Folding bikes more efficient?
10-28-07, 01:10 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well here i am, the owner of said page. I am very happy that my page still serves/incites interesting debate and that some posters, which i have always highly esteemed, think so well of me! Made my day. 
But to add to the debate. It is true, i am no engineer and no scientist, i do not have figures and studies other than the ones on my webpage and the ones that Moulton conducted and that you can seek out.
But i have a lot real world experience with all kind of bikes and a lot of anecdotal "evidence" from conversing with other bike freaks, mechanics and people here on the forum.
My basic point of view has always been that Folders and small wheelers have gotten a terrible Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) rap. People just repeating and whole heartedly believing that one MUST pedal faster and exert one self way more on anything with small wheels. This is largely to do with ignorance, having no actual experience, and parroting others.
However, it is also because quite a long time ago folders generally were (somewhat) slower than quite some other bikes. As previously stated by others this had to do with bad tires, bad/cheap folders being produced with terrible geometries and flexy frames etc.
Today this is no longer the case. Many amazing folders can be bought (i am continually surprised how little one has to pay for a real great modern folder with very good parts) that cycle efficiently and fast, and they are compact and fold able to boot! Perhaps one great thing that came out of the aforementioned FUD is that Folder manufacturers these days do their utmost to dispel all those notions and offer a top notch product for very fair prices. The perception and reality is still that most people are not willing to drop great amounts of cash on a folder and that more interest needs to be generated and a quality product offered. Both are definitely happening.
I feel that comparing a quality folder these days to a bad example of 2 decades ago is almost akin to comparing a heavy as **** $ 150 dollar Huffy/Walmart MTB monstrosity to a $ 600 dollar Trek MTB. Apples and oranges in terms of looks, durability and performance.
I (like most people in the world and many of us on these boards) use my folders primarily as my daily ride. My rides tend to be about 5 to 75 minutes at a time, although i have toured on my folders too.
On those type of distances i found a good folder is as fast as any bike except perhaps a dedicated road racer on longer rides. However on the shorter 5 to 15 minutes trips in a really urban area the folder tends to pulverize even the racer. The extreme maneuverability, the bomb proof ness of the wheels, the acceleration, and the bike being shorter means i am simply faster. Unlike on a racer i do not need to worry about every bump or curb, i do not need to find little ramps and skirt most obstacles. In theory a racer's wheels would roll over a curb easier in practice the skinny featherweight large wheels will damage or even disintegrate if bumps and curbs are not skirted.. Also a racer is much harder to maneuver with, many quick turns can simply not be made with a larger wheel as easily -if at all- as with a smaller one.
In practice this means a lot of small hold ups for a larger wheeled bike. Though they are small they add up. In practice not only am i faster on my small wheels i also feel way faster, i don't have to spend lots of energy being wary of the terrain and compensating.
As for issues with (the intertwined) aspects of comfort, speed, and efficiency. All i can say is that in my humble opinion fatter tires and Brooks Saddles are where it is at, unless you like to competitively cycle or race. Tires too have undergone massive changes over the last few decades, Schwalbe for example carries many (semi) slick tires such as Marathon's and Big Apples that are fatter yet give very little added rolling resistance when pumped up hard. I think they have conducted studies and the conclusion was that width of the tire need not make a marked difference.
In essence one then has way more comfort, subject's the bike and body to much less strain and stress and only pays a small price in terms of speed loss.. Sounds good to me!
But of course one can run skinny tires on folders too, if you do and it works for you, great! If i did however i would most certainly use a Brooks saddle, perhaps a sprung one or look into folders with build in suspension.
I think that at the end of the day i'd much rather have (way) more fun and comfort than get a speed increase in the order of 1% to 5%. I love cycling, if on my 15 minutes commute i add 60 seconds and in exchange enjoy the ride way more because i am more comfortable and get a nimbler and more versatile bike to boot, i consider that a bargain.
But having said that i remain convinced that folders can be and often are very efficient machines that rival and sometimes even trump other styles of bikes.
If you want to read a lot more - inflammatory! you have been warned!
- discussion on the topic check out a thread i started a long time ago:
"Large wheels and Unsprung (non leather) saddles are a lie?!"
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...l+lie+unsprung
But to add to the debate. It is true, i am no engineer and no scientist, i do not have figures and studies other than the ones on my webpage and the ones that Moulton conducted and that you can seek out.
But i have a lot real world experience with all kind of bikes and a lot of anecdotal "evidence" from conversing with other bike freaks, mechanics and people here on the forum.
My basic point of view has always been that Folders and small wheelers have gotten a terrible Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) rap. People just repeating and whole heartedly believing that one MUST pedal faster and exert one self way more on anything with small wheels. This is largely to do with ignorance, having no actual experience, and parroting others.
