Optimizing Bicycle Performance: Where Should Mass Be Removed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TSN79
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bicycle Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the optimization of bicycle performance through mass reduction, specifically debating whether it is more effective to remove mass from the tires or the frame. Participants explore the implications of mass removal on acceleration, constant velocity, and overall energy efficiency in cycling.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that removing mass from the tires is more beneficial due to the effects of rotational inertia during acceleration, while others suggest this is less significant at constant velocity.
  • One participant cites the relationship T = I α, arguing that decreasing the moment of inertia (I) lowers the required torque for acceleration, emphasizing the importance of tire mass reduction.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that while reducing tire mass can be effective, the actual amount of mass that can be removed from tires may be limited due to their structural integrity.
  • It is noted that removing unsprung weight, such as by using lightweight tires and rims, can significantly enhance acceleration and hill-climbing performance.
  • Participants discuss the potential benefits of lightweight components like carbon composite rims and butted spokes, suggesting that these changes can yield more noticeable performance improvements than frame weight reduction.
  • One participant expresses surprise at the impact of a relatively small mass reduction (500g) on performance, indicating a reliance on experiential insights.
  • There is a suggestion that reducing mass in the drivetrain could also contribute to performance improvements, though it may be less effective than reducing wheel mass.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that removing mass from the wheels is more effective than from the frame, particularly in relation to acceleration. However, there is no consensus on the exact amount of mass that can be realistically removed from tires or the drivetrain's impact compared to wheel mass.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations regarding the structural integrity of tires and the practicalities of mass reduction, as well as the varying effectiveness of different components in achieving performance gains.

TSN79
Messages
422
Reaction score
0
If we are to remove mass from a bicycle, does it have a better effect to remove this mass from the tires instead of the frame due to rotation and such? One opinion states that this is eminence only during acceleration and not during constant velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are not concerned with tire strength then this is true simply from the aspect of

[tex]T = I \alpha[/tex]

If you decrease I, then the required torque for the same angular acceleration is lower. If you are at a constant velocity, the only torque required will be that to overcome reisistances like aerodynamic and rolling.

That being said, from what I have seen, bike tires are pretty flimsy to begin with. Are you really going to be able to take that much off to produce a noticeable result? I would think the frame would be the logical place to start looking, but I am not a cycling enthusiast.
 
If you want to reduce the energy needed to get to a certain speed, then it is indeed better to remove mass from the wheels than from the non-spinning parts.
 
In agreement with what's been said, you will find it easy to remove 'unsprung' weight from a bike by replacing normal (steel beaded) tyres with lightweight kevlar beaded ones. This is cheap, and effective, and you'll really notice it when accelerating and climbing hills.

Then, think about your rims. Carbon composite ones, or just really good lightweight alloys (depending on your riding style) can take a vast amount of weight from the outer reaches of your wheels, and again will improve acceleration, deceleration and hill-climbing performance.

Then, start to think about butted Cr-Mo spokes, and some decent hubs.

Taking 500g off your wheels is FAR more worthwhile than taking 500g off your frame. Fred speaks with wisdom, but is unaware of the benefits of kevlar beaded tyres! :smile:
 
A half a kilogram? Yowza. I am amazed that that little bit of mass makes that much of a difference, but I yeild to experience.
 
Well, most situations probably wouldn't allow quite as much of a saving as as 500g per wheel, but the point remains, removing rotating mass is FAR more effective than removing mass just from the frame.
 
I would think that anything you can do to reduce the mass/resistance of the drivetrain would help to an extent somewhere between that of the wheels and the frame. Low-friction chain/sprockets; composite gears and cranks with biggest allowable lightning holes; maximum-efficiency bearings, etc.. (Personally, though, I'd just put a motor on the bloody thing.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K