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,

The bicycle has a history of more than two centuries.
Since the invention of the first bicycle in 1819 by Karl
Von Darrius, it has undergone various design modifica-
tions before evolving into the Diamond frame safety
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-
bles the primary design of the safety bicycle. However,
the advancement in engineering and technology, along
with the improvement in material science, have enabled
efficient transmission and lightweight designs. As a
result, bicycles were widely accepted as the means of
transportation and concurrently used for sports and
recreation. Nowadays, a plethora of bicycle design is
racing bikes, road bikes, and touring bikes. The frame
shape could be different in these bicycles. However, the
principal design and most importantly, the wheel size
have changed little since the evolution of the Diamond
frame safety bicycle. Most of the adult bicycles use 26-
1
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore
2
Institute for Sports Research, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
Corresponding author:
Fook Fah Yap, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
Email: mffyap@ntu.edu.sg
228
to 29-inch diameter wheels. In this article, these wheel
sizes are referred to as ‘‘big-wheeled bicycles.’’ These
wheel sizes became dominant over a long period of time
because big wheels roll more distance per cadence com-
pared to small wheels and provide a comfortable ride in
uneven terrain, bumps, and small road depressions.
Despite the dominance of larger wheels, the desire for
compact and portable bicycles led to the invention of
smaller wheels and small-wheel bicycles.
The history of small-wheel bicycles goes back to the
French cyclist tourist Paul de Vivie, known as Velocio,
in the early 1900s.2 He reduced diameter but increased
cross-sectional area of the tire. The idea was to main-
tain the same air volume and pressure used in big
wheelers. In addition, the increased tire cross-sectional
area compensated for the unpleasant ride of small
wheelers. The next person who advocated for the small-
wheel bicycle was Alex Moulton. Unlike Velocio,
Moulton introduced small size, but high-pressure tires,
around the early 1960s. Moulton bicycles also incorpo-
rated a suspension system to eliminate the rough ride
caused by the high-pressure wheels.3 The Moulton
design was a great success at that time and is the pio-
neer for today’s small-wheel bicycle designs. The next
revolution in the field of small-wheel bicycles was dri-
ven by the desire for compact, portable, and folding
bicycles so that it would be convenient to carry or store
in a limited space. The breakthrough design ‘‘Bickerton
Portables’’ was launched in 1970 by Harry Bickerton.
He used aluminum alloy material and invented hinges
for folding the bicycles.4 Inspired by the Bickerton por-
tables, since 1976, Andrew Ritchie started designing the
folding bicycles called ‘‘Brompton’’ using multiple
hinges.5 In 1982, an American inventor, David Hon,
started the production of ‘‘Dahon bicycle,’’ which is
currently one of the largest small-wheel bicycle manu-
facturers. Some renowned names in the small-wheel
bicycle industry today are Moulton, Dahon, Brompton,
Bike Friday, Bickerton portables, Airnimals, Birdy,
and so on.
In recent years, there has been an accelerated growth
in the popularity of these small-wheel bicycles in many
modern and crowded cities. As a result, the sales rate of
these small-wheel bicycles is also increasing.6,7 The
major disadvantages of the small wheelers have already
been overcome with the advancement in engineering
and manufacturing technologies. The invention of effi-
cient multi-speed gear and battery-powered devices
assists riders in propulsion. Furthermore, smooth roads
and improved suspension mechanisms and tires provide
a comfortable ride. Thus, distance and comfort are not
an issue. In addition, urbanization has caused people to
migrate toward cities, thereby causing overcrowding.8
In such a scenario, consumer preference is often toward
compact and portable devices.9 The use of small wheels
allows manufacturers to design for compactness and
portability. The portability and compactness of small-
wheel bicycles make them very suitable for riding in
narrow bike lanes and pavement. In addition, the
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
foldable design allows storage in limited space inside
the office and small city apartments, while also enabling
easy commuting.
However, it is a well-known fact that the small-
wheel bicycle does not ride comparable to its big-wheel
counterparts. Therefore, despite having various advan-
tages over the big wheels, the ridability of the small-
wheel bicycles has always been questioned. The ridabil-
ity can be defined as how easily an average rider can
stay upright and maneuver the bicycle. The lesser rid-
ability in terms of stability, handling, and safety in
smaller wheels has been reported in some articles,10
blogs,11,12 and talk.13 The ride of these small-wheel
bicycles is often described as ‘‘less stable,’’‘‘wobbly,’’
and ‘‘twitchy.’’ The difference in the riding performance
can be appreciated with hands-free riding at normal
riding speed, approximately 15–17 km/h. It is relatively
easy to perform hands-free riding in big-wheel bicycles,
but it becomes increasingly difficult once wheel size is
reduced. It is interesting to note that both the small-
wheel bicycle and big-wheel bicycle are structurally
similar, yet there is a huge difference in riding perfor-
mance. Since the major difference in their design is the
wheel diameter, most people assume the smaller wheel
size causes the difference in performance. However,
there is virtually no literature that has investigated the
performance discrepancy in these small-wheel bicycles
or suggested possible design improvements. In order to
address this discrepancy in the bicycle performances, it
is essential to understand the fundamentals of the
design approach, the essence of their dynamic behavior
and working of a bicycle-rider system.
The fundamental technique in balancing a bicycle is
to steer in the direction of the fall. If a rider falls toward
the right side, the rider should steer the bicycle toward
the right to restore balance.14 The current steering geo-
metry and mechanism of the bicycle are so elegant that
they have the ability to automatically steer the bicycle
into the direction of fall. As a result, a rider without his
or her hands on the handlebar or even a riderless
bicycle can remain upright when pushed forward with
sufficient speed. The hands-free riding is a qualitative
approach to examine the stability of a bicycle design.15
In addition, hands-free riding is also a good test for bal-
ancing and handling.16 For stable design configuration,
riders do not have to provide excessive manual control
to ride the bicycle because a part of required steering
control is provided by the design itself. As small-wheel
bicycles are perceived to be less stable compared to big-
wheel bicycles and the danger of overturning is
greater,17 the chances a rider will lose control when
encountered with obstacles, potholes, or a sudden gust
of wind also increases. Therefore, the current need is to
investigate the possible design modifications on current
small-wheel bicycles in order to improve their perfor-
mance, which is the function of overall mass, rider’s
position, and geometrical configurations.
