Measuring the Moment of Inertia of a Bicycle Wheel

Alexandre Dub, (# 110234667)

Paris Hubbard Davis, (# 110222984)
Philippe Roy, (# 110235920)
Guillaume Rivest, (# 110227286)
McGill University, February 3, 2002
ABSTRACT
FIGURE 1: Measuring the Moment of Inertia of a Bicycle Wheel. Illustration of the
basic setup for the experiment. A more detailed scheme is presented in the third
section, Apparatus and Procedure.

Moment of inertia is a quantity

which varies as the axis rotation
varies, or, more clearly, as the
distance from the axis varies. Our
goals were two: 1) experimentally
measure the moment of inertia and
then check this result with a
theoretical measure, and 2) play
with the bicycle wheel. The former
was

conducted

with

weights

exerting torques about the rim for

a revolution of the wheel. The resulting period was measured, and via conservation of
energy, moment of inertia was derived. The latter consisted of a summation: the
weight and distance from the centre of the various parts of the wheel: hub, spokes,
nipples, and rim. The conservation of energy method and a good approximation of the
theoretical value were consistent within error.

a. INTRODUCTION

b. THEORY
The experimental derivation of moment of inertia was conducted by equating
energy at two different times. Our first approximation is that g is constant. We set
the zero of potential energy to be at the floor, and energy is given by:
E 0 mgh 0

1
1
2
2
mv 0 I0
2
2

(1)1

The period of the wheels half revolution ( radians) is measured, allowing us to

derive the angular velocity as follows:
= / t (2)
Of course, initially velocity and angular velocity are zero. Next, we consider the
energy just after the falling mass has touched the ground. We approximate that the
period measured for the subsequent torque-free revolution is equal to this quantity
(i.e. frictional loss is minimal over a revolution).
E1 mgh1

1
1
2
m1v 2 I1
2
2

(3)

Next, we assume that energy is conserved (i.e. frictional loss is minimal), and
therefore
E 0 E1 (4)
The velocity of the falling mass is related to the angular velocity of the wheel.
From rotational dynamics, we recall that the velocity of any point on the rotating
body (the thread at edge of the rim, for example) is given by:

v r

(5)2

Thus we may calculate the velocity of the falling mass just before impact. By
measuring h, m, and one may calculate I, moment of inertia.

Theoretically, more approximations are made. The summation is performed as

though the distance between the flanges was zero, i.e. the wheel rotates in a plane.
Each element of mass contribution was calculated via the relationships
I n m n rn

(6)

I tot I1 I 2 ... I n

(7)

Deftly written as one in the form adopted by Kleppner and Kolenkow, (I =

mjj2). We approximate that the mass of the rim is centered at a radius r where
rrim rout

1
w
2

(8)

We assume that the nipples are inside radius of the rim:

rnipples rin

(9)

And that the spokes are rods of uniform density (i.e. r cm = L) rotating in the
plane of the rim:
I spokes cm

1
mL2
1
where L is given by L ( L2spoke ( L Flange Flange ) 2 ) 2
12
2

(10)

FIGURE 2: Figure of Geometry. Illustration of some approximations used.

We then invoke the parallel axis
theorem, which states that
I parallel I cm mh 2

(11)

where h is the separation

between the two axes. 3
The only final approximation
is the hub, which proves to be
difficult. The shape of the hub
is a cylinder with some erratic
behaviour including a taper in
the middle and a bulge at the flange. The design of the hub, however, allows some
insight. The hub flange is the area of mechanical stress on the hub, whereas the

hubshell itself is designed to be as light as possible. We approximate, therefore,

that the hub is a cylinder of radius
rhub rshell max

(12)

The theoretical result requires no further assumptions. One other definition we

find useful is the average, given by
rave

r1 r2 r3 ... rn
(13)
n

c. APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

FIGURE 3:

Experimental Setup. Detailed scheme of the apparatus used during the

experimentation. The numbers are referred to in the following explanatory
paragraphs.

