What do Wheels Weigh?

acotrel said:

So you deny that the weight of the wheels can affect the way a bike handles. It probably doesn't matter much on a road bike because you are rarely in the situation where you are fighting to stay alive. When I am in an extreme situation, I always like to know what the bike will do. Any other time, it doesn't matter a stuff what the wheels weigh.

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, I never said that. Just the opposite, in fact. Of course the weight of the wheels has an effect on handling. Why else do you think I started this thread? Less unsprung weight means better handling.

The point I keep trying to make is that unless you're a complete doofus, you don't just make a change like fitting lighter (or heavier) wheels and immediately run around the track (or the local neighborhood) at 100% just to see if you can fall down. To repeat myself from my previous post

" Yes, changing the ride heights, or damping, or wheel weights, or whatever, has an effect, but it's not something that's going to throw you down the road unexpectedly unless you ride like a complete idiot. You make some changes, see what effect they have, and ride accordingly."

And if you don't like the effect, you change back.

I'm with cjandme on this one. This thread is about comparing wheel weights, so I'll stick to that from now on. What makes a bike handle well is a fascinating topic, but probably deserves threads of it's own, probably many of them.

Ken

New 400x18 Avon Roadrider rear, 13 lbs 1 ounce.
Heavier than I expected, but then the 400x 18 Roadrider is a substantial tire, much wider than a 4.10 x 19 and just a smidge narrower than a 120 x 18 Roadrider. I use them for the two up bike because they have a high weight capacity rating (64), are OK on a WM3 rim, and also because the deep tread means quite long life.
But they aren't the lightest tire you can fit on a Norton.

Michelin has made some very light sport bike sized tires, such as the Pilot Pures.

. I would love to know how their Pilot Activ tires weigh in against the Avon Roadriders.

Glen

Does anyone know where I can get a henway?

Some eye candy here:



The BST carbon fiber 19" flat track wheels are available in 2.15" to 3.00" front and 2.15" to 3.50" in rear, and weigh from 6.25 to 6.875 lbs, complete with bearings and spacers. Unfortunately, they are pricey. I couldn't find a price for these, but the regular BST carbon fibre wheels are typically around $2000 each. Still, they would be pretty cool on a Norton. Unfortunately, you won't see them on one of mine unless the lottery fairy likes me a lot.

Ken

'Less unsprung weight means better handling.'

Always ? ? - It's the mass of the wheels which gives the bike it's feel. If they weighed nothing, we'd all fall down.

So my stock wheels are disassembled as I have been planning to get alloy rims.

Some bare component weights:

Dunlop rim 2552 grams
Jones rim 2662 grams

Front spoke set 1002 grams including nipples
Reard spoke set 625 grams including nipples

Front hub 1501 grams naked
Rear hub 2912 grams naked

What a great thread, Ken. I've always enjoyed your notes-compiling and have benefited from your diligence!

Although probably not directly translatable to street bikes, I recently weighed my Seeley's front wheel between two different setups I use. In fact, some of the components of this front wheel came from you years ago (and looks a lot like the one you've pictured in this thread with the drilled carrier)!

My front wheel is a Borranni WM3 18 flanged alloy 40 spoke laced to a Hemmings Norvil 6-bolt twin disk hub. This setup is the bee's knees allowing me to change disks depending on which track I'm racing.

For the big braking tracks (Road America, Daytona, etc) I run two Hemmings Norvil 11.5" drilled disks and the larger Dunlop KR145A 950 compound front tire (110/80/18). With this setup the wheel weighs 30lbs exactly, with the tire.

But for the majority of tighter tracks I run a single disk and smaller profile front tire, running the Dunlop KR825 (80/80/18) and one drilled Hemmings Norvil 11.5" disk. This setup comes in at 21.3lbs. That's almost 9lbs of weight savings right there. I suppose I should measure the caliper weight (or lack of), etc, but these numbers here are true rotational weight.

I love the bike's handling with the little tire and single disk. But I can burn through a tire and set of pads in a weekend at hard braking tracks.

However, his might all be moot, as Dunlop vintage racing tires are no longer available here in the US, and as I wear out my supply I'm slowly switching over to other brands. So far I've been really happy with some of the other brands I've tried during this big religious switch, but as of yet have not found a little low-profile sticky front like the Dunlop KR825.

-Kenny

Kennny, that 8.7 lbs is a big reduction with just the tire change and disc removal. The heavy stock disc is just over 5 lbs. Is the 11.5" heavier than a stock disc or is there a big difference in the tire weights?
Don's 320 mm (12.5") I have here is quite light at just over 4 lbs, I wonder how well a single 12.5" with six pot caliper would work for racing?

Glen

Thanks for some inputs based on real world experience, Kenny. All my track time comparisons would be at least 25 years old now, if I could actually remember any of the details. The two tire changes that stand out in my memory as being really obvious improvements are the switch from the original K81 Dunlops to the KR73/KR76 triangular race tires back in the '70s, and the first time I tried the modern Dunlop radial slicks on a modern bike.

I was amazed the first time I saw that tiny front tire on your bike, but it clearly works really well. It's a shame they are no longer available here.

