Opinions on folding bikes please



Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter Clinch wrote
> Myra VanInwegen wrote:
>
>> While the Brompton is by far the easiest and fastest to fold, and makes the smallest package when
>> folded, it is also the most work to ride. I really don't think that three speeds are enough.
>
> They are, but only if they're the right speeds. And the default set on the Brompton aren't IMHO.
> However, the standard option reductions may well be: the -18% is fine for me.

I don't think it's just the gearing. In Cambridge, the gear range is appropriate and I have no need
to stand, yet I still find it far more work than my fixed gear bike, or just about any other bike we
have. It think it's a combination of the very upright position, and perhaps the tires (we still have
the original Raleigh ones). Perhaps with better tires it would be less work, but I find it hard to
believe it could be all down to the tires.

-Myra
 
Ric wrote:
> I am trying to be helpful to the original poster, whereas you seem to be just be looking to point
> score. The original poster should not compromise his choices by seeking offroad ability in his
> search for a small, compact folder. Maybe the "APB Landrover" is very slightly better than a
> Brompton offroad, but it will still be a very disagreable and inefficient experience (and IMV it
> is just a cynical attempt to cash in on the fad for offroad looking bikes)

I think I can resolve this dilemma. Ric's absolutely right, there's no way a Moulton of any kind
could handle the sort of terrain I used to tackle on my Marin Rift Zone (funny I seem to have
gone off off-road riding, at least for the moment, as I really haven't done any since the Red
Bull Race 2001!)

One thing that makes the Rift Zone so much better than folding/take-apart bikes, in addition to its
bigger wheels and more suspension, is that it has much more trail. All the folding/take-apart bikes
I've seen have fairly twitchy handling, which would make them really difficult to handle on
difficult technical off-road.

The thing is, that what most people consider "off-road" is rather tame bridleways, where the most
technical thing you'll encounter is a small branch across the path or a tractor rut. And so we're
discussing which of these folding/take-apart bikes would be better for this sort of riding. And I
can say that a Moulton LandRover (we have one), or an Airnimal (we also have one) would be quite a
bit better than the Brompton (which again we have). First, the Land Rover and Airnimal can be fitted
with knobblies for better grip, and the suspension of the Moulton helps, as do the larger wheels
(24") of the Airnimal.

So can we stop arguing?

-Myra
 
In message <[email protected]>, Myra VanInwegen
<[email protected]> writes
>Ric wrote:
>> I am trying to be helpful to the original poster, whereas you seem to be just be looking to point
>> score. The original poster should not compromise his choices by seeking offroad ability in his
>> search for a small, compact folder.
>
>I think I can resolve this dilemma. Ric's absolutely right, there's no way a Moulton of any kind
>could handle the sort of terrain I used to tackle on my Marin Rift Zone
snip>

>The thing is, that what most people consider "off-road" is rather tame bridleways, where the most
>technical thing you'll encounter is a small branch across the path or a tractor rut.

I sometimes take a shortcut through a bit of woodland for a little bit of a diversion.

It's a bit rough and bumpy, in places, the Brommies quite entertaining on this bit. not really it's
forte though.

>So can we stop arguing?
>
Yes quite........
--
Chris French, Leeds
 
Victor Meldrew <paul@rainow_bra.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I'd like to buy myself and my good lady a folding bike each so that we can take them on holiday
> easily. The main priority would be how well they fold, ie. how much room they would take up in the
> back of the car. After that I'm looking for value for money so I guess I'm not looking for the
> best bike per se. Ideally we'd like something that could go off- road (but nothing too demanding).
> Any recommendations? I'd be grateful for some idea of price and availability. Thanks.

If you want a proper off-road bike then the only sort of folding it will do is if you go for S&S
couplers. But I don't think that's really what you are after. Of course, in exchange for this
slightly less convenient folding system, you have the advantage of not needing to have another bike
for more serious riding.

James
 
In article <[email protected]>, Victor Meldrew
<paul@rainow_bra.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'd like to buy myself and my good lady a folding bike each so that we can take them on holiday
>easily. The main priority would be how well they fold, ie. how much room they would take up in the
>back of the car. After that I'm looking for value for money so I guess I'm not looking for the best
>bike per se. Ideally we'd like something that could go off- road (but nothing too demanding). Any
>recommendations? I'd be grateful for some idea of price and availability. Thanks.