The whole point of the experiment was to find the moment of inertia of our
bicycle wheel. To do so, we went through and experimental method and a
theoretical one.
For the experimental part, we used the conservation of energy principles to
find the moment of Inertia of the wheel. First, we wound a string(1) around the
wheel and affixed a hanging mass(3) at the end of it. Then we applied a torque on
the wheel by putting the mass(3) at a certain height h from the ground(4), which
was half of the circumference of the wheel, and let it go down. The conservation
of energy principle states that the total energy of a system must be the same at
every time t. We did not wish to measure the heat energy affiliated with friction,
because the effects of friction were negligible (see appendix V). So, in our case,
the potential energy of the hanging mass(3), when the system was at rest, was
equal to the sum of the kinetic energy of the hanging mass(3) when it touched the

ground(4) and the kinetic energy of the bicycle wheel when the mass(3) touched
the ground(4). Since the weight of the mass(3), the gravitational constant and the
height were known, we only needed the angular velocity of the wheel and the
linear velocity of the mass when it touched the ground(4). Fortunately, these two
were related by this simple equation:

v r . So we only had to find one of

them, in this case the angular velocity of the bicycle wheel, which was very easy
to obtain. To do so, we taped two sensors(10,11) of identical width on the wheel,
separated by half of circumference, such that they were detected by an optical
detector(9) and transmitted to an oscilloscope(5) (see figure). To do so, we
referred to the spokes of the wheel to have the best precision. One of the
sensors(10) was placed right before the detector(9) when the mass(3) was at
height h. Each time a sensor(10,11) passed the detector(9), a peak was displayed
on the oscilloscope(5)(previously tuned to setup 3). With that, we only had to
measure, with the oscilloscope(5), the distance between the first two peaks of
torque-free revolution ( but not between the first two peaks, because the wheel
was still accelerating at this time) to obtain the time for the wheel to do half of a
revolution. Using the time between the second and the third peaks, we found the
angular velocity of the wheel when the mass(3) touched the ground by relating the
number of radians travelled with the time, = / t. With these values, we had all
the necessary things to find the experimental moment of inertia of our bicycle
wheel using the conservation of energy equation applied in our case:

E mgh

Legend:

I 2 mv 2

(14)
2
2

m: weight of the hanging mass(3)

g: gravitational constant = 9.806431 m/s2
h: height of the hanging mass(3) when the system is at rest (h = r )
I: moment of Inertia of the bicycle wheel
: angular velocity of the wheel when the mass(3) touched the
ground(4)
v: final linear velocity of the mass(3)

To find the theoretical moment of inertia of the wheel, we had to disassemble

it. After that, we only had to measure the weight of each part and to measure some
dimensions (length, width, circumference, etc). With this done, we were able to
find the moments of inertia of each of the spinning parts of the wheel and finally
add them to obtain the theoretical moment of inertia of the entire wheel.

We have also done some measurements to determine the effects of the friction
on our main experiment (see appendix V).
d. DATA AND ANALYSIS
All our measurements are tabulated in appendix I whereas the calculations are
detailed in appendix II (experimental) and in appendix III (theoretical). The
produced results are given in appendix IV. The following tables contain our most
important results.
TABLE 1 :

Moment of Inertia of a Bicycle Wheel. Experimental and theoretical

moments of inertia of a bicycle wheel. (%) refers to the percentage of
difference between the two first values. (I final) is the weighted average of the
two values.

I exp

I theo

kg m2
0,05026

0,00016

kg m2
0,0504

0,0004

I final

kg m2
0,28 0,05028

0,00015

GRAPH 1:

Theoretical Moment of Inertia by Component. Distribution by

component, expressed as a percentage of the total theoretical moment of inertia.
Grey = Rim (83%). Green = Spokes (12%). Red = Nipples (4.5%). Black = Hub
(0.11%). The precise values for the moment of inertia for each part are tabulated
in table 8 & 9, appendix IV.
Theoretical Moment of Inertia by Com ponent

ERROR ANALYSIS:
Throughout the experiment, our team encountered many possible sources of error
that could affect in some way our results. Therefore, it is important to mention that
all the uncertainties on the produced values are systematic. Indeed, since we did
not perform enough measurements to consider a random analysis for the errors
especially for time averages in the experimental calculations (see appendix II), we
preferred to limit ourselves to the systematic error analysis. Thus, except for
certain particular cases, the errors on the measurements were determined by the
smallest readable division of the instrument we used. One example of a case when
this is does not apply is drop height of the masses attached. We could not only
consider the uncertainty on the meter stick with which we measured the height
since this distance varied with the starting point of the mass. Hence we came up
with the following value: h = (0.986 0.005) m (see table 3, appendix I).
Our theoretical derivation required approximations and, inherently, error. Each
of the four parts was assumed to by symmetrically machined, so that the
symmetry could constantly be invoked to simplify the measurements taken. Next,