In the current design practice, parameters such as
the height of the saddle, the height of the handlebar,
Paudel and Yap
saddle to handlebar reach, reach and stack should be
maintained almost the same for both small- and big-
wheel bicycles for ergonomic reasons. Therefore, the
overall position and posture of a rider are almost the
same for both small- and big-wheel adult bicycles.
Although the position of the rider and posture affect
the ridability and stability performance, the geometry
of the front steering system is very crucial for the over-
all performance. A large number of guidelines, empiri-
cal formulae, and design charts are available for proper
positioning of the rider; also called the ‘‘Rider’s fit.’’
However, the precise guidelines for selecting an appro-
priate steering geometry are very limited. Almost all
the available guidelines were developed for big-wheel
bicycles, and no guidelines have been developed for
small-wheel bicycles. In the end, the geometries are
selected empirically.
Through years of design modifications and experi-
ence, the effects of front design parameters, such as var-
iations in headtube angle and trail, were qualitatively
known. For example, decreasing the headtube angle
and increasing the trail make bicycle’s steering sluggish
and increasing the headtube angle, and decreasing the
trail makes bicycle’s steering more responsive. The
progress on understanding the bicycle-rider system
dynamics 18 allows for quantifying and comparing the
performance of any bicycle design configuration in
terms of their self-stability, as well as analyzing the
effect of parameter variations. The quantitative analysis
of bicycle design could provide deep insight into current
design methodology and performance. In addition, it
also helps understand if the front steering geometry
design guidelines for the big wheelers are directly appli-
cable to small wheelers. Furthermore, using the quanti-
tative approach, there is a possibility to improve the
stability performance of the small-wheel bicycle by
appropriately selecting overall design configuration,
especially the front steering geometry.
The aim of this article is to develop the design guide-
lines to improve the current small-wheel bicycle designs
for better performance, such as stability, steering
responsiveness, and ridability. The article provides
detailed information on current bicycle design metho-
dology, the influence of this methodology on small-
wheel bicycle frame design, and its effects on their per-
formances. A well-defined and validated mathematical
model has been used as a tool to quantify and compare
the performance of typical bicycles designed with cur-
rent frame design methodology. Finally, a new bicycle
design methodology has been adopted, and steering
geometry design guidelines have been developed that
would enable small-wheel bicycles to have the same
level of stability performance as big-wheel bicycles.
The current bicycle design approach
This section presents a review of the philosophies and
methodologies underlying the current bicycle designs.
229
As the design philosophy and methodology have
remained almost stagnant over a long period of time,
the current design practice is also referred to as conven-
tional design practice in this article. The current design
of the bicycle is a result of the design philosophies of
various frame designers and manufacturers with years
of modifications and experiences in frame design. Some
of the design philosophies from well-known frame
builders are presented here:
 Paul Proteus:19
The first step in building your frame is to design such
a frame that will meet your needs and at the same time
fit your body.
 Richard P. Talbot:20
Develop a design that will best fulfil the specific use while
wasting minimum of the cyclist’s energy.
Establish the geometry that will fit the cyclist’s anat-
omy in a way to facilitate the use of his muscles in the
most efficient manner possible for the purpose of
propulsion.
 Michael and Denise:21
Most of the custom frame builders use rider’s body speci-
fication for the proper design of the frame.
 Association of British cycling coaches (ABCC):22
In order to make effective use of your fitness, the rid-
ing position on your road bike must be correct. This
involves the optimum setting of your three points of
contact with the bike: pedals, saddle and handlebars.
The aforementioned design philosophies suggest that
the intended purpose and rider’s fit are the prime objec-
tives of all the bicycle frame designers. Here, the term
‘‘rider’s fit’’ is associated with the ergonomics of the
riders on the bicycle. A common approach is to mea-
sure the rider’s anthropomorphic parameters as an
input and use sets of empirical formula, charts, or
graphs to size the bicycle frame. Table 1 presents the
list of some common approaches for selecting different
ergonomic parameters based on rider’s anthropo-
morphic parameters. Figure 1 depicts the major frame
design parameters of a typical modern-day bicycle. The
parameters shown in the figure are very crucial in terms
of a rider’s ergonomics and overall performance of the
bicycle. The guidelines related to the ergonomic para-
meters work well with the current bicycle design; thus
they can be considered well established and accepted.
Unlike the ergonomic parameter-selection guide-
lines, the steering geometry, bicycle stability, balancing,
and handling are very complex and poorly understood.
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-
ception is that the shallower headtube angle and longer
trail make bicycles stable in the straight ride,26 but less
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
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;
iF : Moment of inertia of wheel about spin axis; ZF : vertical force on front
wheel; l: wheelbase; ISO: International Standards Organization.
and racing bicycles, the values is approximately –5.
Jones stability criteria31 was one of the widely recom-
mended front steering design guidelines. However, the
criteria have recently been proven to be wrong.14,33 A
report prepared by Calspan Corporation34,35 for
Schwinn bicycle corporation identified a specific value
of velocity, called ‘‘Inversion velocity (VI).’’ At this
velocity, the gyroscopic moment is said to be just
balanced by torque from the steering geometry effects,
and the steering torque control requirement is theoreti-
cally zero. The front steering design guideline based on
the inversion velocity is called the Schwinn/Calspan cri-
teria. A typical value of inversion velocity for a stan-
dard Schwinn suburban model was reported to be 17.5
mph. The front steering design criteria based on the
aforementioned guidelines are presented mathemati-
cally in Table 2.
Figure 3 presents a comparison of the aforemen-
tioned guidelines for 26-inch big-wheel bicycles along
with 91 different big-wheel bicycle (26-inch) designs.
