Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Originally Posted by adlai
1. see very few 24 inchers
2. could fit more easily on airplane than 26
3. i've ridden a 20 inch before and I did not like it much at all. Hopefully, 24 would be better and close enough to a 26
Just speculating. I figure that some frames could likely handle it (just 2 inches) while others cannot. Big thing would be brake braze-ons, to which it looks like disc brakes are the only way to go. Or just putting brakes on the front and relying on a coaster brake.
1) maybe there are good reasons for that (i.e. not enough more compact than 26" or 700c to make it worthwhile). But they do exist and would probably ride much better than trying to shoehorn bigger wheels into a frame not designed for them.
2) Even 20" folders usually require some disassembly to fit in standard luggage that's compatible with airline size limits. I'd expect a 24" version to require considerably more effort and likely special luggage that's more likely to raise questions at the airline counter even if it does eventually pass their tape-measure tests.
3) Probably a characteristic of the particular bike you rode. My 20" folder's handling characteristics actually fall in between two of my 700c road bikes (one is a quick handling crit-bike, the other a touring-oriented bike). The smaller wheels are a bit harsher with the same width tires, but using slightly wider tires eliminates that issue. And rolling resistance is marginally greater, but this is pretty insignificant anyway at normal cycling speeds. And I'd be concerned about the variety and availability of good 24" tires in comparison to 20", 26", or 700c.