we had to approximate a radius for the rotating elements. We approximated that

some of the masses were point masses (spoke nipples) and that others were rings
(hub and rim) with their mass centered at a given radius. Spokes were
approximated to be uniform (the spokes in question are not butted or tapered)
rods, and, as discussed previously, rotating in the plane of the rim. The biggest
error on the result was the approximation of the rim, which was the most
straightforward. The rim is of hollow construction, with most of the weight added
to reinforce the sidewalls (the prime area of stress for a wheel). What allowed us
greater freedom was the minimal width of the rim; we knew that the weight of the
rim was centered somewhere in the space of .0237 m. The area of greater
uncertainty, approximation of the hub, contributed so little to the final result that it
was outweighed by error on the instruments. We cannot say precisely what the
error contribution of the approximations amounted to without first determining the
actual value. We can say, however, that the assumptions and approximations
involved in our measurement were much smaller than the quantity measured, and
perhaps one order of magnitude (at worst) above the error affiliated with our
instruments. Moreover, the results indicate that the error contributed by the
approximations is nearly equal to the error due to friction, which we assumed to
be negligible.

e. DISCUSSION
The determination of the moment of inertia of a bicycle wheel by two distinct
methods experimental and theoretical, which have been thoroughly discussed in
section II led to surprisingly good results, from a consistency point of view.
Indeed, the two separate results, tabulated in table 1, section IV, are off by a
percentage of 0.28 %, which is surprisingly close when we consider all the
possible sources of error involved and the numerous approximations made
throughout the whole experimentation. In fact, despite closeness of the values, we
must consider a wide domain of uncertainty for the two calculated moment of
inertia, larger than the one that produce the strictly systematic error analysis see
error analysis, section IV. For example, we know that the friction has affected our
results which ads up to possible error sources and that was not taken in account
during the systematic error analysis a detailed discussion in appendix V
quantifies the impact of friction on our results. Moreover, we did utilise frequent
approximations during the theoretical calculations in order to simplify this
extensive task which incidentally enlarges the uncertainty domain. It is however
somewhat difficult to quantify this effect since it depends on how our
approximations are in accordance with reality see error analysis section IV.
It is also important that the results were obtained using specific calculation
methods as there were many possibilities for calculating the same values,
especially for the experimental part. For instance, we used the theory on energy
conservation when we could have used theory on torque. We preferred the energy
conservation method since brief attempts using calculations with torque proved to
be particularly inconsistent for extensive description of the procedure and
results, refer to appendix VII.

f. CONCLUSION

g. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Prof. Charles Gale for teaching us the mechanics
necessary to undertake this experiment.

h. REFERENCES
1

KLEPPNER, Daniel & Robert J. Kolenkow. An Introduction to Mechanics,

McGraw-Hill, 1973, p.189,266.

Ibid, p.265

Ibid, p.252

Ibid, p.92-93

Ibid, p.95

APPENDIX I
MEASUREMENTS TABLES
TABLE 2:

First (t1) and Second (t2) Half-Period. The half-period is the time it takes for
the wheel to complete half a revolution. The exact value for the masses are given in
table 3, appendix 1 . Numbers on the top of the columns refer to the number of the
attempt.
Mass

1
t1

g
10
20
50
100
200
300
500
1000

TABLE 3:

2
t2

t1

3
t2

t1

t2

0,001s 0,001s 0,001s 0,001s 0,001s 0,001s

4,440
1,600
4,360
1,600
4,280
1,600
2,480
1,160
2,440
1,160
2,520
1,160
1,360
0,680
1,320
0,690
1,330
0,680
1,060
0,550
1,080
0,550
1,070
0,560
0,820
0,420
0,810
0,430
0,810
0,420
0,710
0,370
0,700
0,370
0,700
0,370
0,612
0,316
0,588
0,316
0,596
0,316
0,540
0,272
0,532
0,276
0,528
0,272

Setup Specifications. Except for 0.3 Kg, all value values (m) are from direct
weighting. The radius (r) was derived from the measured circumference (c). (h) refers
to the drop height. The gravitational acceleration (g) is cited from data used from the
PHYS 257 Katers pendulum lab.
m

0,0098
0,0198
0,0626
0,1001
0,1999
0,30000
0,4997
1,0000

Kg

0,0001
0,0001
0,0001
0,0001
0,0001
0,00014
0,0001
0,0001

1,973

m
0,002

0,986

m
0,314 0,002

m/s2
9,806431

0,005

TABLE 4:
Part

Wheel Specifications. (m) refers to a mass as (d) is the corresponding distance.

