See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343453889

Development of an improved design methodology and front steering design

guideline for small-wheel bicycles for better stability and performance

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · September 2020
DOI: 10.1177/1754337120919608

CITATIONS READS

2 682

2 authors:

Milan Paudel Fook Fah Yap

Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
13 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   1,242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stability improvement of small wheel bicycles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Milan Paudel on 18 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
2020, Vol. 234(3) 227–244
Development of an improved design Ó IMechE 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
methodology and front steering design sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1754337120919608

guideline for small-wheel bicycles for journals.sagepub.com/home/pip

better stability and performance

Milan Paudel1,2 and Fook Fah Yap1

Abstract
The maneuverability and compactness of small-wheel and folding bicycles are greatly appreciated. Nonetheless, the per-
formance of these small-wheel bicycles as compared to the big-wheel bicycles has always been questioned. They are
often blamed for being less stable, wobbly, or twitchy. It is still unclear how the performance of the small-wheel bicycle
designs can be improved. Both small- and big-wheel bicycles are designed with similar ergonomics; therefore, the focus
has been on the front steering design. The steering design parameters of 91 big-wheel and 27 small-wheel bicycles were
compared, bearing in mind the available front steering design guidelines to understand: (1) the influence of big-wheel
bicycle’s frame design on small-wheel bicycles and (2) most common range of design parameters used in current bicycle
designs. The analysis showed a strong influence of current big-wheel bicycle design practice on front frame parameter
selection of small-wheel bicycles. Furthermore, the self-stability comparison over the most common design range con-
firmed the lesser stability in the current small-wheel bicycle designs at normal riding speed. However, it was also found
that the lesser stability was not the result of small wheels per se, but rather owing to an inadequacy in the current design
approach to addressing the complex influence of reducing wheel size and bicycle frame design on its stability and perfor-
mance. Therefore, an improved design methodology was adopted by incorporating the bicycle dynamics into the current
design approach and the front steering design guidelines for small-wheel bicycles have been developed. The guidelines
contradict the current small-wheel bicycle design practice, as they recommend steeper headtube angles for small-wheel
bicycles. The guidelines were validated with good agreement between the theoretical and experimental results on two
prototype 20-inch-wheel bicycles having counter-intuitive steering geometry.

Keywords
Bicycle design, design philosophy, front steering design, performance comparison, wheel size, self-stability

Date received: 4 December 2018; accepted: 26 March 2020

Introduction available in the market; for example, mountain bikes,

racing bikes, road bikes, and touring bikes. The frame
The bicycle has a history of more than two centuries. shape could be different in these bicycles. However, the
Since the invention of the first bicycle in 1819 by Karl principal design and most importantly, the wheel size
Von Darrius, it has undergone various design modifica- have changed little since the evolution of the Diamond
tions before evolving into the Diamond frame safety frame safety bicycle. Most of the adult bicycles use 26-
bicycle in 1890.1 The safety bicycle had two equal-sized
pneumatic tires, rear drivetrain, brakes, and a steering
mechanism. The modern-day bicycle design still resem- 1
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological
bles the primary design of the safety bicycle. However, University, Singapore
the advancement in engineering and technology, along 2
Institute for Sports Research, Nanyang Technological University,
with the improvement in material science, have enabled Singapore
efficient transmission and lightweight designs. As a
Corresponding author:
result, bicycles were widely accepted as the means of Fook Fah Yap, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang
transportation and concurrently used for sports and Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
recreation. Nowadays, a plethora of bicycle design is Email: [email protected]
228 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

to 29-inch diameter wheels. In this article, these wheel foldable design allows storage in limited space inside
sizes are referred to as ‘‘big-wheeled bicycles.’’ These the office and small city apartments, while also enabling
wheel sizes became dominant over a long period of time easy commuting.
because big wheels roll more distance per cadence com- However, it is a well-known fact that the small-
pared to small wheels and provide a comfortable ride in wheel bicycle does not ride comparable to its big-wheel
uneven terrain, bumps, and small road depressions. counterparts. Therefore, despite having various advan-
Despite the dominance of larger wheels, the desire for tages over the big wheels, the ridability of the small-
compact and portable bicycles led to the invention of wheel bicycles has always been questioned. The ridabil-
smaller wheels and small-wheel bicycles. ity can be defined as how easily an average rider can
The history of small-wheel bicycles goes back to the stay upright and maneuver the bicycle. The lesser rid-
French cyclist tourist Paul de Vivie, known as Velocio, ability in terms of stability, handling, and safety in
in the early 1900s.2 He reduced diameter but increased smaller wheels has been reported in some articles,10
cross-sectional area of the tire. The idea was to main- blogs,11,12 and talk.13 The ride of these small-wheel
tain the same air volume and pressure used in big bicycles is often described as ‘‘less stable,’’‘‘wobbly,’’
wheelers. In addition, the increased tire cross-sectional and ‘‘twitchy.’’ The difference in the riding performance
area compensated for the unpleasant ride of small can be appreciated with hands-free riding at normal
wheelers. The next person who advocated for the small- riding speed, approximately 15–17 km/h. It is relatively
wheel bicycle was Alex Moulton. Unlike Velocio, easy to perform hands-free riding in big-wheel bicycles,
Moulton introduced small size, but high-pressure tires, but it becomes increasingly difficult once wheel size is
around the early 1960s. Moulton bicycles also incorpo- reduced. It is interesting to note that both the small-
rated a suspension system to eliminate the rough ride wheel bicycle and big-wheel bicycle are structurally
caused by the high-pressure wheels.3 The Moulton similar, yet there is a huge difference in riding perfor-
design was a great success at that time and is the pio- mance. Since the major difference in their design is the
neer for today’s small-wheel bicycle designs. The next wheel diameter, most people assume the smaller wheel
revolution in the field of small-wheel bicycles was dri- size causes the difference in performance. However,
ven by the desire for compact, portable, and folding there is virtually no literature that has investigated the
bicycles so that it would be convenient to carry or store performance discrepancy in these small-wheel bicycles
in a limited space. The breakthrough design ‘‘Bickerton or suggested possible design improvements. In order to
Portables’’ was launched in 1970 by Harry Bickerton. address this discrepancy in the bicycle performances, it
He used aluminum alloy material and invented hinges is essential to understand the fundamentals of the
for folding the bicycles.4 Inspired by the Bickerton por- design approach, the essence of their dynamic behavior
tables, since 1976, Andrew Ritchie started designing the and working of a bicycle-rider system.
folding bicycles called ‘‘Brompton’’ using multiple The fundamental technique in balancing a bicycle is
hinges.5 In 1982, an American inventor, David Hon, to steer in the direction of the fall. If a rider falls toward
started the production of ‘‘Dahon bicycle,’’ which is the right side, the rider should steer the bicycle toward
currently one of the largest small-wheel bicycle manu- the right to restore balance.14 The current steering geo-
facturers. Some renowned names in the small-wheel metry and mechanism of the bicycle are so elegant that
bicycle industry today are Moulton, Dahon, Brompton, they have the ability to automatically steer the bicycle
Bike Friday, Bickerton portables, Airnimals, Birdy, into the direction of fall. As a result, a rider without his
and so on. or her hands on the handlebar or even a riderless
In recent years, there has been an accelerated growth bicycle can remain upright when pushed forward with
in the popularity of these small-wheel bicycles in many sufficient speed. The hands-free riding is a qualitative
modern and crowded cities. As a result, the sales rate of approach to examine the stability of a bicycle design.15
these small-wheel bicycles is also increasing.6,7 The In addition, hands-free riding is also a good test for bal-
major disadvantages of the small wheelers have already ancing and handling.16 For stable design configuration,
been overcome with the advancement in engineering riders do not have to provide excessive manual control
and manufacturing technologies. The invention of effi- to ride the bicycle because a part of required steering
cient multi-speed gear and battery-powered devices control is provided by the design itself. As small-wheel
assists riders in propulsion. Furthermore, smooth roads bicycles are perceived to be less stable compared to big-
and improved suspension mechanisms and tires provide wheel bicycles and the danger of overturning is
a comfortable ride. Thus, distance and comfort are not greater,17 the chances a rider will lose control when
an issue. In addition, urbanization has caused people to encountered with obstacles, potholes, or a sudden gust
migrate toward cities, thereby causing overcrowding.8 of wind also increases. Therefore, the current need is to
In such a scenario, consumer preference is often toward investigate the possible design modifications on current
compact and portable devices.9 The use of small wheels small-wheel bicycles in order to improve their perfor-
allows manufacturers to design for compactness and mance, which is the function of overall mass, rider’s
portability. The portability and compactness of small- position, and geometrical configurations.
wheel bicycles make them very suitable for riding in In the current design practice, parameters such as
narrow bike lanes and pavement. In addition, the the height of the saddle, the height of the handlebar,
Paudel and Yap 229

