|
With my model, I varied the wheel mass, wheel
inertia, and wheel aerodynamic variables
independently to come up with the data in the
following table:

So, what do all these numbers mean? It means
that when evaluating wheel performance,
wheel aerodynamics are the most important,
distantly followed by wheel mass.
Wheel inertia effects in all cases are so small
that they are arguably insignificant.
How can it be that wheel inertial forces are
nearly insignificant, when the advertisements
say that inertia is so important? Quite simply,
inertial forces are a function of acceleration.
In bike racing this peak acceleration is about
.1 to .2 g’s and is generally only seen when
beginning from an initial velocity of 0 (see
criterium race data in
Appendix D ). Furthermore, the 0.3kg/0.66lb
difference in wheels, even if this mass is out
at the rim, is so small compared to your body
mass that the differences in wheel inertia will
be unperceivable. Any difference in acceleration
due to bicycle wheels that is claimed by your
riding buddies is primarily due to cognitive
dissonance, or the placebo effect (they paid a
lot of money for the wheels so there must be
some perceivable gain).
The following table illustrates how other
variables in the power equation affect overall
performance.

It can be seen that rider aerodynamics
dominates the power requirements of racing
bikes. Frame and combined wheel effects are
roughly equivalent, and it is interesting to
note how power requirements are affected by
rolling resistance changes in the examples.
Roughly, the average rider power requirements on
a course with a zero net elevation gain is
broken down into 60% rider drag, 8% wheel drag,
8% frame drag, 12% rolling resistance .5% wheel
inertia forces and 8% bike/rider inertia. The
uphill TT example given is a special case where
the rider aerodynamics and the bike/rider weight
have nearly equal contributions to power –
somewhere around 35% each with wheel mass
contributing around 1%. The steeper the hill,
the more important mass becomes and the less
important aerodynamics becomes. In all cases,
however, there is approximately 3% of the
average power unaccounted for.
Drive train losses and flexing of bicycle
components can be placed into the miscellaneous
term of the power equation. Even though these
flexural losses are miniscule when compared to
wheel inertial power requirements, lateral
stiffness/deflection of wheels has its place in
a performance analysis. My requirements are
rather simple: road wheels should not rub brake
pads during sprints and out of the saddle
climbing, provided there is 2mm/0.079in of
pad/rim clearance on either side. For reference,
2mm is the clearance when your dual pivot brakes
are opened up, yet they still have sufficient
braking power available.
In summary, wheels account for almost 10% of
the total power required to race your bike and
the dominant factor in wheel performance is
aerodynamics. Wheel mass is a second order
effect (nearly 10 times less significant) and
wheel inertia is a third order effect (nearly
100 times less significant). The best wheels in
terms of performance are the ones that are
lightweight, aerodynamic, don’t rub brake pads
and are strong enough to get you to the finish
line. The problem with these high performance
wheels, though, is that they sacrifice on the
other two key variables important in wheel
selection: durability and price. High
performance wheels are neither durable nor
cheap. Nothing is ever easy, is it?
Let BikeTechReview.com help you find the fastest
wheel:
read more here.
Thanks for visiting BikeTechReview.com!
|