Among these 91 bicycles, 30 bicycles are the Tour de
France 2013 bicycles, and the remaining bicycles are
from different manufacturers. Thus, the selected bicycle
sample represented a wide range of current big-wheel
bicycle designs. The data were retrieved from the PhD
thesis of Prince.36
The ISO recommendation for bicycle safety pro-
vided a broad range of permissible bicycle headtube
and trail ranges. The shallower headtube angles are
associated with greater trail ranges. The trail range
shrunk, and the permissible trail value was also reduced
with the steeper headtube angle. For example, recom-
mended trail value for 70° headtube angle ranged from
19 to 73 mm and that for 74° headtube ranged from 15
to 61 mm. Therefore, shallower headtube angles were
likely to be used with longer trail and vice versa. The
Davison’s recommended trail values were closer to the
maximum trail values as recommended by ISO require-
ments. Unlike the other front geometry design guide-
lines, Jones’ stability criteria and Schwinn/Calspan
231
Figure 3. Comparison of available front-frame design
guidelines and current bicycle design.
criteria are based on the mathematical model, giving
due consideration to the dynamics of the bicycle. These
criteria suggested approximately constant trail values.
All the big-wheel bicycles were well within the ISO
recommended criteria. However, bicycle front design
parameters were closer to the ISO upper limit, that is,
maximum allowable trail for a particular headtube
angle. This supports the argument on current bicycle
design practice that the longer trail makes bicycles
more stable. However, it was found that very few
bicycles are designed with a shallower headtube angle
and a much longer trail. This is because cyclists prefer
stability, as well as good handling. It was already an
accepted fact that a shallower headtube angle and a
longer trail make the bicycle a bit sluggish and reduce
the agility, which are not desired by many cyclists.32,37
In fact, all the aforementioned front steering guidelines
are found to corroborate with current bicycle design
practice for a typical range of headtube angle 71°–74°
and trail approximately 55 to 65 mm. The breakdown
of the sample bicycle data revealed the following:
 The headtube angle range from 71° to less than 74°
included almost 90% of the bicycle designs. The
trail ranges from 50 to 65 mm included almost 86%
of the bicycle designs.
 The headtube angle in the range of 73°–74° included
almost 55% of the bicycle designs.
 The trail range of 50 to 60 mm covered almost 72%
of the bicycle designs.
 The 73° headtube angle and trail range of 50 to 60
mm included almost 51% of the bicycle designs.
Thus, this headtube angle and trail could be consid-
ered as dominating frame design geometry.
 The most repeated headtube angle is approximately
73° (mean=72.86°, mode = 73°) and trail values
are 56–58 mm (mean=56.48 mm, mode=58 mm).
It is clear from the analysis that the majority of the
current bicycle designs use 73° headtube angle and 56–
58 mm trail as their design reference for frame geome-
try. The reason could be years of modification, test
rides, and experience that settled the front geometry
232
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
construction of various types of bicycle has evolved over a
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-
tional technology where interactions with the rider and the
road are concerned.
This statement suggests that small-wheel bicycles are
also designed following the same conventional design
practice adopted for big-wheel bicycles. This section
examines how the aforementioned guidelines are chan-
ged for reduced wheel size.
Ergonomics in bicycle design is an important aspect
that both big- and small-wheel bicycle designers seek to
maintain. In Figure 4, it can be noticed that the position
of the saddle, bottom-bracket height, handlebar height,
and saddle to handlebar reach of 20-inch Moulton
bicycle are almost identical to those of the big-wheel
bicycle to provide the same level of comfort. On the
contrary, the reduction in the wheel size results in the
front wheel having (1) smaller rotational inertia, (2)
smaller gyroscopic effect, and (3) a smaller front fork
trail. The effect of smaller rotational inertia and gyro-
scopic effects were known to reduce the stability of the
bicycle at normal riding speed.40–43 Trying to increase
these factors leads to an increase in wheel mass. As a
result, the overall bicycle becomes heavy. As per the
conventional design practice, it appears that only trail
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.
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
Figure 4. Comparison of overall design between small-wheel
Moulton bicycle and big-wheel bicycle.44
could be practically changed in order to improve the
stability. The trail reduces drastically with the reduc-
tion in wheel size. For example, a big-wheel bicycle
with 26-inch wheel size, 73° headtube angle, and 45
mm fork offset has 56 mm trail. If the 26-inch wheel is
replaced by the 20- and 16-inch wheels on the same
frame, the trail reduces to 27 and 16 mm, respectively.
To achieve a longer front fork trail: (1) headtube
angle could be made shallower, (2) front fork offset or
rake could be reduced, and (3) a combination of (1)
and (2).
Figure 5 shows the steering design of 20 20-inch-
wheel bicycles and 7 16-inch-wheel bicycle models from
different brands like Brompton, Bike Friday, Dawes,
and so on, along with available front frame design
guideline. It is very difficult to determine from the fig-
ure to what extent the manufacturers use those guide-
lines for small-wheel bicycle design. However, it was
found that most manufacturers prefer the combination
of reducing headtube angle and fork offset to achieve
the desired trail length. If the headtube angle only is
used to increase the trail to match that of a big-wheel
bicycle, it would result in unconventionally shallow
headtube angles ( \ 70° for 20-inch and \ 65° for 16-
inch) for small-wheel bicycles. Similarly, if the fork
Paudel and Yap
rake only is used, it would result in a very short or even
negative fork offset. Neither of these is preferred in
conventional bicycle designs. The only good possibility
for maintaining a desired trail length is to use a combi-
nation of changes in headtube angle and fork offset.
The details of the bicycle brands and specifications are
listed in Appendix 1.
The headtube angles of all the small-wheel bicycles
were well within the ISO permissible range. The trail
values for most of the bicycles are closer to the ISO
maximum permissible range, but a few bicycles have
even longer trail values. This showed the influence of
conventional bicycle design practice that suggests lon-
ger trail provides more stability in the bicycle. The
headtube angles for most of the small-wheel bicycles
were less than 73°. In fact, most of the small-wheel
bicycles had headtube angles in the range of 70°–72°.
When the ergonomic design parameters are treated as
design constraints, the steering geometry and overall
design of the bicycle interlink with each other. For
example, to increase the front fork trail, the headtube
angle is reduced. As a result, the wheelbase increases.