m

0,1g
wheel
841,6
rim
448,2
all spokes
199,2
1 spoke
7,1
all nipples
26,5
1 nipple
0,9
hub
197,8
hub w/out dust caps 153,4

TABLE 5:

Rim

Outer diameter 63,4

Width
2,37
Depth
0,87
Spoke & Nipple
Spoke length
Nipple length

27,7
1,21

cm

0,2
0,01
0,01

d
cm

0,2
0,01

Hub

Flange diameter
Spoke end diameter
Axle diameter
Middle diameter
End diameter
Length (Inside flange)
Length (Outside flange)

cm

5,38
4,77
0,89
2,84
3,87
7,16
7,82

Torque-Free Revolutions of the Wheel. (t) is the duration of the corresponding

half revolution ( R). Numbers on the top of the columns refer to the number of the
attempt.
R

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

1
t

2
t

3
t

0,001s 0,001s 0,001s

0,220
0,460
0,950
0,220
0,470
0,920
0,220
0,470
0,970
0,220
0,480
0,950
0,230
0,480
1,010
0,220
0,490
1,000
0,230
0,490
1,060
0,230
0,500
1,040
0,230
0,510
1,130
0,230
0,510
1,090
0,230
0,510
1,180
0,240
0,530
1,150
0,520
1,260
0,540
1,220

0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01

APPENDIX II
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS : Experimental Part
Calculations relative to table 6, appendix IV:
a) Average time calculation (ex. 100 g ,

t1 t 2 t 3
0.550 0.550 0.560
=
3
3
= 0.55333333 s

b) Deviation on average time calculation (ex. 100 g ,

0.001

= 0.0005773502692 s = 0.0006 s
N
3

So,

= (0.5533 0.0006) s

c) Angular velocity () calculation (ex. 100 g)

= 5.67758 rad/s
0.55333333

d) Squared deviation on calculation (ex. 100 g)

2
t
2

=
2
0.55333333

0.0006 = 0.0000379
2

So, = (5.678 0.006) rad/s

e) Linear velocity (v) calculation (ex. 100 g)

v r = 5.678 0.314 = 1.782892 m/s

f) Deviation on v calculation (ex. 100 g)

= 0.01151 m/s
So, v = (1.78 0.01) m/s

0.006

5.678

0.002

0.314

1.782892

rad 2
s2

Calculations relative to table 7, appendix IV:

g) Potential energy (E) of the falling mass calculation (ex. 100 g)
E mgh

= 0.1001 9.806431 0.986 = 0.968 J

h) Deviation on E (ex. 100 g)

E

m h
0.0001

m
h
0.1001

0.005

0.986

0.968

= 0.0050030696 J
So, E = (0.968 0.005) J
i) Moment of inertia (I) calculation (ex. 100 g)
By energy conservation, E

2 E mv 2
I 2 mv 2

I
2
2
2

2 0.968 0.1001 1.78

I=

5.678

= 0.050179561 kg m 2

j) Squared deviation on I calculation (ex. 100 g)

2

2
2
2 E

2
I

2
2
5.678

v2
2mv 2 4 E
2mv
2
2

2
2
3

1.78 2
0.005 2
2
5.678

2 0.1001 1.78

5.678 2

0.01

0.00012

2 0.1001 1.78 2 4 0.968

5.678 3

k) Standard deviation on average I calculation

1
1
1
1
1
2 ... 2 =
...
2

1
8
0.000000132875
0.000002342926

l) Average I calculation

So, I = (0.0502 0.0003) kg/m2

2 0.0000000269552kg 2 m 4

0.006 2

 I
I
I 12 ... 82 2
8
1

0.0502
0.0478

...
0.0000000269552
0.000002342926
0.00000132875

So , I = (0.05026 0.00016) kg/m2

APPENDIX III
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS : Theoretical Part
Calculations relevant to table 8, appendix IV:
Our goal is simple : compute I = mjj2 as accurately as possible
I.

