Aerodynamic Analysis of Bicycle Wheels - A Review of Scientific and Engineering Literature

Introduction

The pursuit of enhanced performance in cycling has consistently driven innovation in bicycle design and technology. Among the various components of a bicycle, the wheels play a critical role in determining the overall aerodynamic efficiency. Minimizing aerodynamic drag is paramount for cyclists seeking to maximize speed and minimize effort, particularly at competitive levels and even for recreational riders aiming for improved efficiency. Bicycle wheels, due to their rotational nature, shape, and interaction with the airflow, contribute significantly to the total drag experienced by the cyclist and the bicycle system. Consequently, the aerodynamic analysis and optimization of bicycle wheels have been a subject of extensive research utilizing both Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel testing. These methodologies provide valuable insights into the complex airflow patterns around the wheels and the resulting aerodynamic forces. This literature review aims to synthesize the findings from scientific, engineering, and government publications concerning the application of CFD and wind tunnel testing to bicycle wheels. The review will specifically focus on the intricacies of low-speed aerodynamics, the potential discrepancies between static and dynamic testing methodologies, and the influence of wheel design on handling characteristics, extending beyond the sole consideration of wind resistance.

Fundamentals of Low-Speed Aerodynamics around Bicycle Wheels

Cycling typically occurs within a speed range of approximately 0 to 70 kilometers per hour. Considering the typical diameter of a bicycle wheel, these speeds correspond to relatively low Reynolds numbers. The Reynolds number, a dimensionless quantity that describes the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces within a fluid, dictates the flow regime. In the context of bicycle wheels, these Reynolds numbers often indicate a complex interplay between laminar and turbulent flow, particularly within the boundary layer that forms on the wheel’s surface. The boundary layer, a thin layer of air in the immediate vicinity of the wheel, is where viscous forces are most significant. On a rotating bicycle wheel, the boundary layer behavior differs between the advancing and retreating sides relative to the oncoming airflow. This asymmetry, induced by the wheel’s rotation, influences the drag experienced by the wheel and can also generate lift or side forces.

Behind the bicycle wheel, a turbulent wake is formed as the airflow separates from the wheel’s surface. This wake, characterized by lower pressure and chaotic flow, is a significant contributor to the overall pressure drag acting on the wheel. The geometry of the bicycle wheel, including the depth and shape of the rim and the number and shape of the spokes, directly affects the size, intensity, and structure of this wake. Wheels designed to minimize the wake’s extent and energy generally exhibit lower aerodynamic drag. Another crucial factor in real-world cycling is the yaw angle, which is the angle between the direction of the relative wind and the bicycle’s direction of motion. Crosswinds are a common occurrence, leading to non-zero yaw angles that significantly alter the effective airflow over the wheel and the resulting aerodynamic forces. The performance of a bicycle wheel can vary considerably depending on the yaw angle. Finally, the proximity of the ground can influence the airflow around the lower portion of the wheel. While often simplified in isolated wheel tests, this ground effect can be a relevant factor in actual riding scenarios, potentially affecting pressure distribution and wake formation beneath the wheel.

CFD Analysis of Bicycle Wheels

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has emerged as a powerful tool for simulating and analyzing the complex airflow around bicycle wheels. Researchers have employed CFD to gain detailed insights into the aerodynamic forces and flow structures that develop. The complex geometries of spoked and disc wheels are often handled using fully unstructured meshes, allowing for accurate representation of intricate design features. Finite element Navier-Stokes solvers are typically used to discretize the governing flow equations, and unstructured multigrid algorithms can facilitate rapid convergence to steady-state solutions. Adaptive meshing techniques are often applied to refine the computational grid in both the viscous boundary layer regions and the inviscid outer flow, ensuring accurate capture of critical flow phenomena. While not specific to bicycle wheels, the application of CFD in parametric studies, such as optimizing the design of rotary thermal wheels by varying parameters like rotary speed and matrix profile, demonstrates the general capability of CFD for analyzing wheel-like structures. The practical interest in using CFD for bicycle wheel analysis is evident in online discussions where engineers and enthusiasts seek to calculate drag and torque at various wind speeds and yaw angles. Furthermore, CFD has been used to assess the accuracy of different turbulence models, such as the standard k–ε model, in predicting flow behavior around bluff bodies, which is relevant to understanding the flow around bicycle wheels. Studies have also utilized Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) models to simulate airflow around bicycle wheels at typical cycling speeds, providing data on drag, vertical, and side forces, as well as turning moments to evaluate stability. The versatility of CFD is further demonstrated by its application in analyzing the impact of components like bicycle fenders on aerodynamic drag.