Thankyou all for your advice and links. I shall read up and then go view. The Brompton is looking
favourite though due to the compactness when folded. I want to be able to put both in the back of
the car and still leave room for all the usual holiday paraphernalia.

As for 'off-road', I guess I am referring to forest tracks, unadopted roadways etc but only for
intervals during a mainly road-based ride (we are off to Islay in June). To be honest I won't know
what the terrain is like until I get there but, as one poster quite rightly pointed out, I can
always get off and walk.

I am an experienced roadie and off-roader and would obviously prefer to ride my best bikes, however
my wife isn't and this will be a way for us to ride more on an equal basis, as well as being the
more practical option all round.

Cheers,
--
Paul Flackett

Remove _bra to reply by e-mail.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Myra VanInwegen
<[email protected]> writes
>John B wrote:
>> I have tried the Birdy but find it too much like a pogo stick on road, and the Airnimal likewise,
>> and is just too cumbersome and time consuming to fold up.
>
>How much the Airnimal resembles a pogo stick when you ride it is down to your pedalling style and
>the density of the elastomer. I have a fairly smooth pedalling style and the medium elastomer. I
>really can't feel it move as I pedal, but Simon says that it is moving up and down a bit as I ride.
>I do note that it helps to smooth out the ride, so it's clear that it is doing something.
>

I would second that - I initially found my Airnimal a bit bouncy, but after changing to a hard
elastomer I find it a problem. Normally, if I find I'm bouncing it's because my pedalling has got
very ragged (normally spinning way too fast).

I'm planning a mild off road tour on it in a few months, in company with my dad on his Dawes Kingpin
and my son on his 24" wheel mountain bike.

Graham
--
Mislaid my sig...
 
Myra VanInwegen wrote:

> While the Brompton is by far the easiest and fastest to fold, and makes the smallest package when
> folded, it is also the most work to ride. I really don't think that three speeds are enough.

They are, but only if they're the right speeds. And the default set on the Brompton aren't IMHO.
However, the standard option reductions may well be: the -18% is fine for me.

> rather take my fixed gear bike for longer rides than the Brompton. At least my fixed gear is a
> proper bike, and I can stand up and apply lots of force to the pedals to get up steep hills, while
> standing on the Brompton is really not an option

Indeed, it doesn't really work. But with the -18% gear reduction first is low enough that you don't
really need to in most cases, so it's rather moot.

> So I would recommend it only for short trips.

It'll do longer ones fine, but if you want to do that don't get a 3 speed with standard gearing.
The reduced ratio 3 is enough but the 6 speed, especially with the gear reduction, makes a much
more useful bike for all occasions. Though at this point it's worth looking at the (more expensive)
Birdy range.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Myra VanInwegen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Victor Meldrew <paul@rainow_bra.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > I'd like to buy myself and my good lady a folding bike each so that we can take them on holiday
> > easily. The main priority would be how well they fold, ie. how much room they would take up in
> > the back of the car. After that I'm looking for value for money so I guess I'm not looking for
> > the best bike per se. Ideally we'd like something that could go off- road (but nothing too
> > demanding). Any recommendations? I'd be grateful for some idea of price and availability.
> > Thanks.
>
> We have the following:
>
> Brompton with 3 speeds Moulton Land-Rover with 21 speeds

Paul,

You could get a real series 3 Land Rover for the price of one of these - carries seven in comfort (
!!) and goes off the beaten track MUCH better. You could even get a very noisy smelly diesel
powered one !

:)

Regards Simon
 
Myra VanInwegen wrote:

> I don't think it's just the gearing. In Cambridge, the gear range is appropriate and I have no
> need to stand, yet I still find it far more work than my fixed gear bike, or just about any other
> bike we have. It think it's a combination of the very upright position, and perhaps the tires (we
> still have the original Raleigh ones). Perhaps with better tires it would be less work, but I find
> it hard to believe it could be all down to the tires.

I use Marathons at 100 psi. And having briefly had a standard geared
Mk. 2 with Raleigh Records I know for a fact that it's a lot less work! The upright position only
really makes for work into a headwind, but having 3 gears that are useful without a tailwind
makes a very big difference a lot of the time: I had to routinely get off and walk on the Mk 2
on some of the more interesting inclines round here, the current one makes walking an option
rather than a necessity.

I'd definitely suggest a change of tyres though.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On 21 Jan 2003 06:01:56 -0800 someone who may be [email protected] (Myra VanInwegen) wrote this:-

>(we still have the original Raleigh ones). Perhaps with better tires it would be less work, but I
>find it hard to believe it could be all down to the tires.

