"Ric" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.
>
Ric. Off road has a multitude of meanings. You may have missed the following in my reply to the OP:-
"However, in my teens (a long, long time ago) I rode a Moulton 'everywhere' including most of what
Epping Forest could throw at it all year round. (Its wheels were the same size as the modern
Brompton's)."
The Moulton (Deluxe) had 16" wheels, what would now be considered 'slick' or road tyres, 4 gears and
a simple suspension. OK, that was the 60's and we didn't rocket down hills as I might now on my
hardtail MTB or do big jumps (which I don't do!!).
However, I did ride it very extensively round the Epping Forest area -- both on and off road at
all times of the year (not least because my commute to school was through the forest. It didn't
(as I remember) deal with deep mud too well and clearly it didn't have the ability to hit rocks
and roots that a 26" suspended machine would have had. Likewise it wasn't geared to tackle steep
hills -- you got off & pushed. But, all in all, it did OK. It survives all the everyday stuff that
a teenager out with his mates could ask of it -- XC racing, fording streams, small jumps. obstacle
courses -- pretty much everything except, of course, look 'cool' like a proper racing bike that we
all lusted after at the time
. Yes, hitting an 8" bump would not be a good idea. Solution --
don't hit 8" bumps.
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.
T