saddle to handlebar reach, reach and stack should be As the design philosophy and methodology have
maintained almost the same for both small- and big- remained almost stagnant over a long period of time,
wheel bicycles for ergonomic reasons. Therefore, the the current design practice is also referred to as conven-
overall position and posture of a rider are almost the tional design practice in this article. The current design
same for both small- and big-wheel adult bicycles. of the bicycle is a result of the design philosophies of
Although the position of the rider and posture affect various frame designers and manufacturers with years
the ridability and stability performance, the geometry of modifications and experiences in frame design. Some
of the front steering system is very crucial for the over- of the design philosophies from well-known frame
all performance. A large number of guidelines, empiri- builders are presented here:
cal formulae, and design charts are available for proper
positioning of the rider; also called the ‘‘Rider’s fit.’’  Paul Proteus:19
However, the precise guidelines for selecting an appro- The first step in building your frame is to design such
priate steering geometry are very limited. Almost all a frame that will meet your needs and at the same time
the available guidelines were developed for big-wheel fit your body.
bicycles, and no guidelines have been developed for  Richard P. Talbot:20
small-wheel bicycles. In the end, the geometries are
selected empirically. Develop a design that will best fulfil the specific use while
Through years of design modifications and experi- wasting minimum of the cyclist’s energy.
ence, the effects of front design parameters, such as var-
Establish the geometry that will fit the cyclist’s anat-
iations in headtube angle and trail, were qualitatively
omy in a way to facilitate the use of his muscles in the
known. For example, decreasing the headtube angle
most efficient manner possible for the purpose of
and increasing the trail make bicycle’s steering sluggish
propulsion.
and increasing the headtube angle, and decreasing the
trail makes bicycle’s steering more responsive. The  Michael and Denise:21
progress on understanding the bicycle-rider system Most of the custom frame builders use rider’s body speci-
dynamics 18 allows for quantifying and comparing the fication for the proper design of the frame.
performance of any bicycle design configuration in  Association of British cycling coaches (ABCC):22
terms of their self-stability, as well as analyzing the
effect of parameter variations. The quantitative analysis In order to make effective use of your fitness, the rid-
of bicycle design could provide deep insight into current ing position on your road bike must be correct. This
design methodology and performance. In addition, it involves the optimum setting of your three points of
also helps understand if the front steering geometry contact with the bike: pedals, saddle and handlebars.
design guidelines for the big wheelers are directly appli-
cable to small wheelers. Furthermore, using the quanti- The aforementioned design philosophies suggest that
tative approach, there is a possibility to improve the the intended purpose and rider’s fit are the prime objec-
stability performance of the small-wheel bicycle by tives of all the bicycle frame designers. Here, the term
appropriately selecting overall design configuration, ‘‘rider’s fit’’ is associated with the ergonomics of the
riders on the bicycle. A common approach is to mea-
especially the front steering geometry.
The aim of this article is to develop the design guide- sure the rider’s anthropomorphic parameters as an
input and use sets of empirical formula, charts, or
lines to improve the current small-wheel bicycle designs
graphs to size the bicycle frame. Table 1 presents the
for better performance, such as stability, steering
list of some common approaches for selecting different
responsiveness, and ridability. The article provides
ergonomic parameters based on rider’s anthropo-
detailed information on current bicycle design metho-
morphic parameters. Figure 1 depicts the major frame
dology, the influence of this methodology on small-
design parameters of a typical modern-day bicycle. The
wheel bicycle frame design, and its effects on their per-
parameters shown in the figure are very crucial in terms
formances. A well-defined and validated mathematical
of a rider’s ergonomics and overall performance of the
model has been used as a tool to quantify and compare
bicycle. The guidelines related to the ergonomic para-
the performance of typical bicycles designed with cur-
meters work well with the current bicycle design; thus
rent frame design methodology. Finally, a new bicycle
they can be considered well established and accepted.
design methodology has been adopted, and steering
Unlike the ergonomic parameter-selection guide-
geometry design guidelines have been developed that
lines, the steering geometry, bicycle stability, balancing,
would enable small-wheel bicycles to have the same
and handling are very complex and poorly understood.
level of stability performance as big-wheel bicycles.
The parameters for front steering geometry, such as
headtube angle and trail, are selected mostly based on
experience or trial and error methods. The general per-
The current bicycle design approach
ception is that the shallower headtube angle and longer
This section presents a review of the philosophies and trail make bicycles stable in the straight ride,26 but less
methodologies underlying the current bicycle designs. responsive to handlebar control. On the contrary, the
230 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

Table 1. Some guidelines to select appropriate ergonomic parameters.

Parameters Reference Selection guideline

Seat tube length ABCC22 Two-third of inseam length

Condor bicycle21 Inseam length – 9 inches
BikeCAD23 65% of inseam length
Top tube Paterek24 Based on seat-tube length
ABCC22 Based on trunk, forearm, and total arm length
Stack to reach ratio Olds25 1.4–1.5  
Seat tube angle ABCC22 Seat tube angle = cos1 0:264thigh length
lower leg length

ABCC: Association of British Cycling Coaches.

Figure 1. Basic frame design and ergonomic parameters.

steeper headtube angle and shorter trail give bicycles a

nervous feeling. As a rule of thumb, most of the frame
builders suggest an ideal trail value of approximately 56
mm to provide better stability and agility.6,27–29 Some
of the available guidelines for designing the front frame
geometry are discussed here.
The standardization of the bicycles ‘‘Cycles—Safety
requirement for bicycles, Part 2 (BS EN ISO 4210-
2:2015)’’30 has recommended a guideline to design front
steering geometry to make bicycles as safe as possible
and ensure their stability. The ISO recommended guide-
line is depicted in Figure 2 and the other criteria are
presented in Table 2. It should be noted that the ISO
recommendations for bicycle safety do not allow nega-
tive fork-offset in the bicycle. This might be the reason
for backward bending of front forks in many road
bicycles or forward shifting of front forks from head-
tube, as can be found in many mountain bicycle front Figure 2. ISO-recommended front steering design criteria.
frame designs. Davison’s formula31 recommends fork
offset and trail to be equal. Jones32 computed the line
of constant stability (d2 H=dadl) relating headtube angle of wheel size, headtube angle, and stability parameter
and front projection. The line of constant stability was (SP).31 According to the Jones stability criteria, the SP
used to develop front steering design guideline in terms should be negative for stable bicycles, and for normal
Paudel and Yap 231

Table 2. Front steering geometry design guidelines for bicycles.

Guideline Design criteria

ISO-recommended Fork offset ðf Þ = R  ð1  KÞ  cosðlÞ

criteria30 Trail ðcÞ = R  K  tanðsÞ
654l475 and 0:15R4K40:65R
Davison’s formula31 Fork Offset ðf Þ = R tanðs=2Þ
Trail ðcÞ = ðR sin s  R tanðs=2ÞÞ= cos s
Jones stability Front fork ðf Þ = R cos sð0:36ðSPÞ + 0:183sÞ
criteria31,32
Schwinn/Calspan TrailðcÞ = ðVI 2  iF  cos sÞ=ðZF  l  RÞ
criteria34,35

