I'm looking into getting a folding bike and would like to know what the main differences between riding on 16" and 20" wheels are? I've riding 20" wheels before (but not on a folding bike) but not 16".

Basically, are 16" alot slower than 20" wheels? Meaning do I have to work alot harder to go the equivalent speed if I were on 20" wheels (all other things being equal)? Are they ok in going down steep hills?

"Slow" has got nothing to do with wheel size. It has to do with bad tyres, wrong gearing and maybe over tightened bearrings. I think you would benefit from reading some of the old posts in the forum.

Also read:

https://www.google.no/search?q=small...hrome&ie=UTF-8

read this:

https://www.bikeforums.net/folding-bi...ead-first.html

When I was test riding, the only real difference I noticed was that big cracks and potholes were not only more jarring on the smaller wheel, but sometimes would affect my steering if I was not very careful. Kind of like going over railroad tracks with a regular bike, as an example. As long as you pay attention to what you are doing (which means good lights if you ride at night), it is fine. I ended up with 20" wheels because the roads I use are just the crappiest and will probably never get fixed.

Air volume is generally more so ride is less jarring.

There are 4.. 349 is a High pressure performance 16". 305 , rim smaller tire wider ..

451 and 406 are the 2 in 20".. 406 is the most common as its the BMX bike size..

A 349 - 32 (Schwabe Kojack) at 100+ psi , if its slow the rider is just slacking.


Measured difference is the circumference, so for a measured mile the number of times a 20" wheel
will rotate, vs A 16" wheel can be calculated..






./.

a 16" and 20" would be only equal if the roads are perfect I find. BUT if you have typical roads with lots of cracks and potholes then the ride between the two would be huge, with the 20" being the much better ride. This is from experience because I own a 26" bike 20" bike and a 14" tire size folder and commute daily with them swapping rides often for fun. on my commute there's sections that are just feeling like cobbles and with my 20" I already feel like it slows down due to the wheel size angle of attack. While with my 26" I barely feel any slowdown as it floats over pretty much all of it without a hiccup. Forget about the 14" with that I just try to avoid it all together. Also the tires I'm using for the 20" is schwalbe surpreme in the front and big apple in the rear, while the 26" is on fat franks, the bike accelerates like a slow truck but once it gets moving it's nice.

I would only choose a 16" wheelsize if space is a concern on where you need to park it or where you are taking it through.

thanks for the links. Ill be sure to check them out.

Azreal - It sounds like 16" wheels might not be the way to go. I noticed the lack of steering stability with 20" wheels so the issue would be greater magnified with 16" wheels, correct?

16 inch wheeled folders usually have a smaller fold than 20 inchers. Size shouldn't make a difference on speed;
gearing, type of tire would have more of an effect. In this video; I'm on a 16inch wheeled folding bike passing
bikes with bigger sizes; 20, 26, 700, etc.:

Have gone up and down steep hills many times with my Brompton; 9W, River Rd., Little Red lighthouse, etc.
Never had an issue. Stability will be affected more by head tube angle/rake and maybe wheelbase. I feel in
control when riding my folder with 16 in. wheels:

I ride two folding bikes, one with 16" wheels and the other with 20" wheels. I find the one with 16" wheels feels less twitchy than the 20". I don't know the reason for this...better frame geometry? Shrug. I guess what I'm saying is a test ride of each bike would probably reveal which is better or better for you.

One nice thing with small wheels is that you can accelerate quickly from stopped.

Wheel size has little to do with speed for the majority of riders. Speed is a matter of gearing choices and the rider's abilities.

As for ride quality/characteristics it's more than just a matter of wheels size. You have to take the bike's build and geometry as well as tire choice into consideration... along with other factors.

Ceteris parabis ...

(1) folded size
(2) you would expect smaller wheels to have more resistance
(3) the smaller wheel will lower geometric trail
(4) you have greater tire/rim/spoke selection -- especially nice ones -- in 406/20".
(5) gearing is lower with 16" wheels.