Spoke Nipples, Rim, and Hub:

a) radius calculation : combination of measured quantities (ex. spoke nipples)
rnipples rin rout width ( d out ) * . 5 w

rnipples

. 634
. 0237 . 2933 meters
2

b) radius error (ex. spoke nipples)

rnipples

(d 2out w 2 )

rnipples

(. 002 2out .00012 ) .002002498 m

c) moment of inertia (ex. spoke nipples)

I = mjj2 = mnipplesrnipples2
I nipples . 1992 * .2933 2 .00227966

kg
m2

d) moment of inertia error (ex. spoke nipples)

I nipples [ 2 * (

rnipples
rnipp;es

I nipples . 0000236326

)2 (

m 2
) ] * I nipples
m

kg
m2

So, I nipples = (0.00228 0.00002) kg m2

Calculations relevant to table 9, appendix IV:

II.

Spokes
a)

ideal length :
1.

First, we determine the origin of the spoke by an average:

L flange flange
L flangeflange

( L ousideflange .L insideflange )

. 0749m
2
(. 0782 . 0716)

. 0749m
2
1

1
L ( L2spoke ( L Flange Flange ) 2 ) 2
2

2.

1
L (. 277 2spoke ( * . 0749) 2 ) 2 . 266681439m
2

b) Moment of inertia of a rod through center of mass and perpendicular to

length:
I cm

( mL2 )
(. 1992 * .266681439 2 )
.001180575
, I cm
12
12

c) Parallel Axis Theorem :

I parallel I cm mh 2

( mL2 )
L d flangediameter 2
m(
)
12
2
2
. 26681439 . 0538 2
. 001180575 . 1992 * (
)
2
kg
.006295451 2
m

I parallel
I parallel

I parallel

Again, errors add in quadrature, as before (see previous examples).

Therefore,
I total spokes = (0.00630 0.00014) kg m2

APPENDIX IV
RESULTS TABLES
TABLE 6:

Average Time and Velocities. ( t 1) and ( t 2) refer to the average of the

corresponding time values given in table 2, appendix I . ( ) is the average final
angular velocity as (v) is the average final linear velocity for a point on the rim. The
exact value for the masses are given in table 3, appendix I.

Mass
g
10
20
50
100
200
300
500
1000

4,3600
2,4800
1,3367
1,0700
0,8133
0,7033
0,5987
0,5333

TABLE 7:

0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006

1,6000
1,1600
0,6833
0,5533
0,4233
0,3700
0,3160
0,2733

0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006
0,0006

rad/s
1,9635 0,0007
2,708 0,001
4,597 0,004
5,678 0,006
7,42 0,01
8,49 0,01
9,94 0,02
11,49 0,02

0,617
0,850
1,44
1,78
2,330
2,67
3,12
3,61

m/s
0,004
0,005
0,01
0,01
0,015
0,02
0,02
0,02

Energy and Moment of Inertia. (E) corresponds to the potential energy of the
drop mass as (I) is the moment of inertia of the wheel for the attempt with the
respective drop mass. The experimental value is the final I value produced by the
calculations performed in appendix II. The exact value for the masses are given in
table 3, appendix I.
Mass

g
J
kg m2
10
0,095 0,001 0,0482 0,0006
20 0,1914 0,0014 0,0503 0,0004
50
0,605 0,003 0,0511 0,0003
100 0,968 0,005 0,0502 0,0004
200
1,93 0,01
0,0505 0,0005
300
2,90 0,01
0,0509 0,0006
500
4,83 0,02
0,0485 0,0008
1000 9,67 0,05
0,0478 0,0015
Experimental
0,05026 0,00016

TABLE 8:

Theoretical Moment of Inertia, part I. These are the results of the first part of
the calculations performed in appendix III. (m) stands for mass as (r) is the
corresponding radius.
Spoke Nipples

m (kg)
r (m)
mr2 (kg m2)

TABLE 9:

0,0265
0,293
0,00228

0,0001
0,002
0,00002

Hub

Rim

0,1534

0,0001
0,0194

0,0001
0,0000574 0,0000004

0,4482
0,305
0,0417

0,0001
0,002
0,0004

Theoretical Moment of Inertia, part II. These are the results of the second part
of the calculations performed in appendix III. The names for the values are explained
in the same appendix.
Spokes
ideal length (m)
m (kg)
I cm (kg m2)

0,267
0,1992
0,001181

0,002
0,0001
0,000009

distance (m)
md2 (kg m2)
Itot-spokes (kg m2)