R: radius of wheel; K: distance measured from ground to a point where

steering axis intersects the vertical line from wheel center; l: headtube
angle; s: 90  l; SP: Jones stability parameter; VI : inversion velocity; Figure 3. Comparison of available front-frame design
iF : Moment of inertia of wheel about spin axis; ZF : vertical force on front guidelines and current bicycle design.
wheel; l: wheelbase; ISO: International Standards Organization.
criteria are based on the mathematical model, giving
due consideration to the dynamics of the bicycle. These
criteria suggested approximately constant trail values.
and racing bicycles, the values is approximately –5. All the big-wheel bicycles were well within the ISO
Jones stability criteria31 was one of the widely recom- recommended criteria. However, bicycle front design
mended front steering design guidelines. However, the parameters were closer to the ISO upper limit, that is,
criteria have recently been proven to be wrong.14,33 A maximum allowable trail for a particular headtube
report prepared by Calspan Corporation34,35 for angle. This supports the argument on current bicycle
Schwinn bicycle corporation identified a specific value design practice that the longer trail makes bicycles
of velocity, called ‘‘Inversion velocity (VI).’’ At this more stable. However, it was found that very few
velocity, the gyroscopic moment is said to be just bicycles are designed with a shallower headtube angle
balanced by torque from the steering geometry effects, and a much longer trail. This is because cyclists prefer
and the steering torque control requirement is theoreti- stability, as well as good handling. It was already an
cally zero. The front steering design guideline based on accepted fact that a shallower headtube angle and a
the inversion velocity is called the Schwinn/Calspan cri- longer trail make the bicycle a bit sluggish and reduce
teria. A typical value of inversion velocity for a stan- the agility, which are not desired by many cyclists.32,37
dard Schwinn suburban model was reported to be 17.5 In fact, all the aforementioned front steering guidelines
mph. The front steering design criteria based on the are found to corroborate with current bicycle design
aforementioned guidelines are presented mathemati- practice for a typical range of headtube angle 71°–74°
cally in Table 2. and trail approximately 55 to 65 mm. The breakdown
Figure 3 presents a comparison of the aforemen- of the sample bicycle data revealed the following:
tioned guidelines for 26-inch big-wheel bicycles along
with 91 different big-wheel bicycle (26-inch) designs.  The headtube angle range from 71° to less than 74°
Among these 91 bicycles, 30 bicycles are the Tour de included almost 90% of the bicycle designs. The
France 2013 bicycles, and the remaining bicycles are trail ranges from 50 to 65 mm included almost 86%
from different manufacturers. Thus, the selected bicycle of the bicycle designs.
sample represented a wide range of current big-wheel  The headtube angle in the range of 73°–74° included
bicycle designs. The data were retrieved from the PhD almost 55% of the bicycle designs.
thesis of Prince.36  The trail range of 50 to 60 mm covered almost 72%
The ISO recommendation for bicycle safety pro- of the bicycle designs.
vided a broad range of permissible bicycle headtube  The 73° headtube angle and trail range of 50 to 60
and trail ranges. The shallower headtube angles are mm included almost 51% of the bicycle designs.
associated with greater trail ranges. The trail range Thus, this headtube angle and trail could be consid-
shrunk, and the permissible trail value was also reduced ered as dominating frame design geometry.
with the steeper headtube angle. For example, recom-  The most repeated headtube angle is approximately
mended trail value for 70° headtube angle ranged from 73° (mean=72.86°, mode = 73°) and trail values
19 to 73 mm and that for 74° headtube ranged from 15 are 56–58 mm (mean=56.48 mm, mode=58 mm).
to 61 mm. Therefore, shallower headtube angles were
likely to be used with longer trail and vice versa. The It is clear from the analysis that the majority of the
Davison’s recommended trail values were closer to the current bicycle designs use 73° headtube angle and 56–
maximum trail values as recommended by ISO require- 58 mm trail as their design reference for frame geome-
ments. Unlike the other front geometry design guide- try. The reason could be years of modification, test
lines, Jones’ stability criteria and Schwinn/Calspan rides, and experience that settled the front geometry
232 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

design to an optimal headtube angle approximately 73°

and 56–58 mm trail for good stability and handling per-
formance.38 Therefore, it was reasonable to use big-
wheel bicycle with a 73° headtube angle and 56 mm trail
as a reference frame design in the current analysis. The
performance of this bicycle will be compared with the
performance of the other small-wheel bicycle designs.

Effects of reducing wheel size on bicycle

design
According to Hon,39 the founder of Dahon bicycle,

the traditional bike principles should be adhered to. The Figure 4. Comparison of overall design between small-wheel
construction of various types of bicycle has evolved over a Moulton bicycle and big-wheel bicycle.44
century and is generally considered optimized based on
ergonomics and physics. Folding bicycles and E-folding
bicycles are bicycles, thus they should follow the tradi- could be practically changed in order to improve the
tional technology where interactions with the rider and the stability. The trail reduces drastically with the reduc-
road are concerned. tion in wheel size. For example, a big-wheel bicycle
with 26-inch wheel size, 73° headtube angle, and 45
This statement suggests that small-wheel bicycles are mm fork offset has 56 mm trail. If the 26-inch wheel is
also designed following the same conventional design replaced by the 20- and 16-inch wheels on the same
practice adopted for big-wheel bicycles. This section frame, the trail reduces to 27 and 16 mm, respectively.
examines how the aforementioned guidelines are chan- To achieve a longer front fork trail: (1) headtube
ged for reduced wheel size. angle could be made shallower, (2) front fork offset or
Ergonomics in bicycle design is an important aspect rake could be reduced, and (3) a combination of (1)
that both big- and small-wheel bicycle designers seek to and (2).
maintain. In Figure 4, it can be noticed that the position Figure 5 shows the steering design of 20 20-inch-
of the saddle, bottom-bracket height, handlebar height, wheel bicycles and 7 16-inch-wheel bicycle models from
and saddle to handlebar reach of 20-inch Moulton different brands like Brompton, Bike Friday, Dawes,
bicycle are almost identical to those of the big-wheel and so on, along with available front frame design
bicycle to provide the same level of comfort. On the guideline. It is very difficult to determine from the fig-
contrary, the reduction in the wheel size results in the ure to what extent the manufacturers use those guide-
front wheel having (1) smaller rotational inertia, (2) lines for small-wheel bicycle design. However, it was
smaller gyroscopic effect, and (3) a smaller front fork found that most manufacturers prefer the combination
trail. The effect of smaller rotational inertia and gyro- of reducing headtube angle and fork offset to achieve
scopic effects were known to reduce the stability of the the desired trail length. If the headtube angle only is
bicycle at normal riding speed.40–43 Trying to increase used to increase the trail to match that of a big-wheel
these factors leads to an increase in wheel mass. As a bicycle, it would result in unconventionally shallow
result, the overall bicycle becomes heavy. As per the headtube angles ( \ 70° for 20-inch and \ 65° for 16-
conventional design practice, it appears that only trail inch) for small-wheel bicycles. Similarly, if the fork

Figure 5. Comparison of available front-wheel assembly design guidelines translated for small wheeler and current small-wheel
bicycle designs in the market: (a) 20-inch-wheel bicycle and (b) 16-inch-wheel bicycle.
Paudel and Yap 233

