Originally Posted by
PaulRivers
This sounds like it would devolve into a back and forth I'm not interested in getting into, but in general larger wheels seem to be faster. Certainly not day and night faster, but a little faster.
I don't see any basis for this belief. My own experience does not confirm that larger wheels are faster. Can you provide either a theoretical explanation why larger wheels are faster or empirical data that says so? Either of these would allow me to change my mind on the subject.
Originally Posted by
PaulRivers
You assume that everyone who's bike commuting is doing so partially involving a bus or subway, and that's not true. Certainly if only 25% of my commute was actually biking, folding size would matter to me far more than small increases in efficiency with a larger wheel. But when I was looking for a commuting bike, I was considering something folding because it took up less room at home, at work, and it would be able to go into the trunk of my car a lot easier, even if it just made it 25% smaller. Didn't get anything because of the efficiency aspect, as my commute is somewhere between 0:45 and 1:15 hours, depending on route and traffic.
What you say is true. However, what you are describing seems like a much smaller target market of commuters who want a folding bike over a non-folder, but who don't want a 20"-26" folding bike, and are not happy with any existing options for a 700c folder. The OP suggested that he was trying to create something with a bit more potential than a niche product, so I think the criticism is valid and an important factor for what the OP wants to accomplish with his new design.