"big wheel" trikes

Tony Belding said:

I've noticed some tadpole trikes (like the Scarab/Trimuter) are
available in a "big wheel" version with a larger rear wheel. They
obvioulsy take up more space. . . I was just wonder what was the
reasoning behind that, what the advantages are presumed to be. Smoother
ride? Higher gear range?

Also Logo Trikes offers trikes in big wheel and small although they
generally do this to certain market preferences. The Japanese like big
wheels, go figure, others maybe not so. I myself went by Greenspeed's
assertion that same-sized wheels all round is better for stability and
handling.

I would think that the advantage for which people are willing to
compromise steering and handling, and carry odd-sizes in tubes, is that
you don't have to gear up to compensate for that smaller rear wheel.
This means less need for Schlumpf drives, 3x7 internal rear hubs and
other friction-causing drivechain devices, or for dinnerplate chainrings.

I have also seen some homebuilt bigwheeled trikes where all wheels are
700C and for a groundhugging tadpole this is a dubious arrangement.
Consider the forces applied to the front wheels in turning. The rear
wheel doesn't suffer so badly of course.

Tony asked:

Quoted message said:

... some tadpole trikes... are available in a "big wheel"
version with a larger rear wheel... wonder what was the
reasoning behind that, what the advantages are presumed
to be. Smoother ride? Higher gear range?

IMHO, Tony's guesses are the right ones, in reverse order.
On the downside I'd list longer, taller and heavier trike,
and a bit more flex from the side loading wheels have to

deal with on a tadpole. As DD said:

... you don't have to gear up to compensate for that smaller
rear wheel. This means less need for Schlumpf drives, 3x7
[now DualDrive] internal rear hubs and other friction-causing
drivechain devices, or for dinnerplate chainrings.

With a typical narrow 406 tire (aka BMX or 20X1.3) the drive
wheel on a tadpole has a rolling diameter of about 19". With
an 11T small gear on your rear cogset, you would need a 58T
chainwheel to get a top gear of even 100 inches. That pretty
much means most contemporary tadpoles use road triple cranks,
and also exceed manufacturer's specs for both chainwheel
size and chain take-up.

With a 559 drive wheel (aka MTB or 26X1.5), you can use a
lower cost MTB crankset with 22-34-46 rings and an 11-34
cogset for a gear range of 17 to 107 inches. A 406 with the
same 11-34 cogset and a wider 26T difference at the crank
(32-44-58) has a range of only 18 to 100 inches - both a
narrower range and lower overall than the big wheel.

All else being roughly equal a big-wheeled trike will be
about 4 to 6 inches longer, and 2 to 3 inches taller than
a tadpole with the more common 406 drive wheel.

Regards,
Wayne Leggett
LoGo Trikes USA
Oxnard CA

One more possibility! Some people like a big fat white letter tires,
chrome fenders, flouerescent cable housings, etc., to go with the dummy
spotlights, and be the ultimate poser in the area! [had to say that
;-) ] Not seriously; But I do know where I can get chrome fenders.....

Chris

On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:12:16 -0500, Tony Belding <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've noticed some tadpole trikes (like the Scarab/Trimuter) are
available in a "big wheel" version with a larger rear wheel. They
obvioulsy take up more space. . . I was just wonder what was the
reasoning behind that, what the advantages are presumed to be.
Smoother ride? Higher gear range?

I have had two of the popular small wheel trike's. Notice the word
had. I now ride either an Spitfire RS24 or a Windcheetah Supersport.

I find the gearing with 24" drive wheel to be just about perfect. I
can't spin out on the big ring and I can climb the mountains around
here . The ride is far better than the smaller wheel trike's delivered
and I like the handling better. But, ride quality and handling are as
much a function of the frame as the wheels, it is a whole package,

The WC delivers an unbelievable ride. It's 26" rear wheel and stock
gearing is pretty comparable to my DF road bike, which for me means
that unless I am heading down hill, or over some high speed rollers, I
use the middle ring, which will get me to 20 mph easily.. I am
prejudiced against <20" front wheels because one of those previously
not named trike's had them. The ride was horrible, little bumps and
holes in the pavement were made to seem very much larger, bump steer
and eyeball jarring ride were part and party to this now sold trike.
The WC has Moulton 16" wheels and defies all of my past experience, so
once again engineering a good frame seems to make all the difference

I've yet to have the WC on a big climb. he previous owner put a 24t
chain ring on.. it is amazing what kind of comments you get with such
a thing.. so there will be no problem on even the biggest mountain.
W/o that granny, I was concerned that a mountain drive might be in
order for this 26" wheel. I have had experience with the speeddrive
and loved the expanded range and only two chain rings, so this may
still happen if I decide to change to shorter than 170 cranks.

