... compared, to, say, a cheap MTB. I know it must be very hard to generalize, but perhaps someone has an idea.
It in fact looks like this. I'm thinking of taking the train from Stockholm, Sweden to Oslo, Norway where nice nature scenery (highlands/mountains) are at a far more accessible distance. Thus I need a foldable bike, which I guess in its dismantled state is small enough to take with you on the regular train.
From there, the plan is to make a tour into the mountains, perhaps lasting for a week or slightly longer.
I can do 80-100km rides on my cheap 26" MTB at a fairly fast pace feeling only slightly to moderately tired afterwards. But this is on nearly flat roads.
So my questions are
- does it sound insane to do a semi-serious distance (around 400km), perhaps 70 of them will be through seriously hilly up-down-up-down-hundreds-of-meters terrain (albeit paved roads), on a moderately efficient 20" folding bike?
- What makes do you recommend? Preferably sub-$400. Or, prices aside, what FEATURES do you recommend? Given the primary use I write above, should I look for derailleur based transmission or hub, etc. I know that derailleurs are more efficient but something just tells me they would struggle a lot on a folding bike. Am I wrong? Really want a bike which has a fairly low chance of serious near-irreparible breakdown.
If I decide to do this trip, it will probably be wise to do it next summer so I get the chance to conform myself mentally(?) and physically to any folding bike I decide to eventually buy.
All input appreciated