Despite its capabilities, CFD analysis of bicycle wheels also presents challenges. Accurately modeling turbulence, particularly in the separated flows that occur around rotating wheels, remains a complex task. High-fidelity simulations, especially those involving transient analyses to capture dynamic effects, can be computationally expensive. Incorporating the dynamic interactions of the bicycle and rider, including pedaling motion and changes in rider posture, into CFD models of isolated wheels is also difficult. While moving mesh techniques can simulate wheel rotation, accurately representing tire deformation and the interaction with the ground continues to be a challenge. Nevertheless, CFD studies have yielded valuable findings. They have demonstrated the potential for aerodynamic wheels to significantly reduce drag compared to conventional spoked wheels. CFD analyses have also revealed the influence of rim depth and the ratio of tire width to rim width on aerodynamic drag. A key advantage of CFD is its ability to resolve forces on individual wheel components, providing insights into their specific contributions to the overall drag. Some CFD studies have even identified phenomena like the transition from a downward to an upward acting vertical force on deep-rim wheels as the yaw angle increases. Furthermore, CFD has been used to compare the aerodynamic performance of different disc wheel geometries, such as flat versus lenticular designs, across a range of yaw angles.

Wind Tunnel Testing of Bicycle Wheels

Wind tunnel testing remains a cornerstone methodology for evaluating the aerodynamic performance of bicycle wheels under controlled conditions. Various testing approaches are employed, including testing isolated wheels, wheels mounted on a bicycle frame, and complete bicycle-rider systems. Tests on isolated wheels often utilize a rotating mechanism to simulate the wheel’s motion relative to the airflow. In other setups, wheels are tested while mounted on a complete bicycle frame, sometimes with a mannequin or an actual cyclist, to account for the aerodynamic interactions within the system. Some wind tunnels incorporate a moving ground plane to more accurately simulate the interaction between the rotating wheel and the road surface. Accurate control and measurement of key parameters such as wind speed, yaw angle, and wheel rotational speed are crucial for obtaining reliable test results.

The primary aerodynamic parameters measured in wind tunnel tests of bicycle wheels include drag force, which opposes the motion; side force, which acts laterally; yaw moment, which indicates the tendency to rotate vertically; and sometimes vertical force (lift). Wind tunnel studies have provided significant insights into the aerodynamic performance of different bicycle wheel designs. Comparisons between spoked wheels, tri-spoke wheels, and disc wheels have often demonstrated the superior aerodynamic efficiency of disc wheels, particularly at higher yaw angles. Deep-rim wheels have been shown to offer substantial drag reductions compared to traditional box-section rims. The performance characteristics of semilenticular wheels, which tend to perform well at medium and large yaw angles, have also been investigated. Some studies have examined the influence of spoke count and spoke shape on aerodynamic drag. Wind tunnel tests have also quantified the power savings that can be achieved by using aerodynamic wheels compared to standard ones. A consistent finding across numerous wind tunnel studies is the critical influence of the ratio between tire width and rim width (T/W) on the aerodynamic drag of bicycle wheels. Full-scale wind tunnel testing methodologies have also been developed for the aerodynamic optimization of cyclists along with all their accessories.

Static vs. Dynamic Testing Discrepancies

A comparison of aerodynamic performance results obtained from static (non-rotating wheel) and dynamic (rotating wheel) wind tunnel tests reveals significant discrepancies. These differences are evident in key aerodynamic coefficients such as drag coefficient, side force coefficient, and yaw moment coefficient. Some studies indicate that drag can be higher for static wheels compared to rotating wheels, while others show the opposite trend depending on the yaw angle and specific wheel design. Side force and yaw moment, in particular, exhibit a strong sensitivity to wheel rotation, with the Magnus effect being a primary contributor to these variations. Furthermore, rotational speed has been found to significantly impact the aerodynamic loads on the wheel, often leading to non-linear increases in drag, side force, and yaw moment as the rotational speed increases.