The 26" wheel gives you a huge tire selection, the 24" almost none.
The 20" are getting more selections, I went from a 20 x 1.x (small
thin tire) to a 20 x 1.5 or 1.75, I don't recall, and found the ride
over bad pavement was smoothed and the larger diameter of the fatter
tire helped the top end until the speed drive was installed.

Bottom line for me is large wheels delivers what I want in a trike.
The reason I own the two trikes I do is not specifically because of
the large wheel. It is because of the joystick steering. A subject for
a whole 'nother post.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:12:16 -0500, Tony Belding <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've noticed some tadpole trikes (like the Scarab/Trimuter) are
available in a "big wheel" version with a larger rear wheel. They
obvioulsy take up more space. . . I was just wonder what was the
reasoning behind that, what the advantages are presumed to be.
Smoother ride? Higher gear range?

I have had two of the popular small wheel trike's. Notice the word
had. I now ride either an Spitfire RS24 or a Windcheetah Supersport.

I find the gearing with 24" drive wheel to be just about perfect. I
can't spin out on the big ring and I can climb the mountains around
here . The ride is far better than the smaller wheel trike's delivered
and I like the handling better. But, ride quality and handling are as
much a function of the frame as the wheels, it is a whole package,

The WC delivers an unbelievable ride. It's 26" rear wheel and stock
gearing is pretty comparable to my DF road bike, which for me means
that unless I am heading down hill, or over some high speed rollers, I
use the middle ring, which will get me to 20 mph easily.. I am
prejudiced against <20" front wheels because one of those previously
not named trike's had them. The ride was horrible, little bumps and
holes in the pavement were made to seem very much larger, bump steer
and eyeball jarring ride were part and party to this now sold trike.
The WC has Moulton 16" wheels and defies all of my past experience, so
once again engineering a good frame seems to make all the difference

I've yet to have the WC on a big climb. he previous owner put a 24t
chain ring on.. it is amazing what kind of comments you get with such
a thing.. so there will be no problem on even the biggest mountain.
W/o that granny, I was concerned that a mountain drive might be in
order for this 26" wheel. I have had experience with the speeddrive
and loved the expanded range and only two chain rings, so this may
still happen if I decide to change to shorter than 170 cranks.

The 26" wheel gives you a huge tire selection, the 24" almost none.
The 20" are getting more selections, I went from a 20 x 1.x (small
thin tire) to a 20 x 1.5 or 1.75, I don't recall, and found the ride
over bad pavement was smoothed and the larger diameter of the fatter
tire helped the top end until the speed drive was installed.

Bottom line for me is large wheels delivers what I want in a trike.
The reason I own the two trikes I do is not specifically because of
the large wheel. It is because of the joystick steering. A subject for
a whole 'nother post.

Mike, everything you have to say about the Windcheetah is very interesting.
There has hardly ever been anything posted here on ARBR concerning the
Windcheetah, and yet we all know a little something about it from hear say
or perhaps having seen one (a rare sight to be sure). They are intriguing
trikes to say the least because of their many unique design and construction
details. Your take on the advantage of 16" front wheels over 20" front
wheels I had never heard before.

I would not mind hearing about the joystick steering if and when you can
find the time to give us your opinion of it. I would especially like to know
if it helps or hinders the bump steer you mention or the pedal steer which
is common to all tadpole trikes at speed to one degree or another.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:40:05 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I would not mind hearing about the joystick steering if and when you can
find the time to give us your opinion of it. I would especially like to know
if it helps or hinders the bump steer you mention or the pedal steer which
is common to all tadpole trikes at speed to one degree or another.

Of course, my first two trikes were USS, indeed my first two wheel
bent was as well. Since I ride bents for their supposed or imagined
aerodynamic speed advantage, I found out quickly that USS in not very
aero. It is appropriate for a ride in the park, touring where you are
loaded to the gills and speed isn't an issue and wonderful on a warm
day because it exposes your arms to the cooling breeze, and that is
also not aero. I have about 1000 miles on the two USS trikes.

After hearing from the Bachetta folks, Mr Pinto in particular, their
theories of what made bikes fast for seating position, it made perfect
sense to me that the joystick was the answer. With your arms tight
against your side, you present a smaller image to the wind.

From the first ride it was apparent that a certain popular, but
misnamed trike was very much slower over the same course as the RS24,
with joystick steering. In addition to the far more comfortable ride,
I've lots of chip seal roads and many places where no road repair is
evident for a lot of years, the RS was faster in every situation,
uphill, on the flats and downhill. It also sustained a speed easier,
IOW, I didn't have to concentrate so much on what I was doing and
could just enjoy the speed. Top end on the RS was close to 5 mph
faster, speed loss due to bad pavement was about 3 mph on the better
riding RS and about 5 on the harsher riding budget trike.

