this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
39 points (97.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48721 readers
1810 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Why are bike tires so narrow and large diameter compared to car tires? What tradeoffs are here exactly? Motorcycle and some ebike tires are more similar to car tires than to bike tires, so i guess it has something to do with braking length at maximum expected speed, and probably also with weight of vehicle, as to not exceed some specified pressure on road. There has to be so many more reasons (weight? air resistance? some other things affecting efficiency or safety? ???)

update: apparently friction involving things that are bendy is monstrously complicated subject, and also there are material limits like maximum allowed shear stress

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The pressure the tire exerts on the road is always equal to the pressure it's inflated to.

This is merely a convenient approximation for properly-inflated tires carrying a load, not a hard rule rooted borne out during empirical examination. After all, removing a wheel from an automobile and rolling it along clean concrete leaves tire tracks that are full width, yet the tire will not substantially deform at the contact point because 20-30 pounds is not much of a burden. If there's no deformation, then the contact patch is a line with a tiny area, which would wrongly suggest a ludicrously high tire pressure.

because they have more gyroscopic effect and thus make the bike easier to balance.

While bike wheels do act as gyroscopes -- as do all rotating masses without a contra-rotating mass -- this is not substantial to bicycle stability. If it were, kick scooters or e-scooters which have substantially smaller wheels but with the same physics as bicycles would be unrideable.

The bicycle has existed for about 200 years, and for most of that time, how it remains stable was an open question in physics until roughly the late 20th Century, when researchers built enough intentionally-bad bicycles to prove what was minimum and sufficient to have a functioning bicycle. This empirically ruled out trail, caster, and gyroscopes as necessary factors. But the most prominent factor that remained necessarily is centrifugal balancing, aka leaning/banking. Turns out, bicycles lean into curves just like airplanes so.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

This is merely a convenient approximation for properly-inflated tires carrying a load, not a hard rule rooted borne out during empirical examination. After all, removing a wheel from an automobile and rolling it along clean concrete leaves tire tracks that are full width, yet the tire will not substantially deform at the contact point because 20-30 pounds is not much of a burden. If there’s no deformation, then the contact patch is a line with a tiny area, which would wrongly suggest a ludicrously high tire pressure.

Sure, the tire itself has a certain amount of strength, but (unless it's a run-flat tire, I suppose) it's negligible compared to the load carrying provided by the tire pressure.

While bike wheels do act as gyroscopes – as do all rotating masses without a contra-rotating mass – this is not substantial to bicycle stability. If it were, kick scooters or e-scooters which have substantially smaller wheels but with the same physics as bicycles would be unrideable.

No, you're overstating your case. First of all, I didn't say that gyroscope forces were the only factor. Second, they are a "substantial" contributing factor. Your own wiki link agrees with me:

Several factors, including geometry, mass distribution, and gyroscopic effect all contribute in varying degrees to this self-stability, but long-standing hypotheses and claims that any single effect, such as gyroscopic or trail (the distance between steering axis and ground contact of the front tire), is solely responsible for the stabilizing force have been discredited.

The important part is the "gyroscopic effect... contribute" part, not the "solely responsible... discredited" part.

Remember, OP's question was "why are the wheels big," not "why do bicycles stay upright," so the effect that's relevant to discuss is the one that's different between wheels of different diameter. And that's the gyroscopic effect, not any of the other things that contribute to bicycle stability but don't depend on wheel size. There's a reason people generally don't prefer things like Bromptons unless they really need the packaging advantages, and it's because bikes with small wheels are (relatively) weird and twitchy to ride.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 37 minutes ago

Gyroscopic effect for bicycles is neither significant nor necessary. How are bikes with 12" wheels or less going to take advantage of that? There are some functioning bikes on this page whose gyroscopic force would be less than 1% of the mass of the bike and rider. They're certainly a contributing factor, to varying degrees, but even on bigger bikes they aren't substantial. Some guys at Cambridge went out of their way to prove that.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago

it's negligible compared to the load carrying provided by the tire pressure.

My comment was in reply to the "always equal" assertion, which it definitely is not. No doubt, it's a handy rule of thumb but nobody should walk away thinking it is a hard rule of tire physics.

And that's the gyroscopic effect, not any of the other things that contribute to bicycle stability but don't depend on wheel size.

Correlation does not prove causation. You assert that bicycle wheels are big because they have more gyroscopic effects. That is a correlation. I assert in my other comment that small wheels would be swallowed by potholes. That is a causal relationship: the wheel must be bigger to deal with real roads AND is something a smaller wheel cannot handle. It is a fact that a big wheel rolls over protrusions and holes that a small wheel would fall into.