rake only is used, it would result in a very short or even design of the bicycle is still a matter of craftsmanship,
negative fork offset. Neither of these is preferred in rather than engineering. The frame design aspect with
conventional bicycle designs. The only good possibility respect to the stability and handling has not drawn
for maintaining a desired trail length is to use a combi- much attention. Instead, designers use their years of
nation of changes in headtube angle and fork offset. experience to design the bicycle frame. Owing to the
The details of the bicycle brands and specifications are lack of a proper mathematical model and dynamic
listed in Appendix 1. analysis tools, the bicycle design procedure had been
The headtube angles of all the small-wheel bicycles almost stagnant. However, there has been some break-
were well within the ISO permissible range. The trail through in the field of bicycle dynamics and under-
values for most of the bicycles are closer to the ISO standing the fundamentals of the bicycle motion.
maximum permissible range, but a few bicycles have In fact, a bicycle is an intriguing engineering system
even longer trail values. This showed the influence of with complex behavior. A bicycle is laterally unstable at
conventional bicycle design practice that suggests lon- low speed. That is why a rider should provide extra
ger trail provides more stability in the bicycle. The handlebar control to ride without falling at low speed.
headtube angles for most of the small-wheel bicycles However, when a bicycle achieves appropriate forward
were less than 73°. In fact, most of the small-wheel speed, it does not necessarily require riders’ control to
bicycles had headtube angles in the range of 70°–72°. maintain balance. This property is called self-stability.
When the ergonomic design parameters are treated as It was found that a bicycle exhibits self-stability within
design constraints, the steering geometry and overall a certain range of forward speed, depending on the
design of the bicycle interlink with each other. For design configuration. A group of researchers47,48 care-
example, to increase the front fork trail, the headtube fully reviewed the previously published articles and
angle is reduced. As a result, the wheelbase increases. explanations and derived a validated benchmark set of
This was also reflected in Figure 4. Although the over- mathematical equations for bicycle motion. Here, the
all length of the small-wheel bicycle is shorter than that bicycle was treated as a system consisting of four rigid
of the big-wheel bicycle, the wheelbase could be longer bodies; a rear wheel, a rear frame where the rider can be
than that of a typical big-wheel bicycle. attached rigidly, a front frame assembly that includes
It is clear from the analysis that small-wheel designs front fork and handlebar, and a front wheel. The equa-
are indeed influenced by big-wheel bicycle designs and tions of motion are defined for lean angle (f) and steer
are even designed with a similar approach. The trail dis- angle (d) of the bicycle moving at a constant velocity
tance is considered as the direct indicator of stability (v). The two equations could be represented in a matrix
and handling. Nevertheless, there is still a performance form, as shown in equation (1)
discrepancy between the small- and big-wheel bicycle  
design, as these small wheelers are often perceived ner- q + vC1 q_ + gK0 + v2 K2 q = f
M€ ð1Þ
vous, wobbly, and less stable.11–13,18 Most people
believe that smaller wheel size is solely responsible for
this discrepancy in performance. Although difficult rid- where q = ½F, dT and forcing terms f = ½TF , Td T are
lean torque and steer torque. In case of self-stability in
ing and lesser stability in small-wheel bicycles were per-
hands-free riding, f = 0. The coefficients M; C1 ; K0 ,
ceived for a long time, there were virtually no published
and K2 are mass matrix, damping-like matrix, and stiff-
articles that tackled these problems. The next section
ness matrix, which are the sum of terms containing
presents a scientific and quantitative comparison
gravitational acceleration ðK0 Þ and quadratic velocity
between big- and small-wheel bicycles. The analysis was
(K2 ), respectively. These coefficients are defined in
performed for the most common range of headtube
terms of 25 bicycle design parameters, which can be
angle and trail. Therefore, this analysis includes the
categorized into geometric and mass parameters. The
majority of the big- and small-wheel bicycle designs in
geometrical parameters are wheel radii (R), trail (c),
the market.
wheelbase (w), and head angle ð90  lÞ. The mass
parameters are the mass, center of mass (COM) and
Quantitative analysis of different wheel moment of inertia (MOI) of four bicycle components.
Since bicycles are lightweight single-track vehicles
size bicycle performance
compared to motorcycles or scooters. The mass-related
The overall design procedure of the motorcycles and parameters of the rider, such as weight, seating posture,
scooters have matured with the availability of software COM, and corresponding MOI, dominate the mass-
packages like Bike Sim45 and Fast Bike.46 These soft- related parameters of the bicycle and have a vital influ-
ware packages help analyze and ensure the vehicle’s ence on the stability and ridability of the bicycle.
performance, such as stability and handling, prior to Therefore, adding a rigid rider makes the analysis more
their prototype design. However, the design procedure realistic and relevant. In this analysis, a rider was
for bicycles has not matured much over the years. The added to the rear frame of the bicycle. The rider was
234 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

modeled mathematically by representing the body parts

with standard geometrical shapes, as described by
Moore et al.49 The characteristic equation (2) was
obtained assuming the solution of the form elt
 

det Ml2 + vC1 l + gK0 + v2 K2 = 0 ð2Þ

The solutions of these characteristic equations are

called the eigenvalues. The equations yield four eigen-
values. Depending on the nature of the eigenvalues
obtained, it is possible to predict and compare the per-
formance of different bicycle configurations. For a sta-
ble system, the eigenvalues must have negative real
parts. The eigenvalues are also associated with the
Figure 6. Eigenvalues analysis for self-stability prediction.
respective eigenvectors. The eigenvectors are known as
the weave mode, capsize mode, and castering mode.
Figure 6 shows the eigenvectors and real part of eigen-
bicycles (20- and 16-inch wheel size), the most common
values with respect to the forward velocity for the refer-
range of headtube angle (i.e. 71°–73°) was consid-
enced typical big-wheel (26-inch) bicycle.
The castering mode has negative real parts and is ered, and the trail was varied from 35 to 55 mm for
always stable. The real parts of weave and capsize each headtube angle. The self-stability speed for
eigenvalues fluctuate in between positive and negative each combination of headtube angle and trail were
values, depending on the forward riding speed. The computed using equation (2) and compared. The
weave mode has imaginary eigenvalues; thus it defines main purpose of this analysis was to understand
the oscillating behavior of the bicycle about the headed whether there is any combination of front steering
direction. Since weave mode has positive real parts, it design parameters in the current small-wheel bicycle
suggests that the bicycle is unstable at low velocity. designs that corresponds to the performance of the
That is why extra handlebar control is required in order big-wheel bicycle.
to ride the bicycle at low speed. The positivity of the Figure 7 shows the self-stability speed of the big-
eigenvalues decreases with increasing velocity. The and small-wheel bicycles for each combination of head-
eigenvalues cross the zero line and become negative tube angle and trail over the selected region. For each
after some critical velocity. This velocity is called the self-stable bicycle configuration, there exists a range
weave critical velocity. Similarly, capsize eigenvalues bounded by two aforementioned critical speeds. When
are negative at low speed and cross the zero line to design configuration changes, the critical speeds and
become positive with increasing velocity. The velocity the self-stable range also change. When the calculated
at which eigenvalues become positive is called the cap- critical speeds were joined, it formed two lines. The
size critical velocity. The self-stable region is bounded lower lines correspond to the weave critical speed and
by these two critical velocities. For the referenced big- the upper lines correspond to capsize critical speed. The
wheel bicycle with most commonly used steering con- self-stability of a bicycle configuration is bounded by
figuration of 73° headtube angle and 56 mm trail, the the weave critical speed line and capsize critical speed
self-stable region was found to be between 4.71 and line and the difference between these critical lines pro-
7.63 m/s as can be seen in Figure 6. It should be noted vides the self-stable speed range for bicycles. Here, the
that the eigenvalues and the range of self-stability are self-stable speed ranges of big-wheel bicycles were com-
obtained from the validated benchmarked dynamic pared with those of small-wheel bicycles. A clear dis-
model47 for bicycles. This self-stable range varies with tinction in the self-stability range was observed for big-
the bicycle design configuration such as wheelbase, wheel bicycle and small-wheel bicycle. This distinction
headtube angle, trail, and bicycle-rider mass distribu- was more pronounced in the 16-inch-wheel bicycle. The
tions. However, as the ergonomic constraints for an self-stability region shifted upward toward the higher
adult rider were considered in this analysis, the position speed range when wheel size was reduced.
of the rider could be assumed almost constant. Current small-wheel designs generally have shal-
The parameters, such as the headtube angle and lower headtube angles compared to the big-wheel
trail, were varied over the most common range as iden- bicycles. Therefore, the performance of the big-wheel
tified in section ‘‘Effects of reducing wheel size on bicycle was first compared with the small-wheel bicycle
bicycle design.’’ Here, the associated change in wheel- with shallower headtube angle in the range of 70°–72°.
base, while changing the headtube and trail, was also A combination of headtube angle and trail values was
considered. For big-wheel bicycle, the most common sought for which small-wheel bicycles would exhibit
range of headtube angle (i.e. 72°–74 ) was considered, self-stability range like that of big-wheel bicycle. It
and the trail was accordingly varied from 50 to 60 mm means that the weave critical speed should be equal to
for each headtube angle. Similarly, for small-wheel or lower than the reference weave speed. Similarly, the
Paudel and Yap 235

Figure 7. Stability performance comparison of current big-wheel bicycles (BWB) and small-wheel bicycles (SWB) over the
dominant frame design range: (a) 20-inch-wheel bicycle and (b) 16-inch-wheel bicycle.

