In what way does the hub size effect the autosteering?
100mm vs 125mm
any ideas/experience?
I believe the rim width, tire size, and tire tread pattern are more important factors.
There are significant differences between tire models, ranging from drivable to undrivable.
My experience is:
Narrower rims give the tire a rounder shape = less autosteer.
The wider the tire, the more autosteer.
I donāt think hub size would play any part in autosteering. The factors that are most likely to impact that are:
Tyre pressure
Tyre design and construction
Rim Width
What a wider hub offers is wheel stability. A narrow hub (especially with internal brake mount) doesnāt have very much width to space the spokes apart leading to a weaker wheel more prone to going out of true, spokes failing or eventually total failure.
I agree with both (same) answers above.
But to answer the question more directly, I would guess they have separate but opposite effects:
-
narrower hub should generally ride with less wobble and thus stay more on the center of the tire. As I think autosteer usually comes from the tire edges, a narrower hub would seem to naturally have less. (But not all surfaces are flat/consistent)
-
However, as soon as the tire moves onto the non-center of the tire, the wider hub should allow more lateral leverage to counteract the autosteer. So in that case, a wider hub seems better.
As you cannot control what the surface contour is, and you generally will encounter road camber or other sideways uneven surfaces, I would think the wider hub would be better in reducing the effects of autosteer. So I would say a wider hub should be better (unless you ride on perfectly flat side-to-side surfaces like a track or raceway).
1 Like
Point 2 makes sense to me.
More leverage against the turnimg sideways.
Funny thing is, iāve got one 125mm fattie waiting. but i cant bring my self to take it outside becauseā¦its still soā¦. clean.
Shame on me.
Once the conditions are less muddy outside, i will see for my self.
1 Like
Is it a muni? In that case ācleanā should be the reason to take it outside.
On the other hand, if itās a fatty with a tread less balloon tyre, I can somehow understand your hesitation.
On topic: I was going to write something similar to MUCFreeriderās point 2. But Iām not really sure how important the leverage is in this scenario. First, the leverage has no impact on the autosteer, but rather (possibly) on the riderās ability to counter act. And second, the sideways leverage is not only determined by the rim width but also by the cranksās Q factor and (again: possibly) the pedal width.
Would be interesting to have two identical unis with different Q factors to simulate the different rim widths and ride the same cambered track with them. Of course one could use just one uni and change cranks, but such a change takes some time, thereby making it harder to compare.
i dont think it to effect the autosteering first place, but yes, as you say, the ability to keep it on track.
But it might be the other way. When you look straight down while the uni turns your feet will be moore off center than with the 100mm version.
That might be a disadventage(?).
Maybe longer cranks would do the trick.
If you look at a unicyclist, it forms like a triangle from the buttocks to the pedals. I think it actually matters how far apart your feet are. The wider the triangle, the more rolling movements when driving, but I think that it might be easier to counteract autosteer and generally stay better balanced? or is it exactly the other way around because you can shift the weight further out if the pedals are close together? Hmmā¦ Iām thinkingā¦ Iām not a physicist. I would argue that Q Factor cranks have a similar effect on handling as a wide hub.
100 mm without a Q-Factor works very well for me since 10 Years now for the 24ā Muni.