This was also reflected in Figure 4. Although the over-
all length of the small-wheel bicycle is shorter than that
of the big-wheel bicycle, the wheelbase could be longer
than that of a typical big-wheel bicycle.
It is clear from the analysis that small-wheel designs
are indeed influenced by big-wheel bicycle designs and
are even designed with a similar approach. The trail dis-
tance is considered as the direct indicator of stability
and handling. Nevertheless, there is still a performance
discrepancy between the small- and big-wheel bicycle
design, as these small wheelers are often perceived ner-
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-
ing and lesser stability in small-wheel bicycles were per-
ceived for a long time, there were virtually no published
articles that tackled these problems. The next section
presents a scientific and quantitative comparison
between big- and small-wheel bicycles. The analysis was
performed for the most common range of headtube
angle and trail. Therefore, this analysis includes the
majority of the big- and small-wheel bicycle designs in
the market.
Quantitative analysis of different wheel
size bicycle performance
The overall design procedure of the motorcycles and
scooters have matured with the availability of software
packages like Bike Sim45 and Fast Bike.46 These soft-
ware packages help analyze and ensure the vehicle’s
performance, such as stability and handling, prior to
their prototype design. However, the design procedure
for bicycles has not matured much over the years. The
233
design of the bicycle is still a matter of craftsmanship,
rather than engineering. The frame design aspect with
respect to the stability and handling has not drawn
much attention. Instead, designers use their years of
experience to design the bicycle frame. Owing to the
lack of a proper mathematical model and dynamic
analysis tools, the bicycle design procedure had been
almost stagnant. However, there has been some break-
through in the field of bicycle dynamics and under-
standing the fundamentals of the bicycle motion.
In fact, a bicycle is an intriguing engineering system
with complex behavior. A bicycle is laterally unstable at
low speed. That is why a rider should provide extra
handlebar control to ride without falling at low speed.
However, when a bicycle achieves appropriate forward
speed, it does not necessarily require riders’ control to
maintain balance. This property is called self-stability.
It was found that a bicycle exhibits self-stability within
a certain range of forward speed, depending on the
design configuration. A group of researchers47,48 care-
fully reviewed the previously published articles and
explanations and derived a validated benchmark set of
mathematical equations for bicycle motion. Here, the
bicycle was treated as a system consisting of four rigid
bodies; a rear wheel, a rear frame where the rider can be
attached rigidly, a front frame assembly that includes
front fork and handlebar, and a front wheel. The equa-
tions of motion are defined for lean angle (f) and steer
angle (d) of the bicycle moving at a constant velocity
(v). The two equations could be represented in a matrix
form, as shown in equation (1)
 
q + vC1 q_ + gK0 + v2 K2 q = f
M€ ð1Þ
where q = ½F, dT and forcing terms f = ½TF , Td T are
lean torque and steer torque. In case of self-stability in
hands-free riding, f = 0. The coefficients M; C1 ; K0 ,
and K2 are mass matrix, damping-like matrix, and stiff-
ness matrix, which are the sum of terms containing
gravitational acceleration ðK0 Þ and quadratic velocity
(K2 ), respectively. These coefficients are defined in
terms of 25 bicycle design parameters, which can be
categorized into geometric and mass parameters. The
geometrical parameters are wheel radii (R), trail (c),
wheelbase (w), and head angle ð90  lÞ. The mass
parameters are the mass, center of mass (COM) and
moment of inertia (MOI) of four bicycle components.
Since bicycles are lightweight single-track vehicles
compared to motorcycles or scooters. The mass-related
parameters of the rider, such as weight, seating posture,
COM, and corresponding MOI, dominate the mass-
related parameters of the bicycle and have a vital influ-
ence on the stability and ridability of the bicycle.
Therefore, adding a rigid rider makes the analysis more
realistic and relevant. In this analysis, a rider was
added to the rear frame of the bicycle. The rider was
234
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
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-
values with respect to the forward velocity for the refer-
enced typical big-wheel (26-inch) bicycle.
The castering mode has negative real parts and is
always stable. The real parts of weave and capsize
eigenvalues fluctuate in between positive and negative
values, depending on the forward riding speed. The
weave mode has imaginary eigenvalues; thus it defines
the oscillating behavior of the bicycle about the headed
direction. Since weave mode has positive real parts, it
suggests that the bicycle is unstable at low velocity.
That is why extra handlebar control is required in order
to ride the bicycle at low speed. The positivity of the
eigenvalues decreases with increasing velocity. The
eigenvalues cross the zero line and become negative
after some critical velocity. This velocity is called the
weave critical velocity. Similarly, capsize eigenvalues
are negative at low speed and cross the zero line to
become positive with increasing velocity. The velocity
at which eigenvalues become positive is called the cap-
size critical velocity. The self-stable region is bounded
by these two critical velocities. For the referenced big-
wheel bicycle with most commonly used steering con-
figuration of 73° headtube angle and 56 mm trail, the
self-stable region was found to be between 4.71 and
7.63 m/s as can be seen in Figure 6. It should be noted
that the eigenvalues and the range of self-stability are
obtained from the validated benchmarked dynamic
model47 for bicycles. This self-stable range varies with
the bicycle design configuration such as wheelbase,
headtube angle, trail, and bicycle-rider mass distribu-
tions. However, as the ergonomic constraints for an
adult rider were considered in this analysis, the position
of the rider could be assumed almost constant.
The parameters, such as the headtube angle and
trail, were varied over the most common range as iden-
tified in section ‘‘Effects of reducing wheel size on
bicycle design.’’ Here, the associated change in wheel-
base, while changing the headtube and trail, was also
considered. For big-wheel bicycle, the most common
range of headtube angle (i.e. 72°–74 ) was considered,
and the trail was accordingly varied from 50 to 60 mm
for each headtube angle. Similarly, for small-wheel
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
Figure 6. Eigenvalues analysis for self-stability prediction.
bicycles (20- and 16-inch wheel size), the most common
range of headtube angle (i.e. 71°–73°) was consid-
ered, and the trail was varied from 35 to 55 mm for
each headtube angle. The self-stability speed for
each combination of headtube angle and trail were
computed using equation (2) and compared. The
main purpose of this analysis was to understand
whether there is any combination of front steering
design parameters in the current small-wheel bicycle
designs that corresponds to the performance of the
big-wheel bicycle.
