Opinions on folding bikes please

[Ric]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

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) After trying it once, he
probably would not ride it off road again. Then he would have ended up with a bike a lot more
expensive, less compact, less foldable, for no useful gain. I told him to forget any offroad
pretensions in any compact folder, and concentrate on the real choice criteria in a compact folder -
ie foldability, price, compactness. I think this is good advice.

Suspension allows wheels to
> travel over bumps efficiently: that's the whole *point*.

So you reckon that if you hit an 8" high bump with 16" wheels (with suspension), it will be no
different from hitting the same bump with 28" wheels (no suspension)??? Of course it is not. You
will go straight over the hanndlebars on the 16" wheel bike because it will stop dead in its tracks
as the impact from the bump will be applied horizontally directly through the axle. The 28" wheels
will climb over it. An extreme example, but you can follow my point without going into the maths of
it all. Suspension can only help a wheel travel over a bump if the size of the bump is small in
relation to the wheel radius. This is why small wheel bikes become virtually incontrollable on
uneven surfaces, whereas large wheels scarcely notice the bumps. Large wheels also offer far more
gyroscopic stability, loosely in proportion to the square of the radius, which prevents the front
wheel from deflecting wildy at the slightest bump - suspension does not alter that.

 

[Paul Rudin]

>>>>> "TW" == Tony W <[email protected]> writes:

TW> "Myra VanInwegen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
TW> 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.

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

FWIW I have no problems towing my trailer behind my Birdy.

--
Look! A ladder! Maybe it leads to heaven, or a sandwich!

 

[John B]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> 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?

Not quite, but my present hack bike was originally bought in 1970. It has undergone various changes
and has been used for time trialling (gears and fixed), road racing, touring (in Middle East and
widely elsewhere), rough stuff, etc. It has been dark orange, white, yellow/green, blue and is
presently a dark red coutesy of a can of gloss.

All equipment has changed several times over and following a crash also two main tubes.

All that is left from the original are the forks, stays and seat tube.

John B

 

[Pete Biggs]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Does anyone here have a bike which is 100% changed from their original purchase?

Almost. Only bit left of my Giro 500 is the front brake caliper. All the rest of it was gradually
replaced/upgraded, including the frame of course


~PB

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ric wrote:

> I am trying to be helpful to the original poster, whereas you seem to b=
e
> just be looking to point score. The original poster should not compromi=
se
> his choices by seeking offroad ability in his search for a small, compa=
ct
> folder. Maybe the "APB Landrover" is very slightly better than a Brompt=
on
> offroad, but it will still be a very disagreable and inefficient experi=
ence

Nick Crane in Cycling Plus "I=92m a big fan of Moultons, the Moulton is a transcontinental bike and
= a=20 city commuter. It=92s amazing =85in terms of handling it performed=20 absolutely
fantastically. The great thing about Moultons is the front=20 and rear suspension=85 you can ride a
Moulton APB over quite rough tracks=
=20
very fast and quite safely."

> (and IMV it is just a cynical attempt to cash in on the fad for offroad=

> looking bikes)=20

Since the APB doesn't look anything like an "offroad looking bike", this =

suggests you're not too familiar with the thing you're rubbishing.

> So you reckon that if you hit an 8" high bump with 16" wheels (with suspension), it will be no
> different from hitting the same bump with 28=
"
> wheels (no suspension)??? Of course it is not.=20

No, but I do reckon that clearing 8" obstacles as a routine occurrence=20 isn't the typical lot
of bicyles.

Like I've pointed out, APBs have been used for lots of real offroad.=20 You can theorise all ou
like, but people have already proven that a=20 relatively small wheel isn't incapable of off road.
Or BMXs would suck=20 at it too.

Pete. --=20 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/

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"Ric" <[email protected]> writes:

>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) After trying it once, he
>probably would not ride it off road again. Then he would have ended up with a bike a lot more
>expensive, less compact, less foldable, for no useful gain. I told him to forget any offroad
>pretensions in any compact folder, and concentrate on the real choice criteria in a compact folder
>- ie foldability, price, compactness. I think this is good advice.

People these days seem to assume a bike is no use in a particular kind of terrain if it can't be
ridden the whole way. When I was a kid we rode all sorts of cheap crappy bikes everywhere a bike a
could be taken. That included fording shallow rivers, traversing boulder fields, and hills too
steep for the single gear bikes most of us had. When something was too hard to ride, we either got
off and pushed the bike, or carried it. Having to push or carry the bike some of the way was
accepted as normal. Nobody expected a bike to go everywhere without pushing or carrying. Even just
for cycling to school there was one hill which even most geared bikes couldn't handle. Nobody said
"If you want to cycle to school you *must* have an extreme bottom gear for the final hill." Many
people pushed their bikes up all steep hills. Old ladies pushed their bikes with full shopping
baskets up mild hills.

If you accept that bikes can be pushed and carried, then most bikes can be taken anywhere, provided
there's enough bikable terrain on the journey to make the pushing/carrying part worthwhile.