The tyres make quite a difference. Raleigh Records are perfectly good as cheap and cheerful tyres
for short distance riding, which is why they remain on the cheapest model. They probably represent
the technology of the 1950s. The Primo Commet introduced a very different feel and noticeably faster
riding for the same effort. There are now several competing tyres in the market offering different
combinations of price, puncture resistance and speed. The standard Brompton tyre is probably the
best balance for most people and this is what is fitted to most models of Brompton today.

The various options are probably discussed on the A to B magazine web pages. A new pair of tyres
might be a better investment than all sorts of baby equipment:)

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On 21 Jan 2003 03:07:49 -0800 someone who may be [email protected] (Myra VanInwegen) wrote this:-

>So I would recommend [a Brompton] only for short trips.

Some people do 40-60 miles on them in a day happily, though not everyone would be able to do this.
Some have done 100 miles in a day, though this did cause them to be rather tired while the people
who did the same trip on a Moulton were fine. There is probably a cut-off point for most people
between 60 and 100 miles in a day. The Moulton and Brompton are very different machines though and
can't easily be compared.

Given a choice for a long trip most would undoubtedly choose a standard road bike with large wheels
for a long trip as it would be more efficient than using a Brompton. However, this choice might not
be possible for many reasons, the Brompton can be used in many circumstances where the alternative
is not to cycle.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Tony W <[email protected]> writes:
> Brompton obviously disagree -- their brochure shows one photo of a Brommie with a trailer attached
> with toddler on board!!

Our Brompton is alot of work even without a trailer. Even if we got the 18% gear reduction and
better tires, I still don't think that the gear range (3 speed) would be sufficient to pull a
trailer filled with baby, nappies, cuddly toys, etc.

Paul Rudin <[email protected]> writes:
> FWIW I have no problems towing my trailer behind my Birdy.

Birdys have more gears than our Brompton! And are probably more efficient. I can't help thinking
that one of the things that make the Brompton so tiring is the very upright position. I think the
Birdy offers a somewhat more stretched out position.

However I've begun to think that some form of suspension in the commuterized MTB that I plan on
pulling the trailer with (and which I'm using now as my getting around bike) would be a good idea,
as I'm sitting down on it alot more than I did on my fixed gear. I forsee a suspension seatpost
purchase in the near future!

-Myra
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Ric wrote:
>
> > Realistically, you will not get a folder that is any way capable offroad, because of the small
> > wheels, so best forget that idea.
>
> Something like a Moulton or Bike Friday doesn't fold, it's assembled and reassembled.

The Bike Friday folds. Mine takes about three minutes to fold and bag for taking on the train, but
its quite a large package. It takes less to unfold. It *can* be taken apart for packing in a case
which takes around half an hour. The ride quality is superb tho'. Off road it is not as good and I
would go for the BF Pocket Gnu, designed for this purpose, but pricy, pricy, pricy.

My Brompton has done some off-road work, but the wheels are really too small for anything much more
than towpaths or forest roads.

I have tried the Birdy but find it too much like a pogo stick on road, and the Airnimal likewise,
and is just too cumbersome and time consuming to fold up.

> If you want something that folds and unfolds in seconds to a reasonably compact single package,
> nothing beats the Brompton.

Entirely agree.

> None of these options are cheap though! However, a good bike will get ridden because it's a
> pleasure and a useful one at that.

There is no better advice. And you (usually) get what you pay for.

John B
 
Myra VanInwegen wrote:

> Birdys have more gears than our Brompton! And are probably more efficient. I can't help thinking
> that one of the things that make the Brompton so tiring is the very upright position. I think the
> Birdy offers a somewhat more stretched out position.

It actually gives you the choice: the green comes with "comfort bars" as standard (quite upright,
it's the "urban Birdy") while the others have a more MTB like riding position. But IIRC you can get
either sort of bars on any flavour as an option when you order.

I've changed my opinion of the demerits of a bolt upright position over the last few years, and I
think a lot of it rather ironically comes from riding recumbent so much. I've got used to using just
my legs to provide the oomph with a very light touch on the bars (heaving on the bars on a 'bent is
a Bad Idea!), and now on the Brompton I actually make a point of sitting as upright as possible and
never standing up, and it doesn't appear to add to the work compared to my other uprights unless
there's much of a headwind (natural and/or generated by my own speed). And if you're towing a
trailer with a bairn and paraphernalia you're unlikely to generate much of one yourself!