capsize critical speed should be equal to or higher than higher velocity, at normal riding speed of approximately
the reference capsize speed. If both critical speeds fall 15–17 km/h, the small-wheel bicycles are likely to be
in the acceptable region, the combination of headtube unstable. This means the small-wheel bicycles require
angle and trail could be accepted. The acceptable higher handlebar control from the rider because of the
regions are shown in Figure 7. For example, the self- lateral instability at normal riding speed. The self-stable
stability range (4.71–7.63 m/s) of the referenced big- range further shifted toward the higher speed when
wheel bicycle was compared to a 20-inch-wheel bicycle wheel size was reduced. Thus, as the wheel size reduces,
with 72° headtube angle and 45 mm trail. The self- the required speed of a bicycle to become self-stable
stability range for this small-wheel bicycle’s steering increases. Therefore, more physical input and rider’s
geometry was 4.75 m/s (weave critical speed) to 7.67 m/s handlebar control are required, making it difficult to
(capsize critical speed). Here, capsize critical speed of this ride. The result corroborates the rider’s subjective per-
20-inch-wheel bicycle is higher than that of the refer- ception that the ride of small wheelers is less stable, diffi-
enced big-wheel bicycle. Thus, the capsize speed was cult and nervous at normal riding speed.11–13,18 At the
within the acceptable region. Nonetheless, the weave crit- same time, the results also confirmed that the difficulties
ical speed was not equal to or lower than the reference in riding small-wheel bicycles increase as wheel size
weave critical value. Therefore, the combination of 72° decreases.
headtube angle and 45 mm trail was rejected, as it could The results were very intriguing, as the analysis
not provide comparable self-stability similar to that of clearly showed that the current designs of small-wheel
the referenced big-wheel bicycle. bicycles with shallower headtube are not as stable as
A similar analysis was performed for 72°, 73°, and that of the big-wheel bicycles. In other words, the cur-
74° headtube angles for the big-wheel bicycle and com- rent design practice of increasing the trail by reducing
pared their performance with small-wheel bicycles. It the headtube angle and fork offset did not yield a simi-
was also interesting to know that even if small-wheel lar self-stability to that of the big-wheel bicycle. In fact,
bicycles had the same trail as that of the big-wheel reducing the headtube angle and increasing the trail
bicycle (56 mm), the self-stability region was not com- shifted the self-stable range further toward the higher
parable. A 20-inch small-wheel bicycle with 71.5° head- speed. Most importantly, the results also showed that
tube and 16-inch-wheel bicycle with 71° headtube angle the use of trail value as an indicator of stability is not
with the same trail of 56 mm had the self-stability adequate. Although the practice has worked well for
range of 5.51–9.36 m/s and 6.12–11.15 m/s, respectively. big-wheel bicycles, it does not translate directly when it
In addition, the self-stability of the big-wheel bicycle comes to small-wheel bicycle design and performance.
was compared to the small-wheel bicycle designed with However, an interesting observation was made when
the same steering geometry (73° headtube angle and 56 the performance of the big-wheel bicycles was com-
mm trail). The performance was still not comparable. pared with small-wheel bicycles with a steeper headtube
For the small-wheel bicycle, a combination of front angle. The stability of the big-wheel bicycle with 72°
geometry parameters could not be determined when headtube angle and 50 mm trail bicycle was found to
shallower headtube angles in between 70° and 72° were be almost the same as that of a 20-inch wheel bicycle
considered. The small-wheel bicycles need to achieve a with 73° headtube angle and 41 mm trail. The results
higher speed to become self-stable, meaning that the were contrary to the current design practice of reducing
rider has to provide more physical input in order to the headtube angle and increasing the trail. Instead, it
achieve and maintain higher speed required for self-sta- was determined that making the headtube angle steeper
bility. On the contrary, since the self-stability starts from and reducing the trail could enable the small-wheel
236 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

bicycle to exhibit similar self-stability. Nonetheless, for

the 16-inch-wheel bicycle, no such combination was
found within the selected range. However, the current
design of the small bicycle could possibly be improved
if steeper headtube angle and reduced trail were used.
Thus, the analysis was extended in the search for the
combinations of front steering design parameters that
would result in self-stability comparable to that of the
big-wheel bicycle.

Development of front steering design

guidelines for small-wheel bicycles
The current small-wheel design practice is based on
rider’s ergonomic or fit, influence of the big-wheel
bicycle designs and past experience on bicycle handling
performance. It has already been shown that despite Figure 8. Improved bicycle frame design philosophy.
the similar design philosophies and approaches, the
dynamic performance of small-wheel bicycles and big-
wheel bicycles is very different. The accurate dynamic
wheel bicycle frames, including some foldable designs,
model of the bicycle has been recently developed. This
are made up of steel or titanium and weigh approxi-
model has been successfully used to develop fascinating
mately 10–12 kg. Therefore, the weight should not be
designs, like that of two mass skate bicycle and reverse
increased beyond the 12-kg limit while improving the
steering bicycle.50 However, the model has not been
bicycle design. To provide the same level of comfort as
reported to have been used by any of the small-wheel
the big-wheel bicycle, the ergonomic parameters were
bicycle designers or manufacturers. Therefore, this
maintained almost similar to that of the big-wheel
model could be used as the bridge between small-wheel
bicycles and big-wheel bicycles to reduce the gap bicycle.
between their performance. The equations involve very The handling performance can be defined as the abil-
complex mechanism and require highly technical ity to perform different maneuvers, realizing that the
knowledge, as well as a precise measurement of com- responsive bicycles would require less effort to perform
plex design parameters, such as the COM, MOI, and those maneuvers. The handling aspect is related to the
principal axis inertia. Thus, it could be difficult for maneuverability of the bicycle and can be closely corre-
novel designers, as well as non-technical frame builders, lated with the dynamics of the uncontrolled bicycles in
to directly apply this model into their design. Very few terms of stability and responsiveness to external
guidelines were available for front steering geometry, inputs.51 The damping of the unstable weave is also of
and most of them were based on big-wheel bicycle interest for the handling of bicycles at low speed. Since
design. Since those guidelines did not translate directly big-wheel bicycles are considered to have better han-
for small wheelers, the guidelines relating the simple dling, it would be good to match or improve the damp-
geometrical parameters with their stability performance ing of the weave mode compared to big-wheel bicycles.
are currently needed. The guidelines based on the Furthermore, handling aspects can also be subjectively
advance bicycle model could transform the current evaluated by performing different maneuvering experi-
design of the small-wheel bicycle. ments on different bicycles with different configura-
tions. A bicycle should be responsive enough for easy
maneuver in crowded space or cornering. At the same
Improved methodology time, the response should not be twitchy or nervous
In this study, the current design procedure was modi- during cornering or when encountered with small dis-
fied by incorporating a well-defined and validated turbance like potholes and bumps. The front steering
mathematical model in the design procedure. Here, geometry largely governed the maneuverability.
along with the ergonomic and handling, the self- The last aspect that was considered was the self-
stability characteristics and portability were included in stability of the bicycle. As explained earlier in section
the bicycle design objective. Figure 8 illustrates the ‘‘Quantitative analysis of different wheel size bicycle
design philosophy that was adopted in order to improve performance,’’ the self-stability is the intrinsic charac-
the small-wheel bicycle design. teristic of the bicycle design configuration. Since small-
Small-wheel bicycles are designed for portability, wheel bicycles are less stable, the aim was to improve
compactness, and easy handling. Therefore, the weight the design, such that small-wheel bicycles would have
of the bicycle and foldability are very important aspects the same self-stable region. The mathematical model
for small-wheel bicycles. Most of the well-known small-
Paudel and Yap 237

Figure 9. An improved methodology for small-wheel bicycle design considering the stability.

was used as a tool to ensure the self-stability of the geometrical and mass-related parameters. The small-
small-wheel bicycles. wheel bicycle frame was modeled using the Solidworks
An improved methodology was developed for small- software.52 Thereafter, the required mass-related para-
wheel bicycle design, as shown in Figure 9. The main meters, such as mass, the COM, and MOI, were
objective of the improved methodology was to illus- obtained with the help of Solidworks.52 The self-
trate a scientific and quantitative approach for improv- stability of that design configuration was computed
ing the stability performance of current small-wheel using a benchmarked bicycle model. The self-stability
bicycle designs, including remaining design aspects. speed thus obtained was compared with the reference
The method described here is an iterative process. The self-stability range for the big-wheel bicycle. When the
methodology started with the selection of basic frame computed self-stability range was not comparable to
design parameters that govern the ergonomics and han- the reference self-stable range, the front steering para-
dling aspects. The ergonomic parameters were based meters were changed step by step. The required combi-
on the rider’s anthropomorphic parameters. For this, a nation of headtube angle and trail could be found after
bike designing software called BikeCAD23 was used. some iterations. If the current sets of parameters are
Parameters such as chainstay length and bottom- not satisfactory, a few further iterations could be per-
bracket height were selected as in the big-wheel bicycle. formed to get the next sets of parameters, which would
A basic bicycle model was developed from ergonomic still exhibit a similar self-stable region. In this way, dif-
parameters including the chainstay length, bottom- ferent sets of parameters could be obtained, which exhi-
bracket height, headtube angle, and trail. bit similar stability and ergonomics.
The dynamic equations of motion for bicycles The improved methodology and mathematical tool
require 25 different design parameters, including the allowed design parameters to be evaluated at the early
238 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

Figure 10. Stability comparison of small-wheel bicycles with steeper headtube with reference big-wheel bicycle: (a) 20-inch wheel
bicycle and (b) 16-inch wheel bicycle.

