Vincent Thacker has explained why your experiment got the results it did. I'm going to explain the actual movement of the wheel.
Dissecting the movement of the wheel
There are 2 things happening: the wheel is rotating, and it's moving forwards.
Rotation
Imagine a wheel hanging freely on a stationary axle.
If we assume the wheel is not deforming, we can say that every part of the surface of the wheel is moving at the same speed, perpendicular to the direction to the center of the wheel. This always applies, but it's relative to the center of the wheel.
Forward movement
Now imagine a freely rolling wheel. If it's not slipping, the contact patch at bottom of the wheel has, by definition, 0 relative velocity to the surface. It's stationary. If the wheel is moving at speed $v$, then the bottom of the wheel must have a relative velocity to the center of the wheel of $-v$, or a relative speed of $v$ with the velocity vector pointing backwards.
Conclusion
If we put the two together, we determine that the top of the wheel must also have a relative speed of $v$, but at the top of the wheel, the velocity vector points forwards. (it must, or eventually there will be no rubber to take the place at the bottom as the wheel rotates)
This is a velocity relative to the center of the wheel, so to find the velocity relative to the surface, we have to add the velocity of the center of the wheel, and find a velocity of $2v$.
Addendum
Another way of looking at it is that if the wheel as a whole moves at $v$, then every part of it must, in the direction of travel, move at $v$ on average, or it won't stay with the rest of the wheel. At the bottom (again assuming no slip), it must come to a stop, so it must move at a higher speed at other points of the rotation. Given that a wheel's rotation is uniform, a reasonable non-rigorous assumption would be that the velocity varies symmetrically around the average speed of $v$ ($= 1*v$), so between $0 = 0*v$ and $2*v$.