Figure 7 shows the self-stability speed of the big-
and small-wheel bicycles for each combination of head-
tube angle and trail over the selected region. For each
self-stable bicycle configuration, there exists a range
bounded by two aforementioned critical speeds. When
design configuration changes, the critical speeds and
the self-stable range also change. When the calculated
critical speeds were joined, it formed two lines. The
lower lines correspond to the weave critical speed and
the upper lines correspond to capsize critical speed. The
self-stability of a bicycle configuration is bounded by
the weave critical speed line and capsize critical speed
line and the difference between these critical lines pro-
vides the self-stable speed range for bicycles. Here, the
self-stable speed ranges of big-wheel bicycles were com-
pared with those of small-wheel bicycles. A clear dis-
tinction in the self-stability range was observed for big-
wheel bicycle and small-wheel bicycle. This distinction
was more pronounced in the 16-inch-wheel bicycle. The
self-stability region shifted upward toward the higher
speed range when wheel size was reduced.
Current small-wheel designs generally have shal-
lower headtube angles compared to the big-wheel
bicycles. Therefore, the performance of the big-wheel
bicycle was first compared with the small-wheel bicycle
with shallower headtube angle in the range of 70°–72°.
A combination of headtube angle and trail values was
sought for which small-wheel bicycles would exhibit
self-stability range like that of big-wheel bicycle. It
means that the weave critical speed should be equal to
or lower than the reference weave speed. Similarly, the
Paudel and Yap
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
the reference capsize speed. If both critical speeds fall
in the acceptable region, the combination of headtube
angle and trail could be accepted. The acceptable
regions are shown in Figure 7. For example, the self-
stability range (4.71–7.63 m/s) of the referenced big-
wheel bicycle was compared to a 20-inch-wheel bicycle
with 72° headtube angle and 45 mm trail. The self-
stability range for this small-wheel bicycle’s steering
geometry was 4.75 m/s (weave critical speed) to 7.67 m/s
(capsize critical speed). Here, capsize critical speed of this
20-inch-wheel bicycle is higher than that of the refer-
enced big-wheel bicycle. Thus, the capsize speed was
within the acceptable region. Nonetheless, the weave crit-
ical speed was not equal to or lower than the reference
weave critical value. Therefore, the combination of 72°
headtube angle and 45 mm trail was rejected, as it could
not provide comparable self-stability similar to that of
the referenced big-wheel bicycle.
A similar analysis was performed for 72°, 73°, and
74° headtube angles for the big-wheel bicycle and com-
pared their performance with small-wheel bicycles. It
was also interesting to know that even if small-wheel
bicycles had the same trail as that of the big-wheel
bicycle (56 mm), the self-stability region was not com-
parable. A 20-inch small-wheel bicycle with 71.5° head-
tube and 16-inch-wheel bicycle with 71° headtube angle
with the same trail of 56 mm had the self-stability
range of 5.51–9.36 m/s and 6.12–11.15 m/s, respectively.
In addition, the self-stability of the big-wheel bicycle
was compared to the small-wheel bicycle designed with
the same steering geometry (73° headtube angle and 56
mm trail). The performance was still not comparable.
For the small-wheel bicycle, a combination of front
geometry parameters could not be determined when
shallower headtube angles in between 70° and 72° were
considered. The small-wheel bicycles need to achieve a
higher speed to become self-stable, meaning that the
rider has to provide more physical input in order to
achieve and maintain higher speed required for self-sta-
bility. On the contrary, since the self-stability starts from
235
higher velocity, at normal riding speed of approximately
15–17 km/h, the small-wheel bicycles are likely to be
unstable. This means the small-wheel bicycles require
higher handlebar control from the rider because of the
lateral instability at normal riding speed. The self-stable
range further shifted toward the higher speed when
wheel size was reduced. Thus, as the wheel size reduces,
the required speed of a bicycle to become self-stable
increases. Therefore, more physical input and rider’s
handlebar control are required, making it difficult to
ride. The result corroborates the rider’s subjective per-
ception that the ride of small wheelers is less stable, diffi-
cult and nervous at normal riding speed.11–13,18 At the
same time, the results also confirmed that the difficulties
in riding small-wheel bicycles increase as wheel size
decreases.
The results were very intriguing, as the analysis
clearly showed that the current designs of small-wheel
bicycles with shallower headtube are not as stable as
that of the big-wheel bicycles. In other words, the cur-
rent design practice of increasing the trail by reducing
the headtube angle and fork offset did not yield a simi-
lar self-stability to that of the big-wheel bicycle. In fact,
reducing the headtube angle and increasing the trail
shifted the self-stable range further toward the higher
speed. Most importantly, the results also showed that
the use of trail value as an indicator of stability is not
adequate. Although the practice has worked well for
big-wheel bicycles, it does not translate directly when it
comes to small-wheel bicycle design and performance.
However, an interesting observation was made when
the performance of the big-wheel bicycles was com-
pared with small-wheel bicycles with a steeper headtube
angle. The stability of the big-wheel bicycle with 72°
headtube angle and 50 mm trail bicycle was found to
be almost the same as that of a 20-inch wheel bicycle
with 73° headtube angle and 41 mm trail. The results
were contrary to the current design practice of reducing
the headtube angle and increasing the trail. Instead, it
was determined that making the headtube angle steeper
and reducing the trail could enable the small-wheel
236
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
the similar design philosophies and approaches, the
dynamic performance of small-wheel bicycles and big-
wheel bicycles is very different. The accurate dynamic
model of the bicycle has been recently developed. This
model has been successfully used to develop fascinating
designs, like that of two mass skate bicycle and reverse
steering bicycle.50 However, the model has not been
reported to have been used by any of the small-wheel
bicycle designers or manufacturers. Therefore, this
model could be used as the bridge between small-wheel
bicycles and big-wheel bicycles to reduce the gap
between their performance. The equations involve very
complex mechanism and require highly technical
knowledge, as well as a precise measurement of com-
plex design parameters, such as the COM, MOI, and
principal axis inertia. Thus, it could be difficult for
novel designers, as well as non-technical frame builders,
to directly apply this model into their design. Very few
guidelines were available for front steering geometry,
and most of them were based on big-wheel bicycle
design. Since those guidelines did not translate directly
for small wheelers, the guidelines relating the simple
geometrical parameters with their stability performance
are currently needed. The guidelines based on the
advance bicycle model could transform the current
design of the small-wheel bicycle.