design phase. The conventional design practice necessi- wheel bicycle. It was interesting to note that 45 mm
tates a number of prototype fabrications, riding tests, trail and 74° headtube angle are nominal values for the
and years of modifications in order to identify and 20-inch-wheel bicycle to exhibit referenced big-wheel
select a set of design parameters. This was the main bicycle self-stability. Similarly, the nominal values for
reason why some of the bicycle designers preferred to the 16-inch-wheel bicycles were 24 mm trail and 76°
use a single set of headtube angle and trail distance for headtube angle. The nominal values might vary slightly
their bicycle model. Unlike the conventional method, depending on the rider’s sitting position. Nonetheless,
this improved methodology provided the flexibility for the rider’s position on a bicycle is almost constant for
the frame builders to try different designs. Hence, the ergonomic reasons. Here, the COM of the rider on the
methodology is more cost-effective and scientific and rear frame was maintained at 28–29 cm from the rear-
frame builders do not have to bind themselves with a wheel axle.
single set of design parameters. The analysis provides strong evidence that increas-
Since small-wheel bicycles with shallower headtube ing the headtube angle helps improve the stability of
angle (70°–72°) did not result in similar stability to that the small-wheel bicycles. Furthermore, the allowable
of the big-wheel bicycle, in this analysis, 73° headtube range of the trail increased when headtube angles were
angle and 20 mm trail were initially selected for both made steeper. For example, the 20-inch-wheel bicycle
the 20-inch- and 16-inch-wheel bicycle. The associated with 74° headtube angle and trail ranging from 45–48
changes in wheelbase were considered accordingly. The mm showed a comparable self-stability and the range
computed self-stability was compared with the refer- increased to 45–59 mm for 77°. The results were con-
ence self-stability range for the big-wheel bicycle. When trary to the general trend obtained from the ISO rec-
computed, self-stability was not comparable to the ref- ommended criteria; Figure 3. Furthermore, it was
erence self-stability range, the trail was increased by 1 found that the range of self-stable speed broadened
mm. This iterative process was continued until a set of when a steeper headtube angle was used with the longer
headtube angle and trail were obtained, which could trail. The range of allowable trail for each headtube
result in comparable self-stability. The analysis was per- angle is presented in Table 3.
formed up to 82° headtube angle and 80 mm trail for
the 20-inch-wheel bicycle. Similarly, for the 16-inch-
wheel bicycle, the headtube angle was varied up to 85° Prototype design and analysis
and 50 mm trail. In order to verify the improved design methodology
and proposed front steering geometries, two 20-inch-
wheel bicycle designs shown in Figure 11(a) and (b)
Improved frame design parameters were fabricated. The first bicycle, Figure (a), has a
Using the proposed methodology, different sets of headtube angle of 74.5° and trail of 45.0 mm. Although
frame design parameters were obtained. Figure 10 the trail was comparable to the current designs of
shows small-wheel bicycle’s self-stable speed for a range the small-wheel bicycle with reference to Figure 5, the
of trail distance when steeper headtube angles were headtube angle was steeper than the usual practice. The
considered. The self-stable range shifted toward the second bicycle design has a 56 mm trail and headtube
low-speed region when headtube angle was increased. angle of 77°. Thus, the fabricated bicycle had unusual
This allowed identifying some combinations of the front steering geometries as compared to the current
headtube angle and trail, which resulted in a compara- small-wheel bicycle design practice.
ble self-stability range to that of the referenced big-
Paudel and Yap 239

Table 3. Allowable trail range for small-wheel bicycles based on improved design methodology.

20-inch-wheel bicycle 16-inch-wheel bicycle

Headtube Allowable trail range (mm) Headtube angle Allowable trail range (mm)
angle
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

72° – – 75° – –
73° – – 76° 24 25.0
74° 45 48 77° 24 26.5
75° 45 52 78° 24 28.5
76° 45 56 79° 24 30.0
77° 45 59 80° 24.5 32.0
78° 45 63 81° 24.5 33.5
79° 45 67 82° 24.5 35.5
80° 45 71 83° 24 37.0
81° 45 75 84° 24 39.0
82° 44 79 85° 23.5 40.5

Table 4. Design parameters for reference big-wheel and improved small-wheel bicycles.

Parameters 26-inch wheel 20-inch wheel I 20-inch wheel II 16-inch wheel

Headtube angle 73° 74.5° 77° 82°

Trail (mm) 56 45 56 29
Rake (mm) 45 22 0 0
Seat tube angle 74° 73° 74° 74°
Chain stay length (mm) 405 415 405 415
Saddle height (mm) 952 952 952 952
Handlebar height (mm) 899 899 899 899
Stack to reach ratio 1.44 1.48 1.40 1.46
Wheelbase (mm) 990 977 950 884
Overall weight (kg) ’10 ’10 ’10 ’10
Self-stable region (m/s) 4.71–7.63 4.61–7.68 4.64–8.52 4.44–8.37

To ensure better handling performance, geometrical was obviously comparable to the reference big-wheel
parameters, such as bottom-bracket height, seat post bicycle. Furthermore, the self-stable speed range was
angle, were maintained comparable to big-wheel also wider and started from relatively lower speed than
bicycles. The unstable weave mode eigenvalues were that of the referenced big-wheel bicycle. The weave
also of interest. Increasing the headtube angle and eigenvalues at the unstable low velocities are less posi-
appropriately selecting the trail helped to improve the tive compared to those of the big-wheel bicycle and the
damping of unstable weave mode. Furthermore, the eigenvalues within the self-stable region are more nega-
lean and steering oscillation behaviors of prototype tive with an increase in velocity. This suggests that the
bicycles were simulated for certain lateral perturbation improved bicycles would be easy to control and more
to ensure better steering response to external stable at low velocities and within the self-stable region.
disturbance.
The major design parameters for the fabricated
bicycle, along with the selected 16-inch-wheel bicycle, Riding experiment. Owing to the self-stability property, a
are listed in Table 4. A list of 25 design parameters properly designed bicycle could easily be ridden with-
required for the benchmarked bicycle model is also pre- out hands on the handlebar. Furthermore, a properly
sented in Appendix 2. Here, the self-stability of the pro- designed bicycle should have good steering response as
totype bicycles is calculated considering a rider with a the rider leans toward any side to maintain the balance
weight of 72 kg and height of 183 cm. in hands-free riding. To validate the proposed metho-
dology and front-frame design guidelines, the perfor-
mance of fabricated bicycles was compared with other
Improved self-stability comparison. The stability compari- small-wheel bicycles and big-wheel bicycles such as
son of the two 20-inch-wheel prototype bicycles and a Moulton, Brompton, Ofo bike, Mo bike, Montague,
conceptual 16-inch-wheel bicycle with big-wheel bicycle some racing bikes, and road bikes. Riding tests, includ-
is shown in Figure 12. The computed self-stability speed ing hands-free straight-line riding, hands-free corner-
range is presented in Table 4. The stability speed range ing, and hands-free riding over the road hump, were
240 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

Figure 11. Prototype of improved bicycle designs (a) improved 20-inch-wheel bicycle I and (b) improved 20-inch-wheel bicycle II.

Figure 12. Comparison of improved bicycle self-stability performance with reference big-wheel bicycle.

performed as illustrated in Figure 13. The prototype presented in Table 5. Here, the theoretical values and
was tested by non-professional cyclists who were not experimental values are based on the riders having 75
very skilled hands-free riders. kg weight and 177 cm height (Rider 1) and 52 kg weight
A bicycle speedometer (Cateye Velo Wireless)53 was and 163 cm height (Rider 2). Therefore, the analytical
used to record the minimum speed required to perform weave critical speed for Rider 2 is different compared
hands-free riding. Riders started from a low speed of to that presented in Table 4.
approximately 12 km/h. The display unit of the speed- For the Moulton bike, the hands-free riding was pos-
ometer was mounted on the handlebar such that riders sible. However, it required a relatively higher speed as
could continuously monitor their speed. When a rider predicted by the mathematical analysis of small-wheel
achieved a relatively constant speed, he or she tried to bicycles. The Brompton bicycle was found difficult to
perform hands-free riding. If unsuccessful, the rider ride hands free and steering also felt nervous when
repeated the procedure by increasing the speed in small encountering road bumps and small obstacles. The big-
increments until hands-free riding could be performed. wheel mountain bicycle was relatively easy to ride
Once the participant identified the threshold speed at hands-free and steering was responsive to the rider’s
which he or she could perform hands-free riding, the lean. The Montague bicycle was also easy to perform
speed was recorded on the feedback form given to the for straight-line hands-free riding. However, it required
participant. This procedure was repeated for each parti- a significant weight shift to perform the cornering. The
cipant and for each bicycle. A comparison between road bike performance was found in between the
threshold hands-free speed and theoretical weave criti- Moulton bicycle and mountain bicycles. In addition,
cal speed for different wheel size bicycle designs is the racing bike required higher speed compared to the
Paudel and Yap 241

Table 5. Theoretical and experimental results for prototype bicycle riding test.