I'd really look at changing those tyres! If my Brompton was noticeably more tiring than any of my
other options it wouldn't get used nearly so much as it does.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
>>>>> "MV" == Myra VanInwegen <[email protected]> writes:

MV> Tony W <[email protected]> writes:
>> Brompton obviously disagree -- their brochure shows one photo of a Brommie with a trailer
>> attached with toddler on board!!

MV> Our Brompton is alot of work even without a trailer. Even if we got the 18% gear reduction and
MV> better tires, I still don't think that the gear range (3 speed) would be sufficient to pull a
MV> trailer filled with baby, nappies, cuddly toys, etc.

MV> Paul Rudin <[email protected]> writes:
>> FWIW I have no problems towing my trailer behind my Birdy.

MV> Birdys have more gears than our Brompton! And are probably more efficient. I can't help
MV> thinking that one of the things that make the Brompton so tiring is the very upright position.
MV> I think the Birdy offers a somewhat more stretched out position.

MV> However I've begun to think that some form of suspension in the commuterized MTB that I plan on
MV> pulling the trailer with (and which I'm using now as my getting around bike) would be a good
MV> idea, as I'm sitting down on it alot more than I did on my fixed gear. I forsee a suspension
MV> seatpost purchase in the near future!

I should probably add that it's harder work than on my other bikes - but certainly not unusable for
this purpose. For day to day stuff I tow it behind my regular commuting bike which is a (roughly) 10
year old Marin Sausalito. Although there's not much left of the original on this bike. Frame and
mechs are original I guess, but a wheel incorporating a speedhub is being built for me as we speak,
so the mechs will be going in the bin soon.

--
The Osmonds! You are all Osmonds!! Throwing up on a freeway at dawn!!!
 
Ric wrote:

> No way is any small wheeled folding bike a capable offroader. They'll cope with gravel dry tracks,
> at slow speed but that's it. But any bike, even a Brompton, can cope with that sort of stuff in
> small doses.

Oh. Best tell all the people with Moulton/Land Rover APBs that use them offroad that point, they
don't seem to have noticed!

> Perhaps these owners of Moulton's you are talking about consider that acceptable performance as a
> compromise for a bike that can be dismantled, but I would find it too frustrating and would get
> off an walk in those circumstances.

They've been ridden on all sorts of real off-road, and for long distances too.

> Suspension does not make up for the small wheels when you start hitting bumps. Do you actually
> ride off road?

I ride a rigid MTB for serious(ish) off-road stuff, but my Brompton and suspended 'bent are quite
happy on the sort of things you appear to consider would be the limits of the APB. Suspension allows
wheels to travel over bumps efficiently: that's the whole *point*.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Myra VanInwegen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hmmmmm. I don't think the Brompton has much of a part to play in transporting babies! On the other
> hand a slick-shod MTB with a child trailer and special baby seat does, so (a) I have commuterized
> a cheap but decent quality MTB, and (b) we will shortly order a kiddy trailer & seat.

Brompton obviously disagree -- their brochure shows one photo of a Brommie with a trailer attached
with toddler on board!!

T
 
Myra VanInwegen wrote:

>
> Hmmmmm. I don't think the Brompton has much of a part to play in transporting babies!

I think the rack would take some sort of baby holding device, though pointing forward wouldn't be a
great view. If you do fit a baby seat to the rack then do remember not to do the Brompton back wheel
flip until you have removed the baby.

Colin
 
Paul Rudin wrote:
> Although there's not much left of the original on this bike. Frame and mechs are original I guess

My old tourer has the rear rack, bars, brake and gear mechs (but not the brake levers), and the
bottle cage from the original purchase. Does anyone here have a bike which is 100% changed from
their original purchase?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On 22 Jan 2003 13:52:19 -0800 someone who may be [email protected] (Myra VanInwegen) wrote this:-

>Hmmmmm. I don't think the Brompton has much of a part to play in transporting babies!

You think wrongly:)

There are several options for carrying youngsters by Brompton, there have been articles in A to B
Magazine on the subject. Indeed mothers have gone off to the birth on a Brompton (sometimes combined
with large taxis (people call them trains:)). Jane and Alexander Henshaw are the obvious example.

As for child trailers, I have seen several towed by Brompton riders.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.