Improved methodology
In this study, the current design procedure was modi-
fied by incorporating a well-defined and validated
mathematical model in the design procedure. Here,
along with the ergonomic and handling, the self-
stability characteristics and portability were included in
the bicycle design objective. Figure 8 illustrates the
design philosophy that was adopted in order to improve
the small-wheel bicycle design.
Small-wheel bicycles are designed for portability,
compactness, and easy handling. Therefore, the weight
of the bicycle and foldability are very important aspects
for small-wheel bicycles. Most of the well-known small-
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
Figure 8. Improved bicycle frame design philosophy.
wheel bicycle frames, including some foldable designs,
are made up of steel or titanium and weigh approxi-
mately 10–12 kg. Therefore, the weight should not be
increased beyond the 12-kg limit while improving the
bicycle design. To provide the same level of comfort as
the big-wheel bicycle, the ergonomic parameters were
maintained almost similar to that of the big-wheel
bicycle.
The handling performance can be defined as the abil-
ity to perform different maneuvers, realizing that the
responsive bicycles would require less effort to perform
those maneuvers. The handling aspect is related to the
maneuverability of the bicycle and can be closely corre-
lated with the dynamics of the uncontrolled bicycles in
terms of stability and responsiveness to external
inputs.51 The damping of the unstable weave is also of
interest for the handling of bicycles at low speed. Since
big-wheel bicycles are considered to have better han-
dling, it would be good to match or improve the damp-
ing of the weave mode compared to big-wheel bicycles.
Furthermore, handling aspects can also be subjectively
evaluated by performing different maneuvering experi-
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
time, the response should not be twitchy or nervous
during cornering or when encountered with small dis-
turbance like potholes and bumps. The front steering
geometry largely governed the maneuverability.
The last aspect that was considered was the self-
stability of the bicycle. As explained earlier in section
‘‘Quantitative analysis of different wheel size bicycle
performance,’’ the self-stability is the intrinsic charac-
teristic of the bicycle design configuration. Since small-
wheel bicycles are less stable, the aim was to improve
the design, such that small-wheel bicycles would have
the same self-stable region. The mathematical model
Paudel and Yap
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
small-wheel bicycles.
An improved methodology was developed for small-
wheel bicycle design, as shown in Figure 9. The main
objective of the improved methodology was to illus-
trate a scientific and quantitative approach for improv-
ing the stability performance of current small-wheel
bicycle designs, including remaining design aspects.
The method described here is an iterative process. The
methodology started with the selection of basic frame
design parameters that govern the ergonomics and han-
dling aspects. The ergonomic parameters were based
on the rider’s anthropomorphic parameters. For this, a
bike designing software called BikeCAD23 was used.
Parameters such as chainstay length and bottom-
bracket height were selected as in the big-wheel bicycle.
A basic bicycle model was developed from ergonomic
parameters including the chainstay length, bottom-
bracket height, headtube angle, and trail.
The dynamic equations of motion for bicycles
require 25 different design parameters, including the
237
geometrical and mass-related parameters. The small-
wheel bicycle frame was modeled using the Solidworks
software.52 Thereafter, the required mass-related para-
meters, such as mass, the COM, and MOI, were
obtained with the help of Solidworks.52 The self-
stability of that design configuration was computed
using a benchmarked bicycle model. The self-stability
speed thus obtained was compared with the reference
self-stability range for the big-wheel bicycle. When the
computed self-stability range was not comparable to
the reference self-stable range, the front steering para-
meters were changed step by step. The required combi-
nation of headtube angle and trail could be found after
some iterations. If the current sets of parameters are
not satisfactory, a few further iterations could be per-
formed to get the next sets of parameters, which would
still exhibit a similar self-stable region. In this way, dif-
ferent sets of parameters could be obtained, which exhi-
bit similar stability and ergonomics.
The improved methodology and mathematical tool
allowed design parameters to be evaluated at the early
238
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-
tates a number of prototype fabrications, riding tests,
and years of modifications in order to identify and
select a set of design parameters. This was the main
reason why some of the bicycle designers preferred to
use a single set of headtube angle and trail distance for
their bicycle model. Unlike the conventional method,
this improved methodology provided the flexibility for
the frame builders to try different designs. Hence, the
methodology is more cost-effective and scientific and
frame builders do not have to bind themselves with a
single set of design parameters.
Since small-wheel bicycles with shallower headtube
angle (70°–72°) did not result in similar stability to that
of the big-wheel bicycle, in this analysis, 73° headtube
angle and 20 mm trail were initially selected for both
the 20-inch- and 16-inch-wheel bicycle. The associated
changes in wheelbase were considered accordingly. The
computed self-stability was compared with the refer-
ence self-stability range for the big-wheel bicycle. When
computed, self-stability was not comparable to the ref-
erence self-stability range, the trail was increased by 1
mm. This iterative process was continued until a set of
headtube angle and trail were obtained, which could
result in comparable self-stability. The analysis was per-
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°
and 50 mm trail.
Improved frame design parameters
Using the proposed methodology, different sets of
frame design parameters were obtained. Figure 10
shows small-wheel bicycle’s self-stable speed for a range
of trail distance when steeper headtube angles were
considered. The self-stable range shifted toward the
low-speed region when headtube angle was increased.
This allowed identifying some combinations of the
headtube angle and trail, which resulted in a compara-
ble self-stability range to that of the referenced big-
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
wheel bicycle. It was interesting to note that 45 mm
trail and 74° headtube angle are nominal values for the
20-inch-wheel bicycle to exhibit referenced big-wheel
bicycle self-stability. Similarly, the nominal values for
the 16-inch-wheel bicycles were 24 mm trail and 76°
headtube angle. The nominal values might vary slightly
depending on the rider’s sitting position. Nonetheless,
the rider’s position on a bicycle is almost constant for
ergonomic reasons. Here, the COM of the rider on the
rear frame was maintained at 28–29 cm from the rear-
wheel axle.