In fact, there's a shortcut to cycling to work which I used to use for training purposes which
involved carrying the bicycle up a long staircase instead of cycling it up a hill. (I don't do the
staircase carry any more on the advice of my cardiologist.)

I think people these days too readily assume a bike has to be ridable everywhere you want to go with
it. One of the virtues of bikes, compared to cars, is that you *can* push, lift, or carry them.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:07:15 -0500, Ric wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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) After trying it once,
> he probably would not ride it off road again. Then he would have ended up with a bike a lot more
> expensive, less compact, less foldable, for no useful gain. I told him to forget any offroad
> pretensions in any compact folder, and concentrate on the real choice criteria in a compact folder
> - ie foldability, price, compactness. I think this is good advice.

You simply make a blanket assertion that Moulton ATB/APBs are disagreeable and inefficient off
road. Have you any experience to back that up? Or are your opinions as empty and false as your
email address?

 

[Ric]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Ric wrote:

Since the APB doesn't look anything like an "offroad looking bike", this suggests you're not too
familiar with the thing you're rubbishing.

I am not rubbishing it. Merely helping the original poster by pointing out that it is pretty futile
to expect a small wheel bike to perform acceptably off road. And I am familiar with the bike you
mention, and I have tried one too, when I was looking myself for a folding offroad bike. There is a
picture of one here: http://www.pashley.co.uk/landrover/apb.htm Just like the Air Friday, they give
it a bright paint scheme, take off the mudguards, stick on knobbly tyres and straight bars, then
market it to the same suckers who buy landrovers to look macho, even though the furthest off road
they ever go is to mount the kerb outside Oddbins in Chelsea. Despite what the cycling news bloke
says, it is **** as soon as you hit any mud or bumps, as you lose control of the front end.

No, but I do reckon that clearing 8" obstacles as a routine occurrence isn't the typical lot
of bicyles.

Oh dear. I was putting an extreme example to you, to explain in simple terms your stupidity in
trying to insist that small wheels are even remotely as capable as large wheels off road, and that
adding some suspension alleviates the disadvantage. But you seem incapable of understanding even
simple physics. Have you never wondered why tractors have large wheels? Why a Paris-Dakar motorbike
has a much larger front wheel than a 500cc road-race motorbike? Why dumptrucks have huge wheels? Why
aeroplanes designed to land on rough strips have huge wheels? Obviously larger and more expensive
wheels are used just to look good eh??. To claim that 8" bumps "isn't the typical lot of bicycles"
as a counterargument is simply pathetic and indicates that you are just seeking to be obnoxious.
Whatever, I don't think you are being very helpful to the original poster.

Or BMXs would suck at it too.

They do utterly suck if you take them away from the downhill jump courses for which they are
designed. If you had to ride one uphill, you would get off and walk.

 

[Ric]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:b0jnfd$q263s$1@ID-
> Bikes have become much more specialised in recent years so we forget that (except at the very
> specialised extremes) actually the basic bike is a remarkably adaptable, general purpose tool.
>
Yes. I'd agree with you completely. You CAN ride small wheeled bikes off road, as you can ride just
about any bike off road. But I still think the original poster should not compormise his choice of a
compact folder by seeking something with off-road pretensions, as no small wheeled bike will be
significantly better than any other off road - they will all be equally bad, whether they have
suspension or not.

 

[Tony W]

"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> Yes. I'd agree with you completely. You CAN ride small wheeled bikes off road, as you can ride
> just about any bike off road. But I still think the original poster should not compormise his
> choice of a compact folder by seeking something with off-road pretensions, as no small wheeled
> bike will be significantly better than any other off road - they will all be equally bad, whether
> they have suspension or not.
>
>
Which is why I suggested renting might be a better option.

T

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:21:28 -0500, Ric wrote:

> "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:b0jnfd$q263s$1@ID-
>> Bikes have become much more specialised in recent years so we forget that (except at the very
>> specialised extremes) actually the basic bike is a remarkably adaptable, general purpose tool.
>>
> Yes. I'd agree with you completely. You CAN ride small wheeled bikes off road, as you can ride
> just about any bike off road. But I still think the original poster should not compormise his
> choice of a compact folder by seeking something with off-road pretensions, as no small wheeled
> bike will be significantly better than any other off road - they will all be equally bad, whether
> they have suspension or not.

A Moulton wouldn't qualify as a "compact folder". The discussion between "Ric", who masquerades as
George W. Bush, and Peter Clinch of the University of Dundee, is specifically about the 20"
wheeled Moultons.

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:54:05 -0500, Ric wrote:

> "Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> You simply make a blanket assertion that Moulton ATB/APBs are disagreeable and inefficient off
>> road. Have you any experience to back that up?
>
> Yes, as I have said elsewhere, I tried that bike when I was looking for a folding MTB. As I also
> said, the front wheel in particular is very hard to control because of the small diameter. I ended
> up getting a folding 26" mountain bike, as I like to ride off road at speeds above walking pace.
> If you are happy with that sort of performance, go for
it.