The discrepancies between static and dynamic testing arise from several factors. The Magnus effect, a lift force generated by a spinning object moving through a fluid, produces a vertical and side force on a rotating bicycle wheel in a crosswind, a phenomenon entirely absent in static tests. Wheel rotation also alters the boundary layer development and flow separation patterns around the wheel compared to a static condition, leading to differences in pressure distribution and viscous drag. Additionally, static tests of isolated wheels do not account for the aerodynamic interactions with the ground, bicycle frame, and rider, which can significantly modify the airflow around the wheel in real-world scenarios. These findings highlight that static wind tunnel testing may not accurately predict the drag experienced by a rotating wheel, especially at various yaw angles, and fails to capture the side force and yaw moment generated by the Magnus effect, which are critical for handling. Consequently, dynamic testing, where the wheel is rotating under conditions that more closely resemble real-world use, is essential for a reliable evaluation of aerodynamic performance and handling characteristics.

Yaw Angle Effects on Bicycle Wheel Aerodynamics

Research has extensively investigated the impact of varying yaw angles on the aerodynamic forces acting on bicycle wheels. Different bicycle wheel geometries exhibit distinct aerodynamic performances across a range of yaw angles, typically from 0 to 30 degrees. For instance, the drag coefficient of a flat disc wheel can initially decrease as the yaw angle increases up to a certain point (around 10-15 degrees) before increasing or remaining constant at larger angles; in some cases, a small thrust can even be produced. Semilenticular wheels, with their curved and sometimes asymmetrical shapes, have generally shown superior performance compared to flat disc wheels across a wider range of yaw angles. Deep-rim wheels often offer lower drag at moderate yaw angles due to a “sail effect,” where the wind exerts a forward force, but they can become less stable at very high yaw angles.

The interaction between yaw angle and wheel rotation plays a crucial role in generating side forces and yaw moments. The Magnus effect, which arises from wheel rotation in a crosswind (non-zero yaw angle), contributes significantly to these forces, which are vital for bicycle handling. Studies have shown a considerable increase in side force and yaw moment at medium and high yaw angles, particularly for static wheels. Wheel rotation can further influence these effects, either amplifying or dampening them depending on the specific conditions. The concept of “aerodynamic yaw angle” is also important; this is the effective angle of the wind hitting the wheel, which can be larger than the geometric yaw angle (the angle of the bicycle relative to the wind) due to induced lateral flow, especially for deep-rim wheels. This amplification can affect how cyclists perceive and react to crosswinds. Given the significant influence of yaw angle on aerodynamic performance, it is essential to conduct testing, both through CFD analysis and in wind tunnels, across a representative range of yaw angles (typically -20 to +20 degrees) to obtain a comprehensive understanding of a bicycle wheel’s real-world performance in varying wind conditions.

Influence of Bicycle Wheel Aerodynamics on Handling

Beyond the reduction of aerodynamic drag, the design and aerodynamics of bicycle wheels significantly impact the handling, stability, and overall control experienced by the rider. The side force and yaw moment generated by the wheels, particularly in crosswinds, play a critical role in steering responsiveness and stability. While aerodynamic wheels can lead to lower drag, they often produce increased side forces, which can be substantial in crosswind conditions. Large yaw moments can also induce instability, requiring the rider to exert more effort to maintain a straight trajectory.

Different wheel geometries exhibit varying effects on handling. Deeper rim wheels, while potentially offering aerodynamic advantages in certain scenarios, present a larger surface area that is more susceptible to crosswinds, potentially leading to less predictable handling. Disc wheels, renowned for their low drag, can also generate high side forces and unstable turning moments, making them challenging to handle in strong crosswinds, which has led to their ban in some races. The Magnus effect-induced side force on the front wheel, the primary steering component, can also influence stability and control, particularly in crosswinds, affecting the rider’s steering input and the bicycle’s path. Consequently, there is often a trade-off between maximizing aerodynamic efficiency, for example, with very deep-section or disc wheels, and maintaining stable and predictable handling in the variable wind conditions encountered in the real world. Professional cycling teams sometimes prioritize stability over marginal aerodynamic gains by choosing shallower wheels in windy conditions. The concept of the “center of pressure” is also relevant, as deeper rear wheels can sometimes improve stability in crosswinds by shifting this point rearward, thus reducing the impact on the front wheel’s steering.