0,160
0,00511
0,00630

0,002
0,00014
0,00014

APPENDIX V
A DISCUSSION ON FRICTION
While dealing with a quite complex and extensive apparatus as we did for this project,
it is most likely that our results were affected by the effect of friction. Indeed, as the
wheel spins, many factors may slow it down such as the resistance of air, the friction
of the rope on the rim or just the friction due to the bearings themselves. Thus, our
team performed some measurements in order to quantify the effect of friction on our
results.
In order to estimate this effect, we let the wheel spin freely, without any rope
attached, and measured the half-period. Then, we could compute the average velocity
for about a dozen of half-revolution. We carried out this task for three different initial
velocities (see table 5, appendix I). The results for the angular velocity are given in
table 11, appendix VI. Hence, plotting of the average angular velocity as a function of
the half-revolution yields the following graph:
GRAPH 2:

The Effect of Friction. The black set of points refers to the data of attempt 1, the
red set to the second attempt and the green set to the third. Each corresponding line
represents a linear fit to the data (y = a + b*x) which does take in account the error
bars. The results of the fit, produced by the software Origin 7.0, are tabulated in table
12 , appendix VI.

This graph clearly shows that friction affects the angular velocity. However,
we must notice that the slope on the different fits being fairly small, variation on the
velocity for a short period will be equally small. Furthermore, since that for this
experimentation there was no thread attached to the wheel, the main two sources of
friction would have to be internal (bearings) and external (air resistance).

The internal source of friction resides in the contact between the components
of the ball bearing and the hub itself. We might recall that friction due contact
between two surfaces is independent of the velocity of the objects (F = N) 4.
Therefore, this means that if only the friction due to the bearings would have acted on
the wheel, the three slopes of the linear fits would have been equal.
As for the external source of friction, the so-called viscosity of the air, we
know that it is velocity dependent, obeying a proportionality relationship (F=-cv) 5.
Thus, this implies that the larger the velocity is, the larger the deceleration is. In other
words, the speed of the wheel must exponentially decrease as a function of time.
Results of the linear fits show that this relation is effective in our case (see table 12,
appendix VI). Indeed, we may notice that if the three fits would have been a single
data set, it would be clear that the velocity decreases in an exponential way. Later
results will make more manifest this assertion.
Hence, we conclude that the main source of friction on the wheel is air
resistance. This conclusion makes a lot of sense. The hub/bearings area suffers
tremendous stress while mounted on a bicycle since it must support the weight of the
bicycle frame and the rider (N = F ). Therefore, it must be designed so that the
internal hub friction is minimized. So, from now on in this discussion, we will only
consider the friction induced by the viscosity of the air.
It is possible to quantify the effect of friction on the wheel using the proper
plotted data. Indeed, we may deduce an average value of c, the friction coefficient that
is shape dependent.
F = -cv = ma c = - ma/v (15)
v = v0 e ct/m (16)
c = -(m/t) ln (v/v0)
(17)
However, to perform this task, we must convert the half-revolutions (x-axis)
into time to compute the acceleration. Moreover, since we are dealing with linear
velocities and acceleration, we have to convert all the angular data. To do so, we
consider the linear velocity of the rim (r = 0.314 m, see table 3, appendix I).
The data seen in graph 3, is fitted with an exponential function (v = v 0 e ct/m).
Still, it is even clearer that the deceleration is proportional to the speed of the wheel.
The results of the fit may not be as satisfying as we would expect since the value of c
varies a lot (see table 4, appendix). In order to produce consistent results, we should
have measured the velocity of the wheel over a larger period of time. Nevertheless,
the measurements performed for the calculation of the moment of inertia were
themselves over a short period of time. Therefore our results may not be consistent
with the theory but they are quite a good representation of the experimental
conditions.
An estimate of the air drag on the wheel can finally be performed. After
calculating an average value for c (0.0197 0.0002) with the three values derived
from graph 3, we computed a new final linear and angular velocity, using v = v 0 e
ct/m
, for each attempt tabulated in table 6, appendix IV. Then, this procedure enable us

to calculate the new moment of inertia of the bicycle wheel following the method
presented in appendix II. The results appear in table 10 this appendix.
GRAPH 3:

Viscosity of the air and Friction. The colours are representative of the same
data sets as in graph . However the data is fitted with v = v 0e ct/m. The results of the
exponential fit, produced by the software Origin 7.0, are tabulated in table 14 ,
appendix VI.