However, it is also because quite a long time ago folders generally were (somewhat) slower than quite some other bikes. As previously stated by others this had to do with bad tires, bad/cheap folders being produced with terrible geometries and flexy frames etc.
Today this is no longer the case. Many amazing folders can be bought (i am continually surprised how little one has to pay for a real great modern folder with very good parts) that cycle efficiently and fast, and they are compact and fold able to boot! Perhaps one great thing that came out of the aforementioned FUD is that Folder manufacturers these days do their utmost to dispel all those notions and offer a top notch product for very fair prices. The perception and reality is still that most people are not willing to drop great amounts of cash on a folder and that more interest needs to be generated and a quality product offered. Both are definitely happening.
I feel that comparing a quality folder these days to a bad example of 2 decades ago is almost akin to comparing a heavy as **** $ 150 dollar Huffy/Walmart MTB monstrosity to a $ 600 dollar Trek MTB. Apples and oranges in terms of looks, durability and performance.
I (like most people in the world and many of us on these boards) use my folders primarily as my daily ride. My rides tend to be about 5 to 75 minutes at a time, although i have toured on my folders too.
On those type of distances i found a good folder is as fast as any bike except perhaps a dedicated road racer on longer rides. However on the shorter 5 to 15 minutes trips in a really urban area the folder tends to pulverize even the racer. The extreme maneuverability, the bomb proof ness of the wheels, the acceleration, and the bike being shorter means i am simply faster. Unlike on a racer i do not need to worry about every bump or curb, i do not need to find little ramps and skirt most obstacles. In theory a racer's wheels would roll over a curb easier in practice the skinny featherweight large wheels will damage or even disintegrate if bumps and curbs are not skirted.. Also a racer is much harder to maneuver with, many quick turns can simply not be made with a larger wheel as easily -if at all- as with a smaller one.
In practice this means a lot of small hold ups for a larger wheeled bike. Though they are small they add up. In practice not only am i faster on my small wheels i also feel way faster, i don't have to spend lots of energy being wary of the terrain and compensating.
As for issues with (the intertwined) aspects of comfort, speed, and efficiency. All i can say is that in my humble opinion fatter tires and Brooks Saddles are where it is at, unless you like to competitively cycle or race. Tires too have undergone massive changes over the last few decades, Schwalbe for example carries many (semi) slick tires such as Marathon's and Big Apples that are fatter yet give very little added rolling resistance when pumped up hard. I think they have conducted studies and the conclusion was that width of the tire need not make a marked difference.
In essence one then has way more comfort, subject's the bike and body to much less strain and stress and only pays a small price in terms of speed loss.. Sounds good to me!
But of course one can run skinny tires on folders too, if you do and it works for you, great! If i did however i would most certainly use a Brooks saddle, perhaps a sprung one or look into folders with build in suspension.
I think that at the end of the day i'd much rather have (way) more fun and comfort than get a speed increase in the order of 1% to 5%. I love cycling, if on my 15 minutes commute i add 60 seconds and in exchange enjoy the ride way more because i am more comfortable and get a nimbler and more versatile bike to boot, i consider that a bargain.
But having said that i remain convinced that folders can be and often are very efficient machines that rival and sometimes even trump other styles of bikes.
If you want to read a lot more - inflammatory! you have been warned!
- discussion on the topic check out a thread i started a long time ago:"Large wheels and Unsprung (non leather) saddles are a lie?!"
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...l+lie+unsprung
Last edited by v1nce; 10-28-07 at 03:12 PM. Reason: z
10-28-07, 04:58 PM
#27
recovering stroke victim
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sugar Land Texas
Posts: 54
Bikes: Flying Scot, Kona "Fire Mountain", Raleigh Twenty
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Has anybody tried this?
https://www.dahon.com/us/smoothhound.htm
Seems to be a 20" bike with a conventional frame. I think it looks rather good. I'm about 80lbs over its limit though ...
Seems to be a 20" bike with a conventional frame. I think it looks rather good. I'm about 80lbs over its limit though ...
10-28-07, 06:25 PM
#28
No Rocket Surgeon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Corona and S. El Monte, CA
Posts: 1,648
Bikes: Cannondale D600, Dahon Speed T7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
1 Post
These are probably issues relating to the design of your particular make though. Some are well known to have very flexible handlbar posts.
The compromises forced on designers in pursuit of a tight fold can probably account for 95% of the performance loss in a folder - not the wheels.
The compromises forced on designers in pursuit of a tight fold can probably account for 95% of the performance loss in a folder - not the wheels.
Folding size was most important to me. This was to be my commuter bike
The rideability was a plus! Now it's my primary ride!
__________________
Fewer Cars, more handlebars!
Fewer Cars, more handlebars!
