I’ve seems some pics of Hooker bikes.
It seems that if getting lower in the front improves position and presumably aerodynamics, then more bikes should have this configuration.
Is it legal to race bikes like this in triathlon?
Why aren’t there anymore bikes like this?
Am I wrong in thinking that the smaller wheel in the front and larger in the back is more aero.
so this configuration would “rotate the rider about the bottom bracket”
which is exactly what happens when you increase the seat tube angle and lower the stack.
so unless you can’t make the head tube any shorter for some reason, this configuration would be uneccessary.
Yeah- it would be like riding down hill all the time. 
from a practicality standpoint, having both wheels the same size- so they could share tires and tubes is a nice feature. So, all other things being equal, there’s an obvious marketing/sales reason to have them the same.
LOL Imagine carrying 2 spare tubulars
.
obviously not a valid triack with tubulars, but with clinchers you CAN get a 650 tube on a 700 wheel and ride it home.
I found out the hard way =)
Seems like it would work well for us short guys who want to be aggressive.
Seems like it would work well for us short guys who want to be aggressive.
If said short guy can’t already get low enough on a 650c tri bike, sure.
I’m not sure that ever happens though.
I’ve seems some pics of Hooker bikes.
It seems that if getting lower in the front improves position and presumably aerodynamics, then more bikes should have this configuration.
Is it legal to race bikes like this in triathlon?
Why aren’t there anymore bikes like this?
Am I wrong in thinking that the smaller wheel in the front and larger in the back is more aero.
Not legal in triathlon anymore. When USAT realized people were riding on “forward tilted bikes” to gain an advantage, they put a stop to it. Not fair when those with 'em could simply coast up the false flats and any other incline of +1.825% or less. The rest of us had to pedal.
I thought they made those people turn the fork backwards to make up for the 1.825% didn’t they?
jaretj
interesting.
More intersting is the fact that that’s the origin of behind-the-seat bottle holders. For a couple of seasons you could ride 650/700 if you kept all your drinks aft of the saddle. The idea was it provided a kind of counter-balance but USAT finally dropped it when everyone pointed out that the math didn’t work.
He should have used pink font.
The bikes are still legal for most tris, but not for UCI/ITU races which specify that both wheel must be the same size.
The smaller front wheel was thought to have less drag (ends up it has more, since it needs to spin faster at any given speed), and the ability to drop the handlebars really low was less critical with aerobars.
Smaller wheels did have an advantage for TTTs (and IM Florida) since it allows the riders to draft that much more closely.
.
The smaller front wheel was thought to have less drag (ends up it has more, since it needs to spin faster at any given speed)
that probably is not universally true, especially not with discs. the reason you don’t get less drag is because assuming the riders position does not change, a smaller wheel means a bigger bike frame. it comes pretty close to making no difference at all.
obviously not a valid triack with tubulars, but with clinchers you CAN get a 650 tube on a 700 wheel and ride it home.
I found out the hard way =)
You can do the opposite as well (i.e. use a 700C tube in a 650C…you just have to “fold over” a section on itself).
BTW, did you know that you can actually ride a tubular tire on a clincher rim if needed? 
but can you ride a clincher tube and tire on a tubular rim? maybe at very low pressure?
OK, now I’m posting for real:
“The smaller front wheel was thought to have less drag (ends up it has more, since it needs to spin faster at any given speed),…”
That is, at best, unproven. You have to balance smaller frontal area, shorter spokes and potentially narrower hub flanges against faster rotational speed. If you’re taking about more than just wind resistance you also need to look at hub drag, differing tyre deformations at the same pressure and a host of other factors. By common consensus it’s a wash.
The smaller front wheel was thought to have less drag (ends up it has more, since it needs to spin faster at any given speed)
that probably is not universally true, especially not with discs. the reason you don’t get less drag is because assuming the riders position does not change, a smaller wheel means a bigger bike frame. it comes pretty close to making no difference at all.
One advantage of having a smaller front wheel size is that it makes it less “hairy” to run a front disc since there’s less surface area…in the days of “funny bikes” people used to run front discs all the time.
OK, now I’m posting for real:
“The smaller front wheel was thought to have less drag (ends up it has more, since it needs to spin faster at any given speed),…”
That is, at best, unproven. You have to balance smaller frontal area, shorter spokes and potentially narrower hub flanges against faster rotational speed. If you’re taking about more than just wind resistance you also need to look at hub drag, differing tyre deformations at the same pressure and a host of other factors. By common consensus it’s a wash.
Don’t forget that for equivalent tire constructions, smaller diameter wheels will have higher rolling resistance…
Of course, a couple of current issues with using 650C front wheels is the lack of tire choices and a nearly universal unavailability of latex tubes.
but can you ride a clincher tube and tire on a tubular rim? maybe at very low pressure?
Give it a shot and let us know how it goes
I wonder what happened to his bike. Do you think he threw it into the Seine in disgust?