Obviously the top end speed gain would seem to be the aero position,
same rider, same familiar course, but there is a comfort factor to the
joystick as well. Hanging onto the outboard steering, particularly the
direct steering attached to the kingpins, every road vibration goes
directly into your arms. For me there is a lot of isolation from the
vibrations offered by the joystick. This reduces fatigue and is again
why I can go faster over bad roads with the joystick.

Braking with the joystick is a joy. Both the RS and the Windcheetah
offer single brake lever control for two brakes, just like one pedal
in your car controls four wheel brakes. No brake steer.

I don't attribute any effect on pedal steer by the Joystick. The RS
has more pedal steer than the misnamed budget trike, and requires a
near perfect pedal circle. The Windcheetah will take a lot of bad
pedaling and exhibit almost none. In fact at this point in my limited
experience with the WC, I would say it has no bad habits.

One misconception about joystick that I hear most often is the thought
that you steer by leaning the stick to the left or right, like a
computer game joystick. This is not the case. The joystick is on a
universal joint to make it easier to lean into a turn, and like some
models of SWB, swing forward to allow for easier getting on and off,
but this does not influence the steering. Both joysticks are nearly
identical, straight up off the steering gear, a few inches from the
top, about a hands length, is a sort of MTB style bar end. The
shifters are located on the ends of the stalks and the brake lever
attaches to the straight bar. The steering is caused by using the bar
end and twisting. If this is not clear, think of elimination the
u-joint and putting a steering wheel on top. it really is that simple.

I can't really go into any comparisons between the WC and RS24. I am
getting a new improved frame for the RS components after I did
something stupid and damaged the original frame. Hellbent is bending
over backward to get me on the road again, even though they are in no
way responsible. So after the new RS gets on the road and some miles,
we will find out which trike, RS or WC suits my riding style, and then
I may write a report. However, I am truly afraid that the current
influx of $2000 trikes is going to kill off the high end performance
trikes. I think I have two wonderful thoroughbreds, but they are
representative of the past, not the future of triking

I have almost 2000 miles on the original RS frame, it is as much fun
to ride as I can imagine. It has gone around Lake Tahoe's America's
Most Beautiful Bike Ride, Tour de Palm Springs, up Mt Tamalpias and
put in a lot of mile on last years Great Western Bike Rally, and of
course many fun day trips spent chasing down brightly colored roadies
who define fast as looking like Lance. I've got many fun stories about
their reactions on being passed by an old guy on a trike.

I have owned the WC about three weeks and 200 miles. Just looking at
it, you can see a maturity in the design that no other trike I have
seen offers. Elegant implementation of the KISS principle.

The one advantage the RS may have over the WC is in hooking up the
Burley flatbed trailer I use for errands, sometimes 100# of paper or
bags of sand from the home improvement store, and of course, the much
thought about multi day tours. Simple errands like grocery shopping is
no problem on either, using basic panniers.

Mike

Tony Belding said:

I've noticed some tadpole trikes (like the Scarab/Trimuter) are
available in a "big wheel" version with a larger rear wheel. They
obvioulsy take up more space. . . I was just wonder what was the
reasoning behind that, what the advantages are presumed to be.
Smoother ride? Higher gear range?

--
Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas

I just got an older Trice that has the 700 rear wheel.The first steep hill I was wishing I had lower gears,but I made it up with a little more mashing on the pedals.I like the taller gearing on this trike as I decend the other side of that hill.The Trice is comfortable and part of that could be the larger wheel.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:40:05 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I would not mind hearing about the joystick steering if and when you can
find the time to give us your opinion of it. I would especially like to
know
if it helps or hinders the bump steer you mention or the pedal steer which
is common to all tadpole trikes at speed to one degree or another.

Of course, my first two trikes were USS, indeed my first two wheel
bent was as well. Since I ride bents for their supposed or imagined
aerodynamic speed advantage, I found out quickly that USS in not very
aero. It is appropriate for a ride in the park, touring where you are
loaded to the gills and speed isn't an issue and wonderful on a warm
day because it exposes your arms to the cooling breeze, and that is
also not aero. I have about 1000 miles on the two USS trikes.

After hearing from the Bachetta folks, Mr Pinto in particular, their
theories of what made bikes fast for seating position, it made perfect
sense to me that the joystick was the answer. With your arms tight
against your side, you present a smaller image to the wind.

