Cool, I like the Cheetah and Arc.
Disappointed the Curl is not feature in the models.
Blimey, new folds! Hmmm. . . unusual.
very new folds indeed, at least they are experimenting with it which is good! I really like the curve looking ones with and extra top tube which would probably make it feel even more rigid. Not sure if we'll ever see these new designs anytime soon unfortunately.
A lot of evolutionary stuff from Dahon, including some striking hydro-formed frame members, but the Jifo 16 looks revolutionary. The bi-fold frame appears to make a very small package when collapsed. It appears that because of the linkage, the rear hinge will be driven by the latched front hinge, speeding folding time. The lower section of the seat post is also linked and seems to deploy/retract automatically, simultaneously creating a support foot for the folded machine. Nice touches: the plug-in behind the saddle for the demountable pedal; the cables routed internal to the frame (I see there are provisions for a gear cable as well on this single speed model).
I'd like to see the folded dimensions and a video of the fold on this one.
Yeah, I hear you, but what if this Jifo is less expensive and less complicated, but folds as small or smaller?Quote:
Disappointed the Curl is not feature in the models.
Probably more on these next week @ the Taipei Cycle Show.
The Jifo has a 5 second fold according to a couple of articles I read.
i wonder why asian market only...
and where did u guys see that bike first ?
hehe that page takes a little while to dl but the pics make it worth while
Now about that 5 sec fold..... I kind of getting to the point where I start to hate the Marketing BS .... Its fast ... but it takes more than 5 secunds to close my fly .... or blow my nose.... cmon .... its fast ...
When will you get the Jifo 16?
absoluetly no idea .. maybe in 2012
maybe I say ...
Riddle me this. Why does Dahon put a rake on a 16" front wheel? This must be the most squirrely bike in the world. They did this on every 16"-er on that site.
its friday and my brain is mush... but the more rake the more solid ride... no rake= squirrely
More rake decreases trail by moving the axle forward with respect to the line of the steering angle. As a result, with MORE rake the ride is LESS stable, MORE squirrely.
Rake is sometimes justified because of a notional suspension effect, but in such a short and stiff fork that effect is probably close to zero.
2) The Chinese text describes the bike you pictured as 18"
iii) The handle post, hinge and focal length of the camera create something of an optical illusion as to the true head angle of the frame
What a load of bull...
Rake does indeed reduce trail. I suspect that in many cases it is simply done because "that is just the way to do it". In bikes which have lots of trail, rake will imbue stability by putting weight below the steering axis which tends to straighten it statically. Trail also straightens, dynamically.
Trail is one measure of the degree to which the wheel acts like a caster. To be a caster, the point of intersection of the steering axis with the ground must lie ahead of the axle. The further ahead, the more the wheel resists turning. If you make the head angle steeper, or if you add rake, you decrease the trail. Lots of trail makes the bike feel stabler; but in some situations (like if there's going to be a big load on the front wheel), you don't want it resisting steering on top of the load doing so, so the trail is reduced in porteur bikes etc.
The Bike Friday Tikit has only a very *very* slight degree of offset as shown below. As a Tikit owner I am at a total loss as to why they did even that: it'd be a bit stabler without the offset.
The Brompton has a fairly significant offset, and THAT is a total mystery to me. The Brompton's trail is quite low as I understand it. Certainly it feels a lot more unstable than the Tikit.
There could be something to the head angle I suppose. But it'd have to be a pretty dang steep head angle to make up for such a rake on such a small bike. I'm guessing the big rake is for some other reason: making the fold smaller or the wheelbase longer given the rider size, or something like that? These don't seem like good reasons to reduce stability tho. Because their small wheels make it difficult to establish enough trail, folding bikes in general have significant stability issues. Dahon's been (unfairly) sued over it before in fact. One would imagine making the bike stabler would be an important consideration.
F in the pic above is the rake ...
Trail would be defined by the rear wheelbase, the rake, the angle of the headtube ......
therefore if you change the angle of the headtube you could live with a straight fork with the same results as having a little rake in the fork. Straight forks are maybe more modern and some marketing folks find all kinds of resons why, the good old fashioned raked fork has its place, offering very little but noticable front shock absorbtion.
We can make it easy ...
a touring frame ...LONG is less squireeley than a TT frame SHORT ... right ?
People should read this... it explains things very well.