The analysis provides strong evidence that increas-
ing the headtube angle helps improve the stability of
the small-wheel bicycles. Furthermore, the allowable
range of the trail increased when headtube angles were
made steeper. For example, the 20-inch-wheel bicycle
with 74° headtube angle and trail ranging from 45–48
mm showed a comparable self-stability and the range
increased to 45–59 mm for 77°. The results were con-
trary to the general trend obtained from the ISO rec-
ommended criteria; Figure 3. Furthermore, it was
found that the range of self-stable speed broadened
when a steeper headtube angle was used with the longer
trail. The range of allowable trail for each headtube
angle is presented in Table 3.
Prototype design and analysis
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)
were fabricated. The first bicycle, Figure (a), has a
headtube angle of 74.5° and trail of 45.0 mm. Although
the trail was comparable to the current designs of
the small-wheel bicycle with reference to Figure 5, the
headtube angle was steeper than the usual practice. The
second bicycle design has a 56 mm trail and headtube
angle of 77°. Thus, the fabricated bicycle had unusual
front steering geometries as compared to the current
small-wheel bicycle design practice.
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
parameters, such as bottom-bracket height, seat post
angle, were maintained comparable to big-wheel
bicycles. The unstable weave mode eigenvalues were
also of interest. Increasing the headtube angle and
appropriately selecting the trail helped to improve the
damping of unstable weave mode. Furthermore, the
lean and steering oscillation behaviors of prototype
bicycles were simulated for certain lateral perturbation
to ensure better steering response to external
disturbance.
The major design parameters for the fabricated
bicycle, along with the selected 16-inch-wheel bicycle,
are listed in Table 4. A list of 25 design parameters
required for the benchmarked bicycle model is also pre-
sented in Appendix 2. Here, the self-stability of the pro-
totype bicycles is calculated considering a rider with a
weight of 72 kg and height of 183 cm.
Improved self-stability comparison. The stability compari-
son of the two 20-inch-wheel prototype bicycles and a
conceptual 16-inch-wheel bicycle with big-wheel bicycle
is shown in Figure 12. The computed self-stability speed
range is presented in Table 4. The stability speed range
was obviously comparable to the reference big-wheel
bicycle. Furthermore, the self-stable speed range was
also wider and started from relatively lower speed than
that of the referenced big-wheel bicycle. The weave
eigenvalues at the unstable low velocities are less posi-
tive compared to those of the big-wheel bicycle and the
eigenvalues within the self-stable region are more nega-
tive with an increase in velocity. This suggests that the
improved bicycles would be easy to control and more
stable at low velocities and within the self-stable region.
Riding experiment. Owing to the self-stability property, a
properly designed bicycle could easily be ridden with-
out hands on the handlebar. Furthermore, a properly
designed bicycle should have good steering response as
the rider leans toward any side to maintain the balance
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
small-wheel bicycles and big-wheel bicycles such as
Moulton, Brompton, Ofo bike, Mo bike, Montague,
some racing bikes, and road bikes. Riding tests, includ-
ing hands-free straight-line riding, hands-free corner-
ing, and hands-free riding over the road hump, were
240
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
was tested by non-professional cyclists who were not
very skilled hands-free riders.
A bicycle speedometer (Cateye Velo Wireless)53 was
used to record the minimum speed required to perform
hands-free riding. Riders started from a low speed of
approximately 12 km/h. The display unit of the speed-
ometer was mounted on the handlebar such that riders
could continuously monitor their speed. When a rider
achieved a relatively constant speed, he or she tried to
perform hands-free riding. If unsuccessful, the rider
repeated the procedure by increasing the speed in small
increments until hands-free riding could be performed.
Once the participant identified the threshold speed at
which he or she could perform hands-free riding, the
speed was recorded on the feedback form given to the
participant. This procedure was repeated for each parti-
cipant and for each bicycle. A comparison between
threshold hands-free speed and theoretical weave criti-
cal speed for different wheel size bicycle designs is
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
presented in Table 5. Here, the theoretical values and
experimental values are based on the riders having 75
kg weight and 177 cm height (Rider 1) and 52 kg weight
and 163 cm height (Rider 2). Therefore, the analytical
weave critical speed for Rider 2 is different compared
to that presented in Table 4.
For the Moulton bike, the hands-free riding was pos-
sible. However, it required a relatively higher speed as
predicted by the mathematical analysis of small-wheel
bicycles. The Brompton bicycle was found difficult to
ride hands free and steering also felt nervous when
encountering road bumps and small obstacles. The big-
wheel mountain bicycle was relatively easy to ride
hands-free and steering was responsive to the rider’s
lean. The Montague bicycle was also easy to perform
for straight-line hands-free riding. However, it required
a significant weight shift to perform the cornering. The
road bike performance was found in between the
Moulton bicycle and mountain bicycles. In addition,
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
the share bikes, like Ofo bike and Mo bike, it was
almost impossible to perform the hands-free riding
below 22 km/h. The steering was less responsive to the
rider’s lean and handlebar control as compared to other
big- and small-wheel bicycles. This highlights the
importance of design parameters and their effects on
handling and stability performance. Similar riding tests
were performed for prototype bicycles. It was perceived
that the prototype bicycles could be ridden hands-free
at relatively low speed compared to other bicycles. In
fact, the steep headtube angle, together with the longer
trail in the improved 20-inch-wheel bicycle II, provided
very responsive handling. The bicycles were quick at
maneuvering. At the same time, they were very stable at
normal riding in a straight line.
