Originally Posted by
MrFlamey
I get that Helix's claim of being the lightest folding bike has not come true, but in general, I do not understand why people are so obsessed with the bloody weight of their bikes. As someone put it earlier in the thread, when you add on your own weight, and the weight of any gear you might be carrying, it's not likely to be more than 20% of the overall weight unless you are extremely light, and in my case it's barely over 10%, so shaving off a kilogram or two isn't going to make a huge difference in comfort, or the distance you can ride before tiring. Then again, I'll admit that since I don't care much about weight, I've never tried riding an extremely light bike.
However, I have ridden a bike that I was worried was not strong enough to take my body weight on long downhill rides on rough roads, and a carbon bike that was light, but very stiff, and they sucked. I'd rather have a 10-15kg bike that is overengineered than a 5kg bike that costs $10k (unless it was a gift and I could sell it
)
Is there anything else people are obsessed by as much as weight? I'm glad that Helix are obsessed by large wheels in a compact folder, a fold that doesn't come undone when you are carrying it because of some **** magnetic "lock", a fold that doesn't put a hinge in the middle of the frame, a bike that can be rolled when folded without weird little suitcase rollers and all of the other details that HAVE been achieved in the final bikes.
Do cyclist forums have as many threads about rider lean bodymass as they do bike weight? Surely you can tune your body to shave off a few kilograms, and even add power by building muscle, then you can ride heavier bikes
That was *probably* me who argued that a couple of pounds in the entire scheme of things is probably less significant. And yes, I was also referring to carrying the folded bike: does a kilogram make a difference? Sure it does. But for me, not to the point where I will obsess over it. Like you, I rather know that the bike I'm carrying - that might be subject to bumps and poor handling in transit, that will get knocked around in the back of a car, or mangled between commuters - has just that little extra robustness that it can TAKE IT and then some. And if I'm going to worry about saving those couple of pounds, I'll see if I can take it off something that is far less critical.
For me, it's also about the form factor. Everybody goes on about the Brompton, but mine comes in at close to 30 pounds with its gearing, rear rack, etc. What would make the difference for me more than saving a couple of pounds - and boo on me for not getting it yet - is a better carrying handle to optimize the "pick it up and toss" grip. Carrying it by the nose of the saddle as is frequently shown is not the most comfortable and unwieldy. The Brompton almost encourages you to pick it up when you can, but frankly, it's just way easier to roll a bike around if possible. So while I appreciate my Brompton in shopping "wheelable" cart mode, it is far from an ideal "wheelie" especially with its stock rolling plastic tires. (My wife has a Brompton without rack and the rolling wheel is on the rear fender and my god it sucks.) In this regard, the Helix may be better, or maybe worse; certainly the early videos made the Helix *look* like an easy to roll bike - we'll see.
I'm sure my thinking will be criticized and challenged again - I no longer care to engage in what a forum moderator has implied is a largely hopeless argument. I am interested in the ENTIRE experience the Helix could offer - ride, handling, comfort, safety, features, portability, convenience, looks, blah blah blah (because every folding bike is about what tradeoffs you can or cannot tolerate), and to that end, I will wait until several honest, real rider evaluations appear. Everything else is speculation.