heavy one at that XT/Rhynolite with straight 14G spokes)). What did the gauge read
5 mph.
That's right, with just a little flick up my weakest finger I could get the wheels up to
5mph. I am not the Incredible Hulk. I do not do pinkie curls. What do you think would happen if I used the largest muscle groups in my body to do the same task?
Temeraroius, you didn't read what I wrote before. You did not understand the argument before you responded. The assertion that your making is ridiculous because of the magnitude of the energy required to spin up even HEAVY 29er wheels vs the energy required to propel the combined mass of YOU, your water and your non rotating bicycle parts.
Yes a larger wheel DOES have a greater inertia. But it is a VERY small piece of the pie. It is like claiming you can get better gas mileage by leaving the spare tire at home. Technically, this is true. But you won't get much and it neglects the very real need for that particular item. You would get similar benefits from using a smaller wheel as you would get from not bringing water with you.
This "greater wheel inertia" argument is silly, stupid and ridiculous. It's not a factor. You might as well negotiate to the penny while buying the bike.