Iief

I actually came to the wrong conclusions based on reviews. It seems a big negative aspect of folders is having to pedal more to the point that you feel you're always peddling

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...n-Miami-Review


If you check the walmart reviews you see the opposite trend

What things account for the difference? just gearing?

jur

Iief go and read the sticky.

bt93

Iief don't need no advice, he's trolling. Look how long this thread got. He compares skateboard wheels to an oil drum. He knows what he's doing and everyones feeding the troll.

LesterOfPuppets

Grass hills are typically pretty rough. Your bike is not bad for riding down grass hills. It's not so well suited for riding back up the grass hill though. The geometry and weight will not suit you well there.

I've ridden boards down grass hills to. Small late 90s 52mm park wheels are the worst. My 70mm Kryptos were better. Of course if you're serious about that kinda riding, you'll want one of these:



All kinds of bikes for all kinds of riding. Your bike is nice for slow cruising on pool-table flat terrain. The fat tires make it nice for rough pavement like chipseal. The fat tires are pretty dang heavy, though, which means slow.

Walmart reviews are primarily written by people that haven't tried that many different bikes, so that makes them kinda worthless.

Your original question asked about ease of pedaling. Your bike is not so easy for pedaling. Having the seat that far behind the cranks can be a hindrance and that gigantic saddle will also be a bit of a drag when it comes to pedaling.

It'll still be a fun flat land cruiser but it doesn't have the gearing to make climbing up hills involve easy pedaling.

laura*

The small wheels of a folding bike spin up easier/faster and also spin down quicker. The smaller size means the wheels are lighter. The lower weight means less rotating momentum. Hence quicker speed changes.

The practical effect is that the foldie will reach cruising speed quicker than a large wheeled bike, but won't be able to coast as far when the rider stops pedaling.

LesterOfPuppets

I reckon that's always a possibility. I'll never get the troll mentality. Is there some troll championship that I'm not aware of? I think I'll have to disagree with the bolded line above. Surely a pro troll would post in one of the top 5 most heavily trafficked subforums, right?

Iief

bt93, I'm not going to respond to you

Everyone else, thanks for your help

bt93

Thanks for the response.

Russcoles11

Which was easier to get up the hill in the 1st place, the oil drum or the skateboard? About 50% of hills go up!

Yes you are right, larger wheels have more momentum. They are harder to accelerate which makes them less useful in stop-start situations like city use. The only major benefit of large wheels is on uneven surfaces, hitting potholes on a folder can be quite uncomfortable, on your new bike you probably won't notice it.

Think of the penny farthing pictured above, in order to get the same speeds with a smaller wheel someone came up with a bike design with a chain and cogs. By having a big cog where the pedals are (the chain ring) and a smaller cog at the wheel you get a higher speed from the wheel so you can have a bike where you don't fall as far if you crash. Now think what you can do if you put a larger chain ring on the bike; you either go faster or you can use smaller wheels and go the same speed. What everyone is trying to tell you is that wheel size doesn't determine the speed of the bike.
Small wheels are better for acceleration but more uncomfortable on bumpy surfaces. Some of us use wider tyres to make the ride smoother, this makes the bike slower as more rubber is in contact with the road. The smaller wheels however mean that although the width of our tyre's footprint is greater, the length is less. This is why full sized road bikes and touring bikes have narrow tyres, they don't need the ride smoothed out as they have big wheels. Mountain bikes however do still need the ride smoothed out as they have more than the odd pothole to contend with.

Now lets apply some of this to the bike you have bought. It has huge wheels and wide tyres so will have a lot of rubber in contact with the road, making it inefficient. There is a lot of weight in the wheels so it will not accelerate well. The chainring looks very small so it will be easy enough to pedal but will be rather slow. This type of bike is sometimes called a beach cruiser. It will perform better than most folders on soft sand as it spreads its weight well. Other than this one niche it is rather a poor bike design. On the plus side, it looks sturdy, will be a comfortable ride and was cheap.

If you find you don't enjoy cycling, bear in mind its quite likely that its the bike that you don't enjoy. Next time ask the right questions in a forum: 'I need a bike to use for _________ and it will need to cope with [hills/offroad/using public transport/carrying loads etc], my budget is $XXX, what sort of bike should I look at?'
Next is the important bit TRY DIFFERENT BIKES OUT. A decent cycle shop will let you take a few bikes for a spin, you then don't need to know any of the technical stuff, it will just become apparent whether a bike is right for you.