Bicycles Wheel size Rider 1 (75 kg) Rider 2 (52 kg)

Theoretical weave Experimental threshold Theoretical weave Experimental
speed (km/h) hands-free speed (km/h) speed (km/hr) threshold hands-free
speed (km/h)

Big wheel 26 inch 16.99 16.50 15.73 15.50

Montague 27.5 inch 17.13 16.30 16.05 15.50
Racing 26 inch 17.50 17.50 16.18 16.00
Moulton 20 inch 19.17 19.00 18.00 18.00
Improved I 20 inch 16.63 16.00 15.69 15.40
Improved II 20 inch 16.70 15.80 15.51 15.20

Figure 13. Hands-free riding experiment with prototype bicycles.

big-wheel bicycle for hands-free riding. In contrast, for performance by carefully selecting the front design
the share bikes, like Ofo bike and Mo bike, it was parameters. In addition, it also showed that the differ-
almost impossible to perform the hands-free riding ence in performance between different big-wheel
below 22 km/h. The steering was less responsive to the bicycles and small-wheel bicycles was not because of
rider’s lean and handlebar control as compared to other the smaller wheel size but rather due to the improper
big- and small-wheel bicycles. This highlights the selection of design parameters and configurations.
importance of design parameters and their effects on
handling and stability performance. Similar riding tests
were performed for prototype bicycles. It was perceived
Conclusion
that the prototype bicycles could be ridden hands-free This article scientifically and quantitatively analyzes
at relatively low speed compared to other bicycles. In the dynamic stability performance of different wheel
fact, the steep headtube angle, together with the longer sized bicycles in relation to their self-stability. Front
trail in the improved 20-inch-wheel bicycle II, provided steering design of big- and small-wheel bicycles from
very responsive handling. The bicycles were quick at different brands and models were compared with the
maneuvering. At the same time, they were very stable at available design guidelines. The analysis suggested that
normal riding in a straight line. the current design practice of big-wheel bicycles agrees
The preliminary experience from hands-free riding with the available guidelines. However, a clear agree-
suggested that the improved bicycles were much better ment between the front-frame design guidelines and
than the aforementioned small-wheel bicycles, racing current design practice was not found when those
bicycle, and road bicycle. The overall ridability of the guidelines were translated for small-wheel bicycles.
prototype bicycles was as good as that of the big-wheel Nonetheless, the small-wheel bicycle designs were
road bicycle and mountain bicycles. These preliminary found to be strongly influenced by the big-wheel bicycle
observations agreed with the mathematical analysis designs and concept of the longer trail for good stabi-
and helped to validate the improved methodology and lity. When the self-stability performance was compared
proposed front design steering guidelines. The results over the most common design range, a distinct differ-
suggested that the design of the current small-wheel ence was observed in the self-stable speed region for
bicycles could be improved for better stability and big- and small-wheel bicycles. Small-wheel bicycles
242 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

were found to require higher speed for self-stability. 3. (25 Feburary). Heritage, http://www.moultonbicycles.
Big-wheel bicycles are stable around moderate speed, co.uk/heritage.html
whereas small-wheel bicycles are likely to be at their 4. (26 Feburary). The bickerton story, http://www.bicker
unstable state and require higher manual control to tonportables.co.uk/heritage/the-bickerton-story/
ride at normal speed. The analysis confirmed that the 5. Hadland T and Lessing H-E. Small-wheeled bicycles. In:
Hadland T (ed.) Bicycle design: an illustrated history.
current design of small-wheel bicycles causes bicycles
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014, pp.447–471.
that are less stable and difficult to ride at normal speed. 6. Kellogg T. Trail and its effects. In: Specturm, 2017,
The findings corroborated with the rider’s perception https://www.spectrum-cycles.com/geometry.php
of the small-wheel bicycle riding. 7. Dahon. Dahon doubling production capacity with new fac-
Simple front steering geometry design guidelines tory, and expanding distribution, 2018, https://eu.dahon.
have been developed for small-wheel bicycles using an com/dahon-doubling-production-capacity-with-new-factory-
improved design philosophy and methodology. Two and-expanding-distribution/(accessed 25 September
prototype bicycles, which do not agree with the current 2018)
design practice, were fabricated to validate the pro- 8. Boyd B. Urbanization and the mass movement of people
posed front steering design guidelines. Their hands-free to cities, https://graylinegroup.com/urbanization-cata-
riding performance was compared with well-known lyst-overview/ (accessed 13 March 2019).
9. Castellan G. The evolution of the folding bike. Momen-
existing bicycle brands. A good agreement was obtained
tum Mag, 12 April 2012, https://momentummag.com/
between the predicted self-stable speed and minimum
the-evolution-of-the-folding-bike/
hands-free riding speed for improved small-wheel 10. Lowell J and McKell H. The stability of bicycles. Am J
bicycles. This study successfully illustrated the possible Phys 1982; 50(12): 1106–1112.
improvement for small wheelers by increasing the head- 11. Forester J. Report on stability of the Dahon bicycle,
tube angle and properly selecting the trail. It was found 2017, http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/BicycleEng/
that the riding difficulties are not because of the dahon.htm
reduced wheel size, lesser MOI, or gyroscopic effects, 12. Heine J. Tracking straight. Advenchercycling (Mechanical
but rather difficulties are due to the design approach advantage), June, https://www.adventurecycling.org/
used for small wheelers. The study also confirmed that default/assets/resources/20140601_MechanicalAdvantage
the information available for small-wheel bicycle Trail_ Heine.pdf
13. Schwab AL. Why bicycles do not fall, https://www.youtu
designs is not adequate to ensure stability and perfor-
be.com/watch?v=2Y4mbT3ozcA&t=771s
mance. The study recommended that the bicycle design
14. Kooijman J, Meijaard J, Papadopoulos JM, et al. A
should be modified properly according to the wheel size bicycle can be self-stable without gyroscopic or caster
used. In fact, the direct measurement of stability should effects. Science 2011; 332(6027): 339–342.
be used as the major design objective. The proposed 15. Papadopoulos JM. Bicycle handling experiments you can
bicycle design methodology and guidelines could trans- do. 1987, http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/
form the current design of the small-wheel bicycles for bicycle_mechanics/bicycle_handling.pdf
better stability, ridability, and safety. 16. Heine J. Front-end geometry for differeny speeds, loads
and tire sizes. Bicycle Quart 2005; 8, http://normaali.net/
temp/Front-End-Geometry.pdf
Declaration of conflicting interests 17. Elvik R, Vaa T, Hoye A, et al. The handbook of road safety
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest measures. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2009.
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi- 18. Schwab AL and Meijaard J. A review on bicycle dynamics
and rider control. Veh Syst Dyn 2013; 51(7): 1059–1090.
cation of this article.
19. Proteus P. The Proteus framebuilding book: A guide for
the novice bicycle framebuilder. College Park, MD: Pro-
Funding teus Designs, 1975.
20. Talbot RP. Designing and building your own frameset: an
The author(s) received no financial support for the
illustrated guide for the amateur bicycle builder. USA:
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Manet Guild, 1984.
21. Koilin MJ and Rosa DMDL. The custom bicycle: buying,
ORCID iDs setting up, and riding the quality bicycle. Emmaus, PA:
Milan Paudel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7623-3626 Rodale Press, 1979.
Fook Fah Yap https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1771-3886 22. Firth M. How to set up your road bike. Association of
British Cycling Coaches, http://www.abcc.co.uk/how-to-
set-up-your-road-bike/ (accessed 2 March 2017).
References 23. BikeCad. BikeCad: bicycle design software, https://
1. Wilson DG and Papadopoulos J. A short history of bicy- www.bikecad.ca/
cling. In: Wilson DG (ed.) Bicycling science. Cambridge, 24. Paterek T. The Paterek Manual for bicycle framebuilders.
MA: MIT Press, 2004, pp.3–35. River Falls, WI: Framebuilders Guild, 1985.
2. Hadland T. Small wheels for adult bicycles. In: Had- 25. Olds R. Bike sizing: stack and reach. Velovoice, 29 May
land’s blog, 2012, https://hadland.wordpress.com/2012/ 2015, http://velovoice.blogspot.com/2015/05/bike-sizing-
06/25/small-wheels-for-adult-bicycles/ stack-and-reach.html
Paudel and Yap 243

