The PERFECT Recumbent - Wheel Size

Just for the record, 29ers use a 700C rim diameter, but use a much wider tire - like in the 3" range.

 

My first two 'bents had a 406/559 combo which seemed to work well. Now I use a 406/700c config which I like better.

I have long been a tire nerd. I have found that the tires make just about as much difference as anything else.

I generally like the German tires (Conti, Schwalbe) best.

I have always overinflated my tires 10% with NO problems.

 

Schwalbe are my favorites though I have never overinflated them. Thanks for the tip! I think I will give it a try.

 

It's been shown that overinflating your tires really doesn't lower rolling resistance. About all it does is give you a rougher ride. Sometimes, the extra rebound from extra-hard tires can actually slow you down.

 

I don't understand how larger wheels/tires are supposed to have less rolling resistance -- the contact patch is larger, which should equate to more resistance. This is one reason 29ers are in vogue for MTB -- not only smoother over bumps, but more traction. I think larger wheels have greater angular momentum, which helps in retaining speed.

20" wheels -- better laterally, and generally stronger with the shorter spokes. Look at all the crazy jumps and stunts BMX riders do with no suspension. Also easier to accelerate from a stop.

So for urban traffic with a lot of stop 'n go, and manuevering around sidewalk corners, etc., dual 20s are better. For straight-away speed, a 26" or 700cc rear is better.

Now which rear would be better for climbing?

 

IMHO I think 26" would be better, but what really makes for good climbing is the type of gearing in the back.

 

Dug up an old one, eh Serenity. I like the 26" on the back of the Cheetah. If the frame had been large enough I would have gone with 26" all around on the Venom instead of the 520 (24").

I do like the 24" for a few reasons. Small enough not to have much flex under acceleration and spins up pretty fast. Large enough to be smoother on rough roads.

While we are resurrecting things I thought I would throw my 2 cents in about wider tires being faster. I will start by using the law of diminishing returns as the basis for my reasoning. A 25 or 28mm width is probably faster than a 19 or 23mm width tire on rough roads. The pros have special wide tubulars made for races that run on the cobbles. Tom Boonan won Paris RouBaix on FMB 700 x 27mm tires. I am sure that if 35mm tires were faster the pros would ride them.

So, the take home message is you are not going to be faster on those 2" wide Big Apples.

 

I personally don't care which size my wheels/tire are as long as they are medium to skinny. I just don't like the looks of big fat tires. They make me think of tractor tires and heavy equipment and the like. Medium/skinny tires are sleek and trim, neat looking classy etc. Oh well to each his/her own.

 

I don't think its possible to answer this question, at least not for me. I think the debatable consensus is that big wheels are faster, and I love the 700mm wheels on my lightweight road bike. On the other hand, I'm short and I can't ride a low racer with a big front wheel. Heck I can't even ride a high racer with dual 700s - at least not if I want to touch the ground with my feet when I stop. For that, I need a 26/20 or some such animal. On a trike I like the catrikes with 700 on the rear and 16s on the front, but i hated my Wave's 16" front wheel. I've also always thought I would like a 24/24 Corsa, but it is hard to get good tires for them. In summary, it just depends on the design of the bike and how tall or short you are.

 

You might like the later model Catrike 700, as it has 406 tires up front. More stable and larger diameter. The age old "is bigger faster" argument may never be settled. Larger might seem faster simply cuz, for a given gear ratio and cadence, it turns faster than a smaller diameter. Of course it's also easier to blow out a knee and then "fast" depends on how hard one pushes the wheelchair.

 

Barcroft Oregon vs Barcroft Montana

I'm fortunate to own two Barcroft bikes with almost identical geometry, other than the wheelsize. The Oregon is a near low-racer with 451 wheels and the Montana is a very similar bike but with 700c wheels. The rides are remarkably different. The low Oregon has a much more sports-car like zoom zoom feel. It's much better on steep hills. This might be because it is lighter, but I also feel like more ability to "meld" with the bike going uphill. On the other hand, the larger-wheeled Montana glides almost effortly once its up to speed. On the rather flat W&OD trail, I've thought I was going 15-16 mph but found that I was actually in the low 20s. On the other hand, I really struggled when using it in the Appalachians. On balance, I'm still not sure which is the faster bike. I think I'll use the Montana for long-distance touring, but when I'm trying to race (informally), I'll use the Montana.

 

: I'm confused :

 

The perfect recumbent tire is one that is not flat!!

 

correction

I meant to say that when I'm "racing" I'll use the Oregon.

 

Makes sense now. Thanks!