"Carl Fogel" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt O'Toole" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > I've ridden a friend's Dahon quite a bit. They're very popular with
sailors,
> > and great for running errands. They're not something I'd want to ride for more than 5 miles or
> > so, but other than that, they're great. The ride *is not* harsh, and they're very sturdy (unlike
> > some idiot just suggested).
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> I'd better jump up like an Oscar winner and claim the "some idiot" credit quick before anyone
> mistakenly thinks that you meant Andrew Muzi. In between my post and yours, Andrew posted much
> better advice than I had handy. (No hard feelings--if I slip in a dig about "those darn little
> clown bicycles," I'm grateful for a flame no bigger than a stove's pilot light.)
>
> As Andrew's post explained, he not only sells Dahons to users like airline pilots, but used one
> himself for a short-ride situation and found it darned useful:
>
> >>
> >>I bought mine (20" folder) one summer when I had a sublet on the lake a short walk from work.
> >>And it fit in my MGB easily. For short errands it's great. But, as others have noted,
> >>uncomfortable for any real distance.
> >>
>
> But Andrew does caution that this particular foldup small-wheel bike "can be uncomfortable for any
> real distance." This might mean nothing more than the seat or the riding position, but the harsher
> ride commonly attributed to the physics of small wheels is likely to be involved. (In crudest
> terms, the tiny wheels of a shopping-cart give you a much harsher ride across a cattle-guard than
> the 7-foot wheels of an ox-cart.)
>
> Come to think of it, why wouldn't you want to ride a Dahon more than 5 miles or so? Seriously, do
> you find it uncomfortable in some way that might interest the original poster, such as the ride,
> seat, general posture, gearing, pedals, weight, or rolling resistance? I'm not criticizing the
> bike, just wondering whether any of these things were what prompted your 5-mile remark.
To be specific -- it has little to do with the small wheels, but the setup of a stock Dahon. A more
serious cyclist (one who rides further than 5 miles regularly) would probably want a different
saddle, handlebars, riding position, and gearing. Of course these parts could be substituted, but
only with much experimentation and expense.
Now, if a Dahon were so equipped, it would probably ride like a Bike Friday, but it would cost as
much too. And while a Bike Friday is still not as comfortable as a 700c bike for long rides, it's
comfortable enough.
> I'm pretty sure that you're not afraid of the bike breaking.
Of course not.
> If Dahons weren't sturdy, I'd be astonished to find Andrew Muzi riding or selling them. My point,
> badly put, was that in order to be sturdy, small-wheel bikes need either heavier, more elaborate
> frames (like the intricate Moulton), heavier suspension frames (again, like the Moulton), or just
> plain beefy frames (like various less sophisticated fold-ups)
It's true, and the Dahon is no lightweight. Of course this is a compromise -- cheaper folders like
the Raleigh Twenty weigh more, while lightweight ones, presumably made of stronger materials and
with better quality components, cost a bundle. These bikes are built to a price, and since the
folding mechanism adds cost, it has to come out somewhere else. Heavier materials and cheaper
components have to be used, thus the weight.
> to withstand the harsher ride inherent to smaller wheels. When Jobst Brandt remarks that
> suspension is a necessity, not an option, for a small-wheel bike like the Moulton, I take it as a
> serious engineering observation on frame requirements and a good explanation for why small-wheel
> bikes seem so--well, sturdy, to use an inoffensive word. Otherwise, they'd break under the kind of
> riding often expected in rec.bicycles.tech.
Well, even Moulton thought along those lines, which is why he chose suspension. It didn't occur to
him that fatter tires with low rolling resistance could have been developed, and might have been a
better compromise.
Whatever the diameter of the wheels, frame stiffness *is not* the issue. Practically speaking,
all non-suspension frames are completely rigid. So the folders' extra "sturdiness" is not to
blame for the ride.
> Still, I think that you're right and I was wrong. Some folding bikes have had bad reputations for
> durability, so I suggested that folding small-wheel bikes might break--but Andrew Muzi's post
> settles the reliability matter for me as far as Dahons are concerned. If he rode one and sells
> them, they're not likely to break.
>
> It was also rude of me to drag in the tired old clown-bicycle reference. In the future, I'll refer
> to small-wheel folk as the anti-penny-farthing crowd.
Rudeness isn't a problem here, it's perpetuating the idea that small wheels and a stiff frame
necessarily make for a harsh, unpleasant ride. An acceptable ride can be had once the most pressing
issues are addressed -- poor quality tires, and a too-upright, non-dynamic riding position. A
Walmart Mongoose suffers from the same problems, so you wouldn't choose it for a 50 mile ride either
-- even though it has 26" wheels.
My friend Burt's Dahon does ride better than my sister's Walgoose.
> P.S. Is Dahon supposed to be an anagram for Honda? A Honda motorcycle dealer lost his
> distributorship years ago in Canon City, Colorado, and instead of taking down his sign,
> rearranged its letters in a fit of pique worthy of the pettiest rec.bicycles.tech poster.
I like that one!
Matt O.