Government Regulations and Research on Bicycle Aerodynamics and Safety

A review of government reports and publications from transportation and sports science agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), reveals that regulations primarily focus on bicycle safety rather than aerodynamic performance. Existing safety standards have implications for bicycle wheel design. For example, CPSC regulations specify requirements for wheel strength and mandate that tires and spokes must remain on the rim when subjected to a side load. The ISO 4210 standard, while not a government regulation, provides international safety requirements for bicycles, including testing methods for wheels and rims that assess rotational accuracy and static strength.

Government-funded research initiatives and reports often focus on improving overall bicycle safety and promoting cycling as a mode of transportation. While these resources may not directly address the aerodynamics of bicycle wheels, they underscore the government’s interest in enhancing the safety and usability of bicycles. It is important to note that direct government regulations specifically targeting bicycle wheel aerodynamics for the purpose of performance enhancement are generally limited. Regulations tend to prioritize the safety and reliability of bicycles and their components for consumer use. Organizations like the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) do establish rules for bicycle design in competitive cycling events, and these rules often include considerations related to aerodynamics, but these are not governmental regulations.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The application of CFD and wind tunnel testing has significantly advanced the understanding of bicycle wheel aerodynamics. These methodologies have revealed the complexities of low-speed airflow around rotating wheels, highlighting the crucial influence of wheel rotation (including the Magnus effect) and yaw angle on the aerodynamic forces generated. While wind tunnel testing remains a vital tool for direct measurement and validation, CFD offers detailed insights into flow structures and the ability to analyze individual wheel components. However, static wind tunnel testing has limitations in accurately predicting real-world aerodynamic performance and handling characteristics due to the absence of rotational effects and the simplified flow environment compared to actual riding conditions. Wheel design plays a pivotal role in both minimizing aerodynamic drag and ensuring stable handling, particularly in crosswinds, often necessitating a balance between these two critical performance aspects. Government regulations in the cycling industry primarily focus on safety and structural integrity, with limited direct intervention in aerodynamic design for performance enhancement.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should prioritize the development and implementation of more sophisticated and realistic testing methodologies for bicycle wheels. Increased emphasis should be placed on dynamic wind tunnel testing protocols that accurately simulate real-world riding conditions, including wheel rotation, ground effects, and the aerodynamic interactions with the bicycle frame and rider. Further in-depth investigation into the specific role and impact of the Magnus effect on bicycle wheel stability and handling, particularly its influence on the front wheel’s behavior in various crosswind scenarios and the resulting steering control, is warranted. Research correlating aerodynamic forces measured in controlled environments with subjective rider experiences regarding handling and stability for different wheel designs in real-world conditions would also be valuable. Finally, the development and adoption of standardized testing protocols for bicycle wheels that encompass dynamic conditions and include assessments of handling characteristics would enable more meaningful and direct comparisons between different wheel designs across the industry, ultimately benefiting both manufacturers and consumers.