TABLE 10:

Extrapolation of a Friction-Free Moment of Inertia. (I) is the first

calculated value (experimental) of I whereas (I0) is the friction-free one. (%)
represents the percentage of difference between the two values.
I

I0

kgm2
kgm2
0,05026

0,00016 0,0475 0,0003 5,9

In brief, the air resistance did affect our results on the experimental part as show the
numbers in appendix VI. In fact, this variation is not negligible at all since there is a
percentage of difference of 5,9% between the value initially produced and the one that
takes in account friction. Moreover, we may be puzzled to notice the results of table
15 in appendix VI. Indeed, it seems that the correction due to friction is inversely
proportional to the velocity of the wheel, which is the opposite of what we could
expect the percentage of difference is higher for lower velocities. There is however
a reasonable explanation to this fact. At lower speeds, the air resistance acts for a
longer time on the wheel therefore producing a larger deceleration than at higher
velocities. Finally, as mentioned earlier the best way to quantify the effect of friction
is to carry out measurements on the largest time period possible, so that the data can
be fitted according to theory.

APPENDIX VI
RESULTS TABLES : Friction Analysis
TABLE 11:

The Effect of Friction on the Angular Velocity. () is the average angular

velocity for the corresponding half-period (R). These data sets are plotted in graph
2, appendix V. Numbers on the top of the columns refer to the number of the attempt.
R

0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
6,5
7,0

TABLE 12:

14,28
14,28
14,28
14,28
13,66
14,28
13,66
13,66
13,66
13,66
13,66
13,09

rad/s

0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,05

6,830
6,684
6,684
6,545
6,545
6,41
6,41
6,28
6,16
6,16
6,16
5,93
6,04
5,82

rad/s

0,015
0,014
0,014
0,014
0,014
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01

3,307
3,415
3,239
3,307
3,110
3,142
2,964
3,021
2,780
2,882
2,662
2,732
2,493
2,575

rad/s

0,003
0,004
0,003
0,003
0,003
0,003
0,003
0,003
0,002
0,003
0,002
0,002
0,002
0,002

Results of the Linear Fits. (b) is the slope, the change in angular speed
expressed in rad/s per half a revolution whereas (a) is the intercept. These values refer
to graph 2, appendix V.
Fit

Black
Red
Green

b
(rad/s)/(half-revolution)
-0,19

0,01
-0,1421
0,0016
-0,1359
0,0003

14,50
6,864
3,471

rad/s
0,04
0,007
0,002

TABLE 13:

The Effect of Friction on Linear Velocity. (v) is the linear velocity of a point
on the rim at a time (t). These data sets are plotted in graph 3, appendix V. Numbers
on the top of the columns refer to the number of the attempt.
1

t
s
0,220
0,440
0,660
0,880
1,110
1,330
1,560
1,790
2,020
2,250
2,480
2,720

2
v

4,48
4,48
4,48
4,48
4,29
4,48
4,29
4,29
4,29
4,29
4,29
4,11

TABLE 14:

m/s

0,04
0,04
0,04
0,04
0,03
0,04
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03

3
v

s
0,460
0,930
1,400
1,880
2,360
2,850
3,340
3,840
4,350
4,860
5,370
5,900
6,420
6,960

2,145
2,099
2,099
2,055
2,055
2,01
2,01
1,97
1,93
1,93
1,93
1,86
1,90
1,83

m/s

0,014
0,014
0,014
0,014
0,014
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01

s
0,950
1,870
2,840
3,790
4,800
5,800
6,860
7,900
9,030
10,120
11,300
12,450
13,710
14,930

1,038
1,072
1,017
1,038
0,977
0,987
0,931
0,949
0,873
0,905
0,836
0,858
0,783
0,809

m/s

0,007
0,007
0,007
0,007
0,006
0,006
0,006
0,006
0,006
0,006
0,005
0,006
0,005
0,005

Results of the Exponential Fits. (c) is the air drag coefficient whereas (v0) is the
intercept. These values refer to graph 3, appendix V.

