Avoiding IGH for this particular purposed (quick fold for multi modal transportation) b/c its extra weight and had a few old bikes (1970's) with 3 gear SA IGH that never shifted well. Also could not find anyone who repairs IGH locally either. Did have a 8 speed Nexus IGH that worked perfectly while I had the bike.

I live in Los Angeles- no rural areas. No hills like SF. I do have a bike w/lots of gears that's set up for commuting/touring w/panniers. Plus an ecargo bike w/huge panniers for shopping/hauling.

This Brompnot trifold is strictly for taking on public transit to reach final destinations since I'm car free now. Its not for long rides or carrying stuff. I do want a front bag but that's about it! Which is why I thought anything from 3 to 6 gears would be more than enough for last mile kind of riding.

Yes, exactly.

I am impressed with current doubles that do a 16T difference effortlessly (though I am using a triple FD, just to have a cage with greater height, so less likely to drag the chain, even if on the small/small combo), even with a stamped large ring that does not have distinct added lift pins. With lift pins, my bet is I could stretch my 50/34 into a 52 or 53 high, but like you said, that's a small percentage increase. I'll be watching the industry in coming years to see if they stretch that 16T standard. But it appears I can't go smaller than 34 on 110mm BCD, so I'd probably need to have the inner on a 74mm BCD, but if set up like current triples, that's too far inboard, I'd need the same chainline as current, which I think someone mentioned 43.5mm in a different thread, that sounds familiar.

You want a trifold. Gotta be a Brompnot trifold. Okay.

Dahon K3+ (the little folder on the right)

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...031eb35015.png

Bifold. So you don't want it. Cool. That's fine. But maybe it would work for someone else reading this thread.

The weight of a Brompton P Urban with its titanium bits. Around 1/3rd of the cost.

Less expensive than the Aceofix, Mint Bob, and some of those other bikes you are considering. Sold by a US retailer with a US warranty.

External gears. Suitable gear range. Finer gear steps.

Discs brakes.

Yeah, yeah, it* does multimodal transit.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6a86da5ab9.png

But, and it's a big but - not a Brompnot trifold.




*K3 in this image is not the + model

I just wish they sold the newer K3+ in the USA, the model where the stem folds inward

I'm hoping N.A. gets the Dahon Mini 349, which has several small improvements - oh, and isn't priced at 230% of the East Asian price.

Like this?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5a773bf435.jpg

Yup! Like that one

Is it easy to wheel, using the seat as the handle, around while folded?

I like how most trifolds folds the front wheel and handlebar over the drivetrain, giving it a little protection.

Good info above, but if I were to get a 16"/349, it would have to be a trifold, for folded size; The only reason I would buy it would be ease of flying with it, either checked baggage, or even carryon if disguised, as some have done. For local or train trip, my 20" bifold goes in a trunk or luggage space just fine, and it's way better racked and panniered than I could do on a Brompnot, both size, and it would impede the fold.

A friend of mine just informed me he is in Vietnam, been there two weeks, and there another two weeks. He's not a big biker, but I gave him a brief rundown on the general Brompton philosophy, and mentioned that asia has much cheaper copies, and he wouldn't need to pay $300 shipping as I have seen. I don't think he has the need, he doesn't do multimodal commuting. But if there is a particular 6 speed model that is sold there (I don't think the Dahon Curl D9 is available yet), that is a great deal, please let me know, thanks.

Hadn't heard of it, just looked... I can't see the advantage of it over a bifold 20", and some disadvantages. Am I wrong that, folded size being equal, 20" is better for ride and gearing? For me, the killer app of 349 is an ultrafold like a Brompton or clone, and for flight travel where I wasn't loaded-touring, I can see the magic.

The biggest problem of this way of folding is that the drivetrain is completely exposed!

Tell you a little story. On my last tour, I ended up here after nightfall at around 19:30 hours, and my hotel was on the other side of a mountain here. Not wishing to ride around the mountain at night, I took a taxi. As I opened the boot/trunk to load my folder, I saw a
the huge LPG gas tank that powered the vehicle. It took a bit of finagling but finally I was able to load my 16" folder. A larger, 20" bike would definitely not have fit, and the locals dont take kindly to loading a dirty bicycle in their taxi seats. An advantage of a 305 or 349 wheel folder, bifold or trifold is that they fit where other larger folders don't, like in tiny rooms for example. Another, of course, is lower weight. And a third advantage is that they are highly maneuverable, agile and nimble like no larger, longer folders. They are are a blast to ride.

