recumbent wheel sizes

[stuee147]

hi all
here is something i would appreciate peoples opinion on.
what wheel size do you like and why ???
im going to start my second recumbent trike, the first one has a 26" rear with 20" front, but im considering going for 20" all round has anyone any experience of this and how dose it ride? is there any noticeable difference in hill climbs or distance riding or maybe i could go 26" all round but i think that would be to high and i think being a tadpole trike having 26" front wheels could cause a problem with the wheels rubbing on the frame or me during a tight turn ?
or is there any other sizes anyone has tried ???
the trike i am planing on building will have rear suspension and will be for touring and distance, im also makeing a trailer which im hoping to use the same size wheels as the trike.
i would like to have the same size wheels for two reasons, first i only have to carry 1 size of spare tube and secondly if the wheels are all the same size i only need to get 2 donor bikes of the same size and that will give me the wheels and gearing ect i need rather than needing to mix and match wheels and frame sizes.
like i say any thoughts would be gratefully received even if you only have experience of one size what do you like or dislike about it.

 

[Scoosh]

Hang on a minute - you've only just finished making the first one - it hasn't yet been seen by the CC Ecosse 'wide public' ... and you're already planning the next one ?? !!!

I think some of the ICE trikes come with different wheel sizes, so maybe their owners can give you the info.

 

[stuee147]

Hang on a minute - you've only just finished making the first one - it hasn't yet been seen by the CC Ecosse 'wide public' ... and you're already planning the next one ?? !!!

I think some of the ICE trikes come with different wheel sizes, so maybe their owners can give you the info.

oh yea the next one is well on its way iv used what iv learnt from the first to make the next even better

 

[classic33]

24 inch wheels all round. Considered for my Brox, however the downside is the cost and wether having had them built they'd actually take the cornering forces.
A number of places tried and its more or less the same story.
They'd also have to be heavier than a standard 24 inch wheel.

Consider if the standard hub would be strong enough.

 

[ufkacbln]

The reason for the 26/20 design is to keep the seat low enough to get the feet down safely, as the front boom invaiably is above the front wheel whether it is a long or short wheelbase

The use of 20" (406 is best for tyre choice) lowers the front end and normally means a lower machine all round.

On trikes the same problem does not exist as you are already between and not over the wheels

I ride both my Gekko is 406 all round and the Catrike expedition has a 559 rear

Practically there is no real difference when sorted, however the gearing is more difficult. It is easy to spin out on a 406 rear wheel getteing highe enoug gearing can be an issue

I have a Sclumpf HSD (34t / 85t) on the Gekko for this reason. On my Hurricane (404/406 low rider) I had a 80t chain ring made for me.

Other practicalities are that any luggage is lower, and that mudguards are more difficult to get hold of.
To be quite honest there is little difference in the day to day handling or riding save that the 406 rear wheel flexes considerably less

 

[byegad]

A friend who went from an old Trice, (20") front and 26" rear to a QNT 20" all round found there was slightly less traction from the 20" wheel off road, but it was much easier to get a high enough top gear with 20" rear wheel than a low enough bottom gear with 26" rear wheel.

 

[stuee147]

The reason for the 26/20 design is to keep the seat low enough to get the feet down safely, as the front boom invaiably is above the front wheel whether it is a long or short wheelbase

The use of 20" (406 is best for tyre choice) lowers the front end and normally means a lower machine all round.

On trikes the same problem does not exist as you are already between and not over the wheels

I ride both my Gekko is 406 all round and the Catrike expedition has a 559 rear

Practically there is no real difference when sorted, however the gearing is more difficult. It is easy to spin out on a 406 rear wheel getteing highe enoug gearing can be an issue

I have a Sclumpf HSD (34t / 85t) on the Gekko for this reason. On my Hurricane (404/406 low rider) I had a 80t chain ring made for me.

Other practicalities are that any luggage is lower, and that mudguards are more difficult to get hold of.
To be quite honest there is little difference in the day to day handling or riding save that the 406 rear wheel flexes considerably less

iv read somewhere that 26" are best for distance as its a larger wheel so travels further per rotation but then iv also heard that 20" are better because they are better for hills with the smaller rotation per turn of the pedals. i think its one of them things it all comes down to preference.
when you say its easy to spin out do you mean on corners ?

A friend who went from an old Trice, (20") front and 26" rear to a QNT 20" all round found there was slightly less traction from the 20" wheel off road, but it was much easier to get a high enough top gear with 20" rear wheel than a low enough bottom gear with 26" rear wheel.

do you mean its easier to keep a good speed in top gear with the 20" i thought it was better at slow speed with 20" ? or am i just getting confused lol

 

[ufkacbln]

By "spin out" I mean very high cadence to get any further speed increase.

As Byegad pointed out, it works both ways.

WIth the same gearing....

The 559 will gain a good speed at the top range with a reasonable cadence, but will be too high at the bottom range making it difficult for hills. The 406 will climb easily, but on the flat will require high cadence to get a fast speed

 

[stuee147]

By "spin out" I mean very high cadence to get any further speed increase.

As Byegad pointed out, it works both ways.

WIth the same gearing....

The 559 will gain a good speed at the top range with a reasonable cadence, but will be too high at the bottom range making it difficult for hills. The 406 will climb easily, but on the flat will require high cadence to get a fast speed

ahhh thankyou i get it now so if im going to be doing a lot of hills im best looking at the 406 (20") but for long flats the best would be 559 (26") ill have to think about that. seeing as im in Scotland there's more hills than flats so maybe the 406 is best.

do you know if there is any problems with carrying panniers and trailer on the 406s ? i think that the smaller wheel would be stronger for carrying weight (i would be looking at around 48 spoke wheels with at least 14mm axles) and i would Imagen having the weight lower to the ground would be an advantage or am i seeing it wrong ??

 

[ufkacbln]

This is why my gearing is so "extreme" a 34/85 on the Gekko front and the Rohloff on the back

 

[stuee147]

This is why my gearing is so "extreme" a 34/85 on the Gekko front and the Rohloff on the back

is it easy to get and fit the larger gearings i assume you would have to replace the derailier made for the larger gears ??

 

[ufkacbln]

The Gekko has a Shlumpf HSD, an internal gear that fits at the bottom bracket

Interestingly on a 406 trike!

The Hurricane has a "manual shift" where I simply push the chain tube to reroute the chain and change

Few derailleurs will cope with these extremes,

MY Hurricane chainring was from the now defunct Highpath Engineering

 

[stuee147]

The Gekko has a Shlumpf HSD, an internal gear that fits at the bottom bracket

Interestingly on a 406 trike!

The Hurricane has a "manual shift" where I simply push the chain tube to reroute the chain and change

Few derailleurs will cope with these extremes,

MY Hurricane chainring was from the now defunct Highpath Engineering

wow thats brilliant i have never seen anything like that i love the way no derailleurs cable runs ect and not worrying about where the chain will run to as it never changes angels. im going to look into that its just so neat.

is there a way of working out what gearing ratio is best or is it more trial and error ??

sorry for all the questions, but if i dont ask ill never know

stuee

 

[fixedfixer]

My vote is for 26 rear and 20 front. Reasons, 26 rear will give a bit more clearance for rear mech (not issue if you are going internal hub gears) 20 front willbe strong and keep front end low.
Plus if you use the rear frame of an mtb full sus as a doner it will have 26 / disc and be able to take low gears and standard panniers / rack.

 

[fixedfixer]

for gear inches / range google sheldon brown gear calculator