I've always thought that the Norvil (Production Racer) front wheel was a really good choice for any Commando. And I still like the combo of the Norvil splined disk with Lockheed caliper, although the disk can drop a lot of weight with a few lightening holes. There are lighter modern alternatives for the disk, but I really like the period appearance of the Norvil.

I'll put up some weights for the Norvil and some other disks eventually.

Ken

There are some fork and disc weights here - weight-commando-front-forks-t22406.html?hilit=brembo#p293521

Perhaps a heavy road bike might handle better with standard wheels than light ones? When you move the handle bars the heavier wheels might give a greater precession effect. With a race bike you are never moving as much weight around when cornering, so the weight-saving lighter wheels might be more appropriate. I think a lot depends on how stable the bike is, when ridden as standard.

This is an interesting pair of Norton wheels. These are what Jim Schmidt used on his monoshock Norton when he raced it back in the day. They worked pretty well for him.

The front is a stock Commando front hub with lightening holes, heavy duty spokes, 2.75x17 Sun alloy rim, and large disc. Weight with disc, bearings, and spacer is 16 lbs7.4 oz. Jim ran it with a Dunlop 3.25/4.50-17 slick and a tube.





The rear is a Triumph hub with 1 3/4" spacer to widen it, with heavy duty spokes and 3.50x18 Sun alloy rim. It weighs 13 lbs 2.0 oz. bare with spacers and bearings. Jim used a Dunlop KR133 3.75/5.00-18 slick on it, wiith a tube. The Triumph hub makes for a fairly light rear wheel, but doesn't have a cush drive like the Commando.



This is the cut down and drilled stock disc that he used on it. Weight is 2 lb. 5 oz.



The complete rear wheel with tire and tube weighed 29 lbs. 15.6 oz.

Ken

Information including weights of Ronal cast wheels for MK3 Commando here

cast-alloy-wheels-commando-mk3-t25789.html#p341495

Copied from Glen's post on Ronal wheels for a MKIII Norton, see worntorn's link above.

Weight of both Ronal cast alloy wheels including stock brake discs is 19kg. Stock disc is 2,5kg so net weight of the set wheels will be 14kg.

Ken

I had some Excel shouldered alloy WM3 wheels built:

19” Front wheel:
With hub, bearings and 8/9 gauge SS spokes weighs 11.11 lbs.
Add rim strips, tube and a new Avon AM26 100/90 weighs 23.4 lbs
Add CNW Brembo disc weighs 26.7 lbs

18” Rear wheel:
With hub, bearings and 8/10 gauge SS spokes weighs 12.8 lbs.
Add rim strips, tube and a new Avon AM26 4.00 weighs 27.7 lbs

I weighed these using a hand held luggage scale.

Sorry for the distorted pic - wide angle camera phone and the rear tire is behind the front - they are very nearly the same rolling diameter.

Seems a lot of weight savings is possible just with a change of tires- - the new 400 x18 Avon RR weighs just over 13 lbs. A 100/90/19 might be a pound lighter, but I don't have an unmounted one here to weigh.
New Pirelli Angels for the Thrux arrived yesterday and they felt light as a feather in comparison. Sure enough, the front tire, which is a 120/70/17 weighs just 9 lbs 9 ounces.
I think the main weight difference between this Pirelli and the Avons might be in the radial/bias ply differences.
As much as I like the Road Riders it might be worth checking into some other tire options for the Norton. Going tubeless plus finding a light tire could really reduce the overall weight of the wheels. One pound saved at the perimeter of the wheel is more of an enhancement to handling than a pound saved at the hub, so tire weight is really important.

Glen

15.5 lb in photo & 27.5 lb: with 12 lb heavy cleated boot tire mounted tubeless on ~1 lb lighter Excel heavy duty flangeless rim with stepped ss spokes, 220 mm wave type rotor on Alu hub adapter around drilled out Alu bearing spacer inside.

worntorn said:

One pound saved at the perimeter of the wheel is more of an enhancement to handling than a pound saved at the hub,

Click to expand...

Would you care to expand on that ?
I can see the difference in centrifugal force, but unsprung weight and 'handling' ??

I've seen that pic just above before....

Rohan said:

I've seen that pic just above before....

Click to expand...

So have I. Would it be too much to ask for a video of a running Mrs P......
nah, I just woke up.... It must have been a dream. :wink:
Cheers,
Thomas

Rohan said:

worntorn said:

One pound saved at the perimeter of the wheel is more of an enhancement to handling than a pound saved at the hub,

Click to expand...

Would you care to expand on that ?
I can see the difference in centrifugal force, but unsprung weight and 'handling' ??

I've seen that pic just above before....

Click to expand...

My take on it is if you carry one extra pound on the hub, it is additional unsprung mass which is a burden to the suspensions ability to keep the tire compliant with the road. You must also accelerate (translational) that extra pound of mass down the track which takes extra power

If the additional pound is on the perimeter of the wheel (say in the tire), it is still an unsprung mass which is probably near identical burden to the suspension to keep the tire compliant with the road. In addition, there is also the gyroscopic effect of that rotating mass which I can only assume is not good. You must also accelerate (translational) that extra pound of mass down the track which takes extra power. Furthermore, you must also accelerate that 1 lb mass rotationally which takes more power.

Having that same mass on the rim as opposed to the hub is a double whammy for suspension compliance and for acceleration (power requirements) and adds greater gyroscopic effect.