Now you can compensate for these things but often run into limits in one way or another.

It's just physics and a sliding scale of compromises. All else being equal (eg, tires/geometry), the smaller the wheel:

- the quicker the handling, less stability at speed
- the more jarring the ride, less inherent "suspension"
- the lesser the roll-over capability over obstacles
- the smaller the fold

If all you need to do is store/transport a bike inside a trunk without weather/theft concerns, then a 26" wheeled bike that folds in half can give you a full normal bike experience, including mountain biking. A 20" folds a lot smaller, is squarely in the "suitcase" category of where I'm willing to take my bike, and can do some mild off-roading, but is just a little too big/unwieldy to frequently take "inside" with me and therefore gets lock-up a lot. For me, a 16" bike crosses into the "carry-on" size category for me (particularly if it wheels well while folded like a Brompton), and now I'm willing to take it inside a Starbuck, or grocery store, etc.

So, while the larger wheels can be ridden more places, more comfortably, the smaller wheels can taken more places, more comfortably. Where you want be along that continuum is a very personal decision, but the real answer is, of course, to have a few across the whole spectrum.

Exactly so....both my Moultons prove this point.

Later Moultons seem to have switched to 406. Although I think that for most folks, choosing between 16 and 20" should be based on something other than performance.

when i bought my first folder 10 years ago, i test rode a variety of 20" and 16" wheel folders.

i much preferred the ride quality of the 20" wheel for chicago's FAR less than perfect streets.

and i wasn't looking for absolute maximum compactibility, so i went with a 20" wheel folder.

it seemed like the best balance between ride quality and folded size for what i was looking for.

but if you're planning to take your folder on a bus/train for everyday multi-modal commuting, then a smaller wheel is probably the better way to go.

The 16" rim has less capacity to store and shed braking heat than the 20" wheel. For long downhills and if you are heavy, the 20" is the way too go.

Having a Brompton, a Birdy with 18" wheels, and another Birdy with 20" wheels, i find that the bigger wheels are faster. All three bikes are fitted with Kojaks, the Birdies have similar gearing. The Brompton has the tallest gearing, but can't keep up with either Birdy.

If I am going to take a flight, the Brompton will go with me because it folds the smallest. For long rides and tours, I'll use the 20" Birdy.

Because the 16 inch wheel will turn more revolutions per mile, the tires will wear out faster.

thanks for the info guys. I think I'm sold on the 20" wheels as I don't really need the portability of the 16" size. It sounds like that would be the main consideration.

I suggest that you don't limit yourself to 20" but be prepared to also test ride bikes with other size wheels if they are available.

What is best for different surfaces and needs depends upon a lot more than just wheel diameter.

If comfort on rough pavement or cobbles is a high priority, the tires will be a major factor and if tires are similar the most comfortable folding bike I have found is Birdy.

Although tire diameter is significant and the Birdy's tires are only 355's (not much larger than a Brompton's), its road tuned suspension on both wheels provides greater comfort on rough roads than any 20" folder or any road bike that I have ridden. Even hard-tail (front suspension only) 26" tire mountain bikes in my experience need tires that are much wider or tubeless to achieve equivalent comfort.

This thread is making my head hurt. I can get someone wondering about the difference between 700C and 26", but the difference between 16" and 20" is STARK. On a track maybe not, but in the real world, no maybe about it. Oh, of course you can design a suspension or something to level the playing field but... I don't know... for $500 I can get a decent 20" folder. The (possibly) equivalent 16" folder will cost $1500. For me that's a deal-breaker. And we haven't even talked about GEARING. Has anyone in this thread observed that even on a 20" a 53T x 11T top gear will likely underwhelm? A 16" folder is for a specific niche of usage IMO. If I had a boat or small airplane I might consider one. I can't see bothering to make a comparison with a 20". There isn't any. You either need one or you do not.