The preliminary experience from hands-free riding
suggested that the improved bicycles were much better
than the aforementioned small-wheel bicycles, racing
bicycle, and road bicycle. The overall ridability of the
prototype bicycles was as good as that of the big-wheel
road bicycle and mountain bicycles. These preliminary
observations agreed with the mathematical analysis
and helped to validate the improved methodology and
proposed front design steering guidelines. The results
suggested that the design of the current small-wheel
bicycles could be improved for better stability and
performance by carefully selecting the front design
parameters. In addition, it also showed that the differ-
ence in performance between different big-wheel
bicycles and small-wheel bicycles was not because of
the smaller wheel size but rather due to the improper
selection of design parameters and configurations.
Conclusion
This article scientifically and quantitatively analyzes
the dynamic stability performance of different wheel
sized bicycles in relation to their self-stability. Front
steering design of big- and small-wheel bicycles from
different brands and models were compared with the
available design guidelines. The analysis suggested that
the current design practice of big-wheel bicycles agrees
with the available guidelines. However, a clear agree-
ment between the front-frame design guidelines and
current design practice was not found when those
guidelines were translated for small-wheel bicycles.
Nonetheless, the small-wheel bicycle designs were
found to be strongly influenced by the big-wheel bicycle
designs and concept of the longer trail for good stabi-
lity. When the self-stability performance was compared
over the most common design range, a distinct differ-
ence was observed in the self-stable speed region for
big- and small-wheel bicycles. Small-wheel bicycles
242
were found to require higher speed for self-stability.
Big-wheel bicycles are stable around moderate speed,
whereas small-wheel bicycles are likely to be at their
unstable state and require higher manual control to
ride at normal speed. The analysis confirmed that the
current design of small-wheel bicycles causes bicycles
that are less stable and difficult to ride at normal speed.
The findings corroborated with the rider’s perception
of the small-wheel bicycle riding.
Simple front steering geometry design guidelines
have been developed for small-wheel bicycles using an
improved design philosophy and methodology. Two
prototype bicycles, which do not agree with the current
design practice, were fabricated to validate the pro-
posed front steering design guidelines. Their hands-free
riding performance was compared with well-known
existing bicycle brands. A good agreement was obtained
between the predicted self-stable speed and minimum
hands-free riding speed for improved small-wheel
bicycles. This study successfully illustrated the possible
improvement for small wheelers by increasing the head-
tube angle and properly selecting the trail. It was found
that the riding difficulties are not because of the
reduced wheel size, lesser MOI, or gyroscopic effects,
but rather difficulties are due to the design approach
used for small wheelers. The study also confirmed that
the information available for small-wheel bicycle
designs is not adequate to ensure stability and perfor-
mance. The study recommended that the bicycle design
should be modified properly according to the wheel size
used. In fact, the direct measurement of stability should
be used as the major design objective. The proposed
bicycle design methodology and guidelines could trans-
form the current design of the small-wheel bicycles for
better stability, ridability, and safety.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Milan Paudel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7623-3626
Fook Fah Yap https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1771-3886
References
1. Wilson DG and Papadopoulos J. A short history of bicy-
cling. In: Wilson DG (ed.) Bicycling science. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2004, pp.3–35.
2. Hadland T. Small wheels for adult bicycles. In: Had-
land’s blog, 2012, https://hadland.wordpress.com/2012/
06/25/small-wheels-for-adult-bicycles/
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 234(3)
3. (25 Feburary). Heritage, http://www.moultonbicycles.
co.uk/heritage.html
4. (26 Feburary). The bickerton story, http://www.bicker
tonportables.co.uk/heritage/the-bickerton-story/
5. Hadland T and Lessing H-E. Small-wheeled bicycles. In:
Hadland T (ed.) Bicycle design: an illustrated history.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014, pp.447–471.
6. Kellogg T. Trail and its effects. In: Specturm, 2017,
https://www.spectrum-cycles.com/geometry.php
7. Dahon. Dahon doubling production capacity with new fac-
tory, and expanding distribution, 2018, https://eu.dahon.
com/dahon-doubling-production-capacity-with-new-factory-
and-expanding-distribution/(accessed 25 September
2018)
8. Boyd B. Urbanization and the mass movement of people
to cities, https://graylinegroup.com/urbanization-cata-
lyst-overview/ (accessed 13 March 2019).
9. Castellan G. The evolution of the folding bike. Momen-
tum Mag, 12 April 2012, https://momentummag.com/
the-evolution-of-the-folding-bike/
10. Lowell J and McKell H. The stability of bicycles. Am J
Phys 1982; 50(12): 1106–1112.
11. Forester J. Report on stability of the Dahon bicycle,
2017, http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/BicycleEng/
dahon.htm
12. Heine J. Tracking straight. Advenchercycling (Mechanical
advantage), June, https://www.adventurecycling.org/
default/assets/resources/20140601_MechanicalAdvantage
Trail_ Heine.pdf
13. Schwab AL. Why bicycles do not fall, https://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=2Y4mbT3ozcA&t=771s
14. Kooijman J, Meijaard J, Papadopoulos JM, et al. A
bicycle can be self-stable without gyroscopic or caster
effects. Science 2011; 332(6027): 339–342.
15. Papadopoulos JM. Bicycle handling experiments you can
do. 1987, http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/
bicycle_mechanics/bicycle_handling.pdf
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
17. Elvik R, Vaa T, Hoye A, et al. The handbook of road safety
measures. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2009.
18. Schwab AL and Meijaard J. A review on bicycle dynamics
and rider control. Veh Syst Dyn 2013; 51(7): 1059–1090.
19. Proteus P. The Proteus framebuilding book: A guide for
the novice bicycle framebuilder. College Park, MD: Pro-
teus Designs, 1975.
20. Talbot RP. Designing and building your own frameset: an
illustrated guide for the amateur bicycle builder. USA:
Manet Guild, 1984.
21. Koilin MJ and Rosa DMDL. The custom bicycle: buying,
setting up, and riding the quality bicycle. Emmaus, PA:
Rodale Press, 1979.
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).
23. BikeCad. BikeCad: bicycle design software, https://
www.bikecad.ca/
24. Paterek T. The Paterek Manual for bicycle framebuilders.
River Falls, WI: Framebuilders Guild, 1985.
25. Olds R. Bike sizing: stack and reach. Velovoice, 29 May
2015, http://velovoice.blogspot.com/2015/05/bike-sizing-
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