References

1. AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING - NASA Technical Reports Server. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930090961/downloads/19930090961.pdf 2. CFD-Based Analysis of Heat Exchanging Performance of Rotary Thermal Wheels - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330296473_CFD-Based_Analysis_of_Heat_Exchanging_Performance_of_Rotary_Thermal_Wheels
2. CFD analysis of a bicycle wheel — CFD Online Discussion Forums. https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/cfd-freelancers/107631-cfd-analysis-bicycle-wheel.html
3. Development of a Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation Framework for Aerothermal Analyses of Electric Vehicle Battery Packs | J. Electrochem. En. Conv. Stor | ASME Digital Collection. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/electrochemical/article/19/1/010905/1129075/Development-of-a-Computational-Fluid-Dynamics 5. Aerodynamics of Fixed and Rotating Spoked Cycling Wheels - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257728926_Aerodynamics_of_Fixed_and_Rotating_Spoked_Cycling_Wheels
4. A Comparative Aerodynamic Study of Commercial Bicycle Wheels using CFD - SciSpace. https://scispace.com/pdf/a-comparative-aerodynamic-study-of-commercial-bicycle-wheels-hyhwwkmg.pdf
5. Effect of Fender Coverage Angle on the Aerodynamic Drag of a Bicycle - MDPI (presumed source). https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/1/1 8. (PDF) Drag and Side Force on Bicycle Wheel-tire Combinations - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234120563_Drag_and_Side_Force_on_Bicycle_Wheel-tire_Combinations
6. Impact of Disc Wheel Geometry on Aerodynamic Performance: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Investigation - ASME Digital Collection. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article/143/7/071205/1092237/Impact-of-Disc-Wheel-Geometry-on-Aerodynamic 10. Wheel aerodynamics - How to Ride a Bike. https://howtorideabike.co.uk/2015/05/wheel-aerodynamics/ 11. Experiments - Princeton MAE Labs. https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/exp/exper_.htm
7. (PDF) An experimental study of bicycle aerodynamics - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228968534_An_experimental_study_of_bicycle_aerodynamics
8. A Numerical Study of Cyclist-Cyclist Aerodynamic Interaction towards Efficient Overtaking Strategy | J. Fluids Eng. | ASME Digital Collection. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article/145/4/041203/1153831/A-Numerical-Study-of-Cyclist-Cyclist-Aerodynamic 14. (PDF) A full scale bicycle aerodynamics testing methodology - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267043207_A_full_scale_bicycle_aerodynamics_testing_methodology
9. Rotating Wheels - Their Impact on Wind Tunnel Test Techniques and on Vehicle Drag Results - SAE International. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/900321/ 16. Influence of rotating wheels on Reynolds number sensitivity of passenger vehicle drag - Physics of Fluids (AIP). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article/34/1/015125/2807893/Influence-of-rotating-wheels-on-Reynolds-number 17. Case Studies | Rotating Wheels - Cadence Design Systems (formerly NUMECA). https://www.numeca.de/en/case-studies-rotating-wheels/
10. Impact of Disc Wheel Geometry on Aerodynamic Performance: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Investigation - ASME Digital Collection. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-abstract/143/7/071205/1092237/Impact-of-Disc-Wheel-Geometry-on-Aerodynamic 19. Aerodynamics of Fixed and Rotating Spoked Cycling Wheels - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257728926_Aerodynamics_of_Fixed_and_Rotating_Spoked_Cycling_Wheels 20. Magnus effect - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect
11. Magnus effect | Definition, Examples, & Facts - Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Magnus-effect
12. Magnus Characteristics of Arbitrary Rotating Bodies - NATO STO. https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/AGARD-AG-171/AGARD-AG-171.pdf 23. Numerical Analysis of the Magnus Effect on the Forces Past an Axisymmetric Body at High Incidence - MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/18/6356 24. Aerodynamics in Cycling: Wind Tunnel Myths and Real-World Realities (Part 1 of 2) - Faster Bike Blog. https://fasterbikeblog.com/2023/10/be-a-faster-cyclist-content/aerodynamics-in-cycling-wind-tunnel-myths-and-real-world-realities-part-1-of-2/ 25. The Complete Guide To Wheel Depths | Which Is Right For You? - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyopKwLxDSw&pp=gcJCdgAoVqNtD 26. Stabilize the Bike with a Deeper Rear Wheel - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNyVjfTw 27. Bicycle Requirements Business Guidance | CPSC.gov. https://www.cpsc.gov/Business—Manufacturing/Business-Education/Business-Guidance/Bicycle-Requirements 28. Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift - Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/08/2022-24214/airworthiness-criteria-special-class-airworthiness-criteria-for-the-joby-aero-inc-model-jas4-1 29. Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists - FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12009/ 30. Improving Safety for Walking, Biking, and Rolling | US Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/pedestrian-bicycle-safety
13. Pedestrian Bicycle Research Initiatives | FHWA - Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/research/projects/pedestrian-bicycle-research-initiatives
14. Encourage and Promote Safe Bicycling and Walking | US Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Encourage-and-Promote-Safe-Bicycling-and-Walking
15. TEST REPORT - THDStatic (Home Depot). https://images.thdstatic.com/catalog/pdfImages/f3/f3ec0520-fc30-41dc-bfa8-ececdf.pdf 34. Bicycle Test Standards - Sheldon Brown. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/standards.htm
16. ISO 4210 - Cycles: Safety Requirements for Bicycles - STEP Lab. https://step-lab.com/iso/iso-4210/