TABLE 15:

Fit

v0

Black
Red
Green

kg/s
0,0237 0,0005
0,0188 0,0003
0,0183 0,0003

m/s
4,537 0,004
2,154 0,004
1,095 0,004

Extrapolation of a Friction-Free Velocity. (v) is the final linear velocity and

(v0) is the estimated real linear speed of the wheel in a viscosity-free environment.
(%) is the percentage of difference between the two values. The exact values for the
masses are given in table 3, appendix I.
Mass
g
10
20
50
100
200
300
500
1000

0,617
0,850
1,44
1,78
2,330
2,67
3,12
3,61

m/s
0,004
0,005

0,01

0,01
0,015

0,02

0,02

0,02

v0

0,64
0,874
1,47
1,81
2,353
2,69
3,14
3,63

m/s

0,03
0,013

0,01

0,01
0,015

0,02

0,02

0,02

3,7
2,7
1,6
1,3
1,0
0,86
0,74
0,64

APPENDIX VII
A DISCUSSION ON TORQUE ORIENTED CALCULATIONS
There are several methods leading to the determination of the moment of inertia, since
this intrinsic property of a body is related to the multiple mechanical phenomena
related to rotation. Hence, our team initially had the idea to apply a constant torque on
the wheel, namely by attaching to it a dropping mass (as detailed in section 3), and
measure the change in angular velocity to deduce the angular acceleration. As a matter
of fact, that is the reason why we made the drop height of the mass more or less equal
to a half circumference of the wheel. Indeed, this way we knew that the torque would
be applied for about half a revolution of the wheel and we could measure this mass
drop time on the oscilloscope (see t1, table 2, appendix I). However, as we will see,
the calculations using this method lead to rather strange results.
Ironically, the calculations for the experimental moment of inertia using the
torque method are much less complex. In fact, it relies on the combination of two
simple equations:
= / t = / t2 t = / t2 t1
=Imgr=I

(18)

(19)

Which, when combined together yields the following moment of inertia formula:
I = m g r t1 t2 / (20)
Here, m refers to the mass of the drop mass, g is the gravitational acceleration
and r is the radius of the wheel. The exact values of these variables are given in table
3, appendix I. For t1 and t2, the corresponding values appear in table 2, appendix I.
Using theses formulas, we are now able to compute the moment of inertia of the
bicycle wheel with the torque method. The results are as follows:
TABLE 16:

Moment of Inertia Using the Torque Method. (I) is the moment of inertia
as computed by the energy conservation method (see table 7, appendix IV). (%) is the
percentage of difference between the two values. The exact values for the masses are
given in table 3, appendix I.
Mass

I torque

10
20
50
100
200
300
500
1000
Final

kgm2
0,0482 0,0006
0,0503 0,0004
0,0511 0,0003
0,0502 0,0004
0,0505 0,0005
0,0509 0,0006
0,0485 0,0008
0,0478 0,0015
0,05026 0,00016

kgm2

0,0670
0,0558
0,0560
0,0581
0,0675
0,0765
0,0927
0,143
0,0668

0,0008
0,0005
0,0004
0,0004
0,0004
0,0005
0,0006
0,001
0,0002

39
11
9,7
16
34
50
91
199
33

It is quite manifest from the results that our team encountered a little
consistency problem using the torque method calculations. In fact, these incoherent
results were the principal motivation for us to perform the calculations using the
theory on energy conservation (see appendix II).
The reasons explaining our failure to produce consistent results using the
torque method calculations are few. We are not actually sure of where lies the
problem in this method as there is two possibilities. First, the apparatus might not
have been properly set up in order to perform such an experiment. Although we
adjusted the drop height of the mass so that it matched exactly the half-circumference
of the wheel, it proved to be unhelpful in producing some more logical results.
However, we know that more sensors on the rim (see figure 3, section 3) less distant
from each other would have helped us to measure more accurately the angular
acceleration of the wheel for the time the torque is applied. On the other hand, we
also have made several assumptions during our computations that might have led to
wrong results. In fact, we neglected the tension of the string acting on the drop mass.
Moreover, as we calculated the angular acceleration , we only considered the final
angular velocity (derived from t2, see Theory) over the time of change of speed,
namely t1. Hence, the result of this operation is the average over the appropriate
time period which is legitimate since we expect the acceleration of the drop mass to
be constant.
Therefore, it remains unclear why computations using the theory on torque did
not work out properly. However, we assume that the explanation for this situation lies
in either the calculations themselves or in the experimental setup. In addition, it
proved that the procedure using the energy conservation theory was, despite its
heavier mathematics, more efficient.
GRAPH 4:

Moment of Inertia: The Torque Method. Plot of the results tabulated in

table of this appendix. It is clear that (I) is not constant for the bicycle wheel since it
varies depending on the drop mass (m). The linear fit, for illustrative purposes only, is
to demonstrate the fact that (I) appears to be proportional to (m), the drop mass which
is, of course, not consistent with theory.