26. Brown S. Sheldon Brown’s bicycle glossary, https:// 48. Kooijman J, Schwab A and Meijaard J. Experimental
www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_tp-z.html (accessed 10 validation of a model of an uncontrolled bicycle. Multib
June 2017). Syst Dyn 2008; 19(1–2): 115–132.
27. Novović R. Bicycle frame geometry. Bike Gremlin, 6 Jan- 49. Moore JK, Hubbard M, Kooijman J, et al. A method for
uary 2016, https://bike.bikegremlin.com/832/bicycle- estimating physical properties of a combined bicycle and
frame-geometry/ rider. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 international
28. John T. Buyer’s guide: bicycle geometry. Road cycling design engineering technical conferences and computers and
UK, 27 January 2014, https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/ information in engineering conference, San Diego, CA,
August 30–September 2 2009, pp.2011–2020. New York:
buyers-guide-bicycle-geometry.html
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
29. CALFEE Design. Geometry of bike handling, http://cal
50. Meijaard JP, Papadopoulos JM, Ruina A, et al. Support-
feedesign.com/tech-papers/geometry-of-bike-handling/ ing online text material (SOM Chapters 1-11). Sci Mag
(accessed 25 July 2016). 2011; 332(6027): 339–342.
30. ISO 4210-2:2015. Cycle-safety requirements for bicycles: 51. Schwab A, Kooijman J and Nieuwendijk J. On the design
part 2: requirements for city and trekking, young adult, of a recumbent bicycle with a perspective on handling
mountain and racing bicycles. qualities. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international
31. Rice R. A note on design criteria for bicycle stability in design engineering technical conferences and computers
terms of front end geometry (Internal memorandum). Buf- and information in engineering conference, Chicago, IL,
falo, NY: Calspan, 1974. 12–15 August 2012, pp.303–308. New York: American
32. Jones DE. The stability of the bicycle. Phys Today 1970; Society of Mechanical Engineers.
23(4): 34–40. 52. Dassault systems, https://www.solidworks.com/
33. Meijaard J, Papadopoulos JM, Ruina A, et al. Historical 53. Velo Wireless. Cateye Velo wireless+, https://www.ca
review of thoughts on bicycle self-stability. Ithaca, NY: teye.com/intl/products/computers/CC-VT235W/
Cornell University, 2011.
34. Rice R. Bicycle dynamics, simplified steady state response
characteristics and stability indices. Report ZN-5431-V-1,
June 1974. Buffalo, NY: Calspan.
35. Rice R. Bicycle dynamics: simplified dynamic stability
analysis. Report ZN-5921-V-2, September 1976. Buffalo, Appendix 1
NY: Calspan.
36. Prince J. An investigation into bicycle performance and Front steering geometries of small-wheel bicycles.
design. Auckland University of Technology, PhD Thesis,
S. N Bicycle brand/model Wheel Headtube Trail
Auckland, New Zealand, 2014.
size angle
37. Kvale C and Corbett J. A fresh look at steering geometry.
Chris Kvale Cycle. https://www.chriskvalecycles.com/ 1 Giant Expressway 20’’ 71** 48.9*
new-page-2 2 Giant Halfway 20’’ 72** 52*
38. John T. Buyer’s guide: bicycle geometry, head angle, fork 3 Bickerton Portable 20’’ 71.58* 51*
rake and trail. Road Cycling UK, 27 January 2014, 4 Bike Friday Pocket 20’’ 73** 35**
https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/buyers-guide-bicycle-geo rocket
metry.html/4 5 Pacific bicycle Birdy 20’’ 72.5** 56**
39. Hon DT. Folding bicycles: a treatise. Los Angeles, CA: 6 Seattle cycle Bruke 20 20’’ 73** 58**
7 B’Twin 20’’ 73* 43*
Dahon Bicycle, 2016.
8 Citizen bicycle 20’’ 73* 42*
40. Astrom KJ, Klein RE and Lennartsson A. Bicycle 9 Critical bicycle 20’’ 71.6* 41.1*
dynamics and control: adapted bicycles for education 10 Dewes bicycle 20’’ 71** 72**
and research. IEEE Contr Syst Mag 2005; 25(4): 26–47. 11 Kross bicycle 20’’ 71.5* 30*
41. Limebeer DJ and Sharp RS. Bicycles, motorcycles, and 12 Moulton Jubilee 20’’ 70.76* 52.6*
models. IEEE Contr Syst Mag 2006; 26(5): 34–61. 13 Moulton 20’’ 72*** 41***
42. Moore J and Hubbard M. Parametric study of bicycle 14 Raleigh 20’’ 73** 45.5**
stability (P207). In: Estivalet M and Brisson P (eds) The 15 Speedone 20’’ 70** 51.4**
engineering of sport 7. Paris: Springer, 2009, pp.311–318. 16 Swift folders 20’’ 72.09* 35.3*
43. Cossalter V. Motorcycle dynamics. Morrisville, NC: 17 Tern verge 10 20’’ 71.5* 45*
18 Vurm 20’’ 73* 33.4*
Lulu.com, 2006.
19 Origami Cricket 7 20’’ 67.7** 58.42**
44. Moulton Bicycle Company. Small wheels, http://www. 20 Origami Gazelle 20’’ 69.8** 40.64**
moultonbicycles.co.uk/features.html (accessed 18 August 21 Brompton 16’’ 73** 41**
2017). 22 Seattle cycle 16’’ 70** 58**
45. Mechanical Simulation. BikeSIM, https://www.carsim. Bruke 16
com/products/bikesim/index.php (accessed 25 September 23 Peugeot 16’’ 70** 48.4**
2019). 24 Atala 16’’ 70.88* 43.5*
46. Dynamotion. Fast bike, http://www.dynamotion.it/motor 25 Beixo Crosstown 16’’ 72** 30**
cycle-dynamics/software-and-simulations/multbody-simul 26 IXI 16’’ 69* 43.7*
ations-with-fastbike/ 27 Bike Friday Pakit 16’’ 73** 35**
47. Meijaard JP, Papadopoulos JM, Ruina A, et al. Linear- *
The design information was obtained by properly adjusting the picture
ized dynamics equations for the balance and steer of a of the bicycle in CAD software.
bicycle: a benchmark and review. P Roy Soc Lond Ser A: **
The design information was obtained from manufacturers.
***
Math 2007; 463(2084): 1955–1982. The design information was measured in the lab.
244 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)

Appendix 2
25 design parameters for benchmarked bicycle model.

Parameters Symbol Big-wheel Improved 20-inch Improved 20-inch Improved

bicycle wheel I wheel II 16-inch wheel

Wheelbase W 0.990 0.9772 0.950 0.884

Trail C 0.056 0.045 0.056 0.029
Head angle l 73.0 74.5 77.0 82
Forward speed V – – – –
Rear wheel R
Radius rR 0.337 0.243 0.243 0.191
Mass mR 1.773 1.752 1.752 2.594
Mass moment IRxx ; IRyy 0.4791; 0.0911 0.0220; 0.0438 0.0220;0.0438 0.0145;0.0224
of inertia
Rear body and
frame assembly B
Center of mass ðxB ; zB Þ 0.2863; –1.0283 0.2898; –0.0248 0.2913; –1.0240 0.2975;–1.0283
Mass mB 75.6204 75.9675 75.9846 75.6250
Mass moment IBxx ; IBxz ; IBzz 9.111; –2.212;2.488 9.468;–2.078;2.583 9.482;–2.020;2.554 9.111;–1.199,2.4793
of inertia
Front handlebar and
fork assembly H
Center of mass ðu; vÞ 0.032;0.75 0.0368;0.6848 0.02273;0.6842 0.028;0.68
Mass mH 1.7847 1.70 1.70 2.192
Mass moment IHxx ; IHxz ; IHzz 0.0848; 0.1358; 0.1353; 0.1128;
of inertia –0.006;0.0276 –0.0160;0.0158 –0.0107;0.0135 –0.0223;0.0137
Front wheel F
Radius rF 0.337 0.243 0.243 0.191
Mass mF 1.181 1.181 1.181 1.021
Mass moment IFxx ; IFyy 0.04626;0.0898 0.0271;0.0506 0.0271;0.0506 0.0144;0.0229
of inertia

Angles are in degrees (°)

Distances are in meter.
Masses are in kg.
Moment of inertia are in kg m2

View publication stats