The whole endeavor is here.
​​​​

​​​​​​It's a problem that's largely in your effete head. It's a First World problem. The rest of us, more canny and resourceful folk, live in the real world and make do just fine. The decline of Europe is evidently terminal.

Grease, dirt, shocks exist all over the world (at least for bike that really ride, those who have a chain)!

My hat's off to Andrew Ritchie, he really sweated the details on the Brompton fold. One of the great advances in bicycle design, yet I see no mention of it, nor any other folders like the first Dahon, on the bicycle history timelines I have seen. Should be.

So does water and soap. Except for Europeans who are not accustomed to washing and are allergic to bathing, that is. You are familiar with these practices, right? Eau et savon, Water en zeep. Does that ring a bell?

Interesting. My 20" felt a bit too nimble on fast downhills, I enjoy it more after the front rack, panniers, aero bars, put some steered mass forward of the steering axis. But if I was weaving through stopped traffic all the time, I probably would prefer the original feel.

I get your point, I just admire so much the compactness that a 349 trifold allows. If I fly with my bifold 20", it's gonna be a major hassle, not much different from a Bike Friday packing, as the wheels, racks, and other parts will need to come off. Others here mention 20" trifolds, haven't looked yet, but only reason I would get that instead of 349 is if I needed touring racks, and then it doesn't fold right. Maybe if the racks come off and nest around something, or fold. I'd probably get a 349 trifold for non-camp-touring travel, if I need frequent folding. No trip yet planned, have other life problems to solve first. A friend is currently in vietnam for a couple more weeks; I wonder how good a deal can be found on a 349 trifold to bring back, asia prices, no shipping cost? Not needed yet, and he goes to asia annually. Maybe I'll go, buy a bike there, and just credit card tour; I have a feeling I don't want to camp in a tropical country, and the room prices may be much more reasonable than in the USA.

I understand that you can completely wash your Fnhon pictured above.

But a bike with a chain that is really riding, requires lubrication on its transmission.

No that's correct, if a manufacturer designed a folding bike around 16" wheels that inexplicably folded no smaller than a folding bike designed around 20" wheels, the 20" bike would have ride and gearing advantages. Is this just a theoretical musing, or do you have a particular 16" model in mind that folds in no smaller envelope than a similar folding 20"er?

Yeah, a bike like the K3+ folds the other way to protect the brake discs.

Before I get one… can someone who has used both to carry the max ~10kg as recommended by Brompton tell me how those lighter and smaller alternative carrier blocks fare compared with Brompton's?

No difference? Wobbly, not as stiff, can't carry as much?

I'm interested because the base on eg. Litepro's is flat, so I won't need to file it down to fit on a standard bike.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7466531957.png

I have had both. The only difference I have seen in practice is that I have had Aceofix that the bag would not click into place, but they were cheap. I have an H&H with aftermarket support on my Zizzo and I don't in use see any difference.

Nice pic. The left panel.

FWIW, I've had Raze, Muqzi and Aceoffix front-blocks, and while I haven't taken them to the max of 10kg, they are all uniformly solid, with good finishing and fit on the actual front block on the head tube. No issues with bags clicking/locking in.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...20782a9ca8.jpg
Muqzi

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2f7028eb49.jpg
Raze
Wrong type of bolts, I know.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...88c0712153.jpg
Aceoffix

For technical reasons I do not recommend these aluminum blocks!

The Brompton block in industrial plastic is much wider than the threaded rod brazed on the bike head tube and its material has some elasticity.

When it is attached on the bike, its sides are pressed against the bike head tube what provides an excellent lateral stability.

The aluminum block are narrow and only hold on the brazed rod they do not touch the bike head tube at all, their lateral stability rely only on the two bolds and their thin sides.

They are definitely not good for heavy load or wide bags (some brands are honest and specify a max load lower than the 10kg allowed by the Brompton block).