From the first ride it was apparent that a certain popular, but
misnamed trike was very much slower over the same course as the RS24,
with joystick steering. In addition to the far more comfortable ride,
I've lots of chip seal roads and many places where no road repair is
evident for a lot of years, the RS was faster in every situation,
uphill, on the flats and downhill. It also sustained a speed easier,
IOW, I didn't have to concentrate so much on what I was doing and
could just enjoy the speed. Top end on the RS was close to 5 mph
faster, speed loss due to bad pavement was about 3 mph on the better
riding RS and about 5 on the harsher riding budget trike.

Obviously the top end speed gain would seem to be the aero position,
same rider, same familiar course, but there is a comfort factor to the
joystick as well. Hanging onto the outboard steering, particularly the
direct steering attached to the kingpins, every road vibration goes
directly into your arms. For me there is a lot of isolation from the
vibrations offered by the joystick. This reduces fatigue and is again
why I can go faster over bad roads with the joystick.

Braking with the joystick is a joy. Both the RS and the Windcheetah
offer single brake lever control for two brakes, just like one pedal
in your car controls four wheel brakes. No brake steer.

I don't attribute any effect on pedal steer by the Joystick. The RS
has more pedal steer than the misnamed budget trike, and requires a
near perfect pedal circle. The Windcheetah will take a lot of bad
pedaling and exhibit almost none. In fact at this point in my limited
experience with the WC, I would say it has no bad habits.

One misconception about joystick that I hear most often is the thought
that you steer by leaning the stick to the left or right, like a
computer game joystick. This is not the case. The joystick is on a
universal joint to make it easier to lean into a turn, and like some
models of SWB, swing forward to allow for easier getting on and off,
but this does not influence the steering. Both joysticks are nearly
identical, straight up off the steering gear, a few inches from the
top, about a hands length, is a sort of MTB style bar end. The
shifters are located on the ends of the stalks and the brake lever
attaches to the straight bar. The steering is caused by using the bar
end and twisting. If this is not clear, think of elimination the
u-joint and putting a steering wheel on top. it really is that simple.

I can't really go into any comparisons between the WC and RS24. I am
getting a new improved frame for the RS components after I did
something stupid and damaged the original frame. Hellbent is bending
over backward to get me on the road again, even though they are in no
way responsible. So after the new RS gets on the road and some miles,
we will find out which trike, RS or WC suits my riding style, and then
I may write a report. However, I am truly afraid that the current
influx of $2000 trikes is going to kill off the high end performance
trikes. I think I have two wonderful thoroughbreds, but they are
representative of the past, not the future of triking

I have almost 2000 miles on the original RS frame, it is as much fun
to ride as I can imagine. It has gone around Lake Tahoe's America's
Most Beautiful Bike Ride, Tour de Palm Springs, up Mt Tamalpias and
put in a lot of mile on last years Great Western Bike Rally, and of
course many fun day trips spent chasing down brightly colored roadies
who define fast as looking like Lance. I've got many fun stories about
their reactions on being passed by an old guy on a trike.

I have owned the WC about three weeks and 200 miles. Just looking at
it, you can see a maturity in the design that no other trike I have
seen offers. Elegant implementation of the KISS principle.

The one advantage the RS may have over the WC is in hooking up the
Burley flatbed trailer I use for errands, sometimes 100# of paper or
bags of sand from the home improvement store, and of course, the much
thought about multi day tours. Simple errands like grocery shopping is
no problem on either, using basic panniers.

Mike

Thanks for the your very informative post on joy stick steering with respect
to recumbent trikes. I would really like to try it sometime as there does
not seem to be any downside to it.

I have always been intrigued by the Windcheetah, but the very high price has
put me off. I am one of those who refuse to ever spend more than $2000. on
a bike - and I do mean any bike. I have seen the Windcheetah of course, but
I have never test ridden it. They are very rare and it is the prettiest
trike I have ever seen. I think If I had one I would keep it in my living
room (when I wasn't riding it of course) so I would always have something
beautiful to look at.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

I own 2 Scarab trikes. One of the first thing I did was change out the 1" tires for 1.5"tires and changed from presto tubes to Schrader tubes by drilling the access hole to fit the latter. This gave me a much better ride, gave me access to goofing the tubes for puncture resistance, and allowed me to get tubes in any old store I ran across that carried bike gear. This latter is important if you do a bunch. Of cross country riding and go through mostly small towns that won't have top line bike stores.

If I'm looking for the fastest trike out there - what would it be. Or - what modifications on a trike built for speed could I make to make it faster & climb mountains in the 16 - 20% grade?

I would love to trade my bike in for a big wheel trike

One of the reasons for a 26 inch rear wheel is you can use conventional mountain bike gearing, giving you more options. Some including me think that a trike with the bigger rear wheel just makes the trike better looking, and less like a toy.

And then have you considered that with a big rear, and smaller front wheels, you are always riding down hill??? 🙂