Iief

I ended up buying a Dahon boardwalk S1 for $160 off craigslist. What changed my decision was just the thought of how much I would actually use the bike. My life is car centric and a folder will go everywhere with me. Taking a 29" bike would require conscious planning since it can't just sit in the back all the time. So the folder is 10x more likely to become a part of my life than a bigger bike

First impressions

- The bike is comfortable, at least for short rides. I'm 6'2" 170 and was concerned about awkward riding mechanics, but it is a non-issue

- The top speed comes much quicker than I thought, and when I reach about 80% of top speed, pedaling feels inefficient. I feel like I move more ground by pedaling up to about 80% of top speed, coasting a bit, and then pedaling after the bike slows down again, rather than sustained slow pedaling like another kid on a 24" bike who was on the same trail (he was even going faster than me)

- I'm out of shape! I don't have weight issues but I just found through google that I only did 3.2 miles total, and was somewhat tired at times throughout the trip. My jaw also starting hurting for some reason; it was a mild sensation that stopped as I finished the ride. I'm 25 so I doubt it is anything serious

I think I may need to check my bike out or oil the chain just in case there is some extra friction somewhere. The guy I bought it from says the bike was in a garage for several years

bt93

Keep riding, you'll get used to it. Even if you were in excellent shape your legs need time to get used to pedalling. Don't worry if anyone passes you, there's a reason 20 inch wheels aren't in the Tour de France. Don't think that going 80% fast then coasting to a slower speed then speeding up again would work for most, just get a nice pace that's comfortable and you'll enjoy it more. As far as speed goes, you're going faster than walking. I just consider cycling as a faster version of walking and go easy and am able to ride all day long. My butt gets sore sometimes, but my legs still feel good after being in the saddle for 7 or 8 hours total.
In short, relax and enjoy, don't try to be Lance Armstrong.

bendembroski

In addition to making sure everything is nicely lubed and adjusted properly, be sure to check the pressure in your tyres. In fact, depending on what tyres are on the bike now, that would be the first thing I would consider 'upgrading' on any bike. The right tyre selection can make a huge difference...

Mostly though, it just comes down to riding more.

rench123

hey Iief, does the bike fit? At 6'2", I would guess that the seatpost is way extended. Can you extend your leg all the way while pedaling?

bendembroski

Good point that.

BassNotBass

^+1. I'm 6'2" but have a short inseam (32") yet most of the folding bikes I've ridden had inadequate seat post lengths.

social suicide

I bought that bike at Walmart too, but it was in the boat department. I thought it looked kinda funny for an anchor.

Iief

yes, its long enough with room to spare, although I must admit that at the "proper" height the riding mechanics for a tall person do degrade. You won't be able to plant your feet on the ground at stops, and getting on-off requires a hopping motion. When riding you will also need to lean forward more which correspondingly makes the seat more uncomfortable. But if you sacrifice full leg extension for a 3" drop in seat height it becomes pleasant again.

Overall I'm still glad I bought this bike because the utility of having it in the car all the time is allowing me to use it often. However, if I was able to do more riding directly from my house I would keep a cruiser in the garage: I got to ride one of those when living with a room mate who had one, and cruiser style bikes have ergonomics that turn riding from "fun" to "really fun"

bendembroski

Bike fit is very much an individual thing, but 3" lower from full leg extension sounds like asking for trouble.

Just a couple of points:

1. I can't plant my feet while sitting on the saddle on any of my bikes. One foot "tip toe" while slightly leaning to the side tends to be the norm. It's a little disconcerting at first, but you will get used to it. Same goes for the hopping motion.

2. If you lower your seat too much, two things happen. You don't get full power out of your legs. You are also bending your knees more when the pedals are at their highest point. This can lead to injury after a while -- particularly on a single speed bike.

Take a look at this:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html

It covers all the basics very well. The article on starting and stopping is particularly relevant here.

Hope that helps, and welcome to the fold!

Geeeyejo

I believe that the 29" Wally world bike is easy to pedal NOT because of the tire size but due to the small tooth count on the chainring versus the cog on the hub - small chainring = easier to pedal (and limited top end speed) in my book...

akohekohe

Actually, smaller wheels are inherently faster. The only reason they are not in use in the tdf or other professional road races is because of UCI's rule 1.3.018 which limits bicycle wheels to 24" or greater. Go to https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/heritage.html and scroll down to "Records and Racing" to learn more. BTW, not only are they faster in time trials they are much faster in pace lines because you can draft that much closer with the smaller wheels.