So your ride around the block "trying it" outweighs the experience of owners of those bikes. I
get it. Perhaps you really are Dubya after all, and maybe I actually owe you an apology. But I
doubt it...

> Or are your opinions as empty and false as your email address?
>
> Netcop.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ric wrote:

> Oh dear. I was putting an extreme example to you, to explain in simple terms your stupidity in
> trying to insist that small wheels are even remotely as capable as large wheels off road

But I never insisted that they were as capable as larger wheels, I merely think that it is quite
possible to have a relatively small wheel machine that is quite capable *enough* to go off road in
many circumstances. And since the OP wants "nothing too demanding", that should be enough.

> But you seem incapable of understanding even simple physics.

I understand it fine. And I can interface it with my understanding of simple English as well.
"Nothing too demanding" means that the extreme examples you take have no relevance to the point in
hand. APB stands for "All Purpose Bicycle". The OP appears to want, errrr, an all purpose bicycle...

> And calm down, there is no need to start getting obnoxious because we have different opinions on
> a bicycle.

Oh really... ;-/

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/

 

[Tony W]

"Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:21:28 -0500, Ric wrote:
>
> A Moulton wouldn't qualify as a "compact folder". The discussion between "Ric", who masquerades as
> George W. Bush, and Peter Clinch of the
University of
> Dundee, is specifically about the 20" wheeled Moultons.

Maybe -- but please keep up. I introduced the Moulton Deluxe with 16" wheels to the discussion very
early on not because of its folding capabilities (it doesn't) but because it has the same wheel
size as the Brompton. I was pointing out that small wheels do not make a bike completely unsuited
to off road.

What Ric and Peter Clinch are discussing is somewhat different.

T

 

[Ric]

"Steve Palincsar" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> So your ride around the block "trying it" outweighs the experience of owners of those bikes. I
> get it. Perhaps you really are Dubya after all, and maybe I actually owe you an apology. But I
> doubt it...

I have never said it "outweighs" the experience of the owners. It was simply my experience when I
tried one off road. If they are happy with such performance then fine. But I found it
unacceptable. And calm down, there is no need to start getting obnoxious because we have different
opinions on a bicycle.

 

[Ric]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ric wrote:
>
> > Oh dear. I was putting an extreme example to you, to explain in simple
terms
> > your stupidity in trying to insist that small wheels are even remotely
as
> > capable as large wheels off road
>
> But I never insisted that they were as capable as larger wheels, I merely think that it is quite
> possible to have a relatively small wheel machine that is quite capable *enough* to go off road in
> many circumstances. And since the OP wants "nothing too demanding", that should be enough.
>
Exactly - which is why I said a Brompton would be ok. Folds a lot better, a lot more compact,
cheaper. And as you wrote yourself:

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*.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ric wrote:

> Exactly - which is why I said a Brompton would be ok. Folds a lot better, a lot more compact,
> cheaper.

A Brompton will *do* basic tracks, but there's an awful lot of space between that and what a full
MTB will do. And the APB fits into that space very well: as the C+ reviewer said, it can be ridden
safely and at speed on rough tracks, where a Brompton can't. Fit an APB with the right tyres and
it'll ride better on the road as well. A Brompton folds better if you need a quick fold. If you need
to get something into a car for a holiday and you won't need it to fold when you're there then the
separability of a Moulton can actually make for easier and effectively more compact stowage though,
and since the OP said the point of a folder was to pack it into his car, that's potentially useful
information.

The Brompton is the better folder, but the APB is the better all purpose bicycle.

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/

 

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:04:31 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:03:02 +0000, Peter Clinch
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Mine's virtually unchanged, apart from the rack, wheels, lights, handlebars, saddle, gears,
>shifters, chain, mudguards, cables, bottom bracket and every component to do with braking.

Pah.

I've still got the handle bars, stem and brake levers from my 1981 Claud butler.

Tim
--
fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

[Mark Van Gorkom]

>>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?
>
That would include a new frame too?

In two years' time I did change the complete transmission, rack, both brakes, rear fender (twice),
lights, handlebar and stem (after breaking the original model twice, once at 40kph),chain tensioner,
and the seat cushion. Also added a bottle holder, under-seat bag, propstand and lots of reflective
tape. A few of the original bits weren't on the official price list to begin with, and some of the
later additions are not exactly installed as intended either ... All in all my bike gets more
updates than the computer (and that only has the original floppy drive,I think!)

Mark van Gorkom.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Mark van Gorkom wrote:
>>>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?
>>
> That would include a new frame too?

Oh yes! Original one cracked a weld at the head tube, and EBC replaced the whole frame free despite
it being well out of warranty. The rest of it just gradually got changed through wear and tear aside
from the original saddle, which wasn't up to much and replaced by something rather better a couple
of months after 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/