invisiblehand

Should I be insulted? I think that this idiom is just a figure of speech.

As I wrote earlier, there is a folding bike with the 520 size. And I recall that it is made for adults. Our conclusion were drawn from test riding a few Bike Fridays with the 406 and 451 wheels in direct comparison with the Airnimals and our own bikes. Using fatter tires on the small wheels help but never fully compensate for the limited wheel diameter.

I concur that there is greater variety of 406 tires. But you can get decent 520s from Airnimal dealers and the Harris Cyclery. 507s would come in handy if one were riding off-road or wanted something particularly wide and/or knobby. The idea is that the flexibility would be there. And the standard Marathon (24x1.50) is available in 507.

I am following the thread labeled minibikes and some prior posts discussed Mr. Osell's bikes with S&S couplers on them. So I think that this is a natural extention of the discussion. Perhaps we have different notions of what "mini" means. I think that it means bikes with wheels smaller than standard adult bikes; i.e., 26s + 700s.

Actually, I spelled it correctly in my web searches. I misspelled it in my post.

I read several posts mentioning Mr. Osell with tandems/recumbents and some recent rides that he and his wife appeared to have sponsered. I understand that he used to have a retail store but closed it sometime around 2001 guessing from some posting dates.

MnHPVA Guy

I plan to get some later today.

MnHPVA Guy

Sorry if you are offended, but I hate it when people use loaded comparisons to skew things thier way. Writing "holding tire width constant, riding with larger wheels is still superior" is akin to saying "Holding diameters and wall thicknesses constant, a steel frame will always be heavier than an aluminum one." True but irrelevant. Anyone who knows how tires function understands that optimum width, for a given load and function, varies with diameter.

Airnimal? I'm quite familliar with them as I do work for Calhoun Cycle and some of my friends have them. If there were a lightweight 520-40 tire, similar to the Panaracer HiRoad folder, available and it fit the bike, I'd think it was a great design. (Despite being aluminum, which is probably less of a bad thing in this case as the bike has suspension and I suspect that most of these won't get as a lot of miles put on them.)

I dissagree. At least when comparing the best 406s to any available 520. Have you tried any of the tires I mentioned in my earlier post? The Apples aren't as fast as the other two, but I have them on my fastest, lightest bike.

Here again we differ in our opinion as to what constitutes a "decent" tire. I don't want to waste energy pushing a Marathon down the road.

I was out of line there, sorry. Just because my notion doesn't stretch to 520 doesn't make yours invalid.

That's about what I'd expect you to find. I'll have to Google him sometime.

trentschler

Tell me more about your Big Apples: How wide are the 60-406s? I bought a pair of 50-406s from Calhoun recently, and they're about 47 mm on my Aeroheat rims.

And where can one buy the Primo Comet Red Label and KHE Premium Folder? I did a google search but got no hits.

I bought the pair of 50-406s Apple to try on a bike designed for 451 tires. The BAs were nearly the same diameter as 28-451 Stelvios, so the steering geometry of the bike and bottom bracket height wasn't changed much. I suppose the 60s would keep things just about exactly the same.

The big tires made the handling much smoother, and were as comfortable as a sprung seatpost and fork, but, as I mentioned in another thread, I thought they felt really heavy when I was climbing. I know they're touted as having low rolling resistance, but they "felt" slow to me. I guess I should have done a more scientific comparison, and measured actual speeds instead of "feel!"

You say you use them on your fastest and lightest bike, so obviously your Big Apples don't feel ponderous?

The 60-406s are listed as 600 gm apiece on the Calhoun site. This seems heavy! But, I'm willing to experiment some more. What are the benefits of a 1.3 pound tire? Should I try a set of 60s on my next brevet? Maybe...

invisiblehand

No offense taken. I figured that most people are in a rush and loose a little bit of politeness when they write on the forum.

Sure, I understand the rudimentary physics behind tires. And I agree that for a particular purpose, the optimum tire will be different widths according to wheel size. Of course, the simple extension of this is that there are particular tasks where the agility of the small wheel is prefered.

Undoubtably, we have not tested as many tires as someone in your position. Conservatively, I would say we tried about 6 different tires on the full-sized bikes and 15 on small-wheel bikes. I tried to keep the bike constant through the different test rides. Although I used the Big Apple, it was not on a very good bike. The widest tire I rode on the NWT is a 1.75" Marathon. (I don't think that the Big Apple will fit) In the area, we ride on a wide variation of surfaces--roads/paved paths and the C&O Canal Towpath--and found that the small wheels didn't have the flexibility that our 32C tires did on our sporty touring bikes.

Then again, I never fully explored varying tire pressures and widths.

I read through the research often cited on this forum. Often it is quite interesting but I always wonder how the results translate to real-world conditions.

Anyway, I am here to learn more before shelling out the big bucks for two new travel bikes. Up to now, we have putzed around with some old bikes and loaners from buddies. Please continue to dispense knowledge and advice.

P.S. Perhaps I should mention that we do not have the space for 10 bikes. Unfortunately, this means that our bikes need to be "jack-of-all-trades" instead of being specialized. The last sentence above, by the way, is serious. I have a follow-up question from the discussion below, how does one tell a "good" tire from a "bad" tire? I can measure the tire's weight; but what is a meaningful difference in weight?

BruceMetras

Have you looked at Airnimal Joey bikes? They take either 507 or 520 wheels.. having a spare of wheels would cover a lot of options for different road/trail surfaces. There are some interesting reviews of the Joey on the web.

Bruce

bookishboy

Pics! Pics!

invisiblehand

That is interesting Bruce. We rode an Airnimal Joey and thought highly of it. I did not realize that a 507 would fit on the bike. A Schwalbe Marathon on the 507 and Panaracer Pasela (or Terry TT) on the 520 ...

Would a single pair of brakes (with adjustment) fit both wheels? Off-hand, I would think so.

A steel frame would make me happier ...

MnHPVA Guy

Terry is about 5'-4" and rides sitting almost straight up. So the short top tube works OK for him but he'll change that if you want. He says he's sold 6 so far.

You don't want such short chainstays. With the CoG so close to the rear wheel, very large steering motions are needed for low speed balancing corrections. Other than that it's a blast to ride.



The fork is a cut down mountain bike fork with an extended steerer. I'd suggest asking him to use an EZ-Sport fork even if it costs a bit more. He can get them wholesale.



Shown is a custom zero offset stem, which is clamped much like the Twenty's. If you don't need such high bars, there are plenty of tall stock stems, with various extensions, available.

MnHPVA Guy

As much as it pains me to suggest that an aluminum bicycle frame is in any way acceptable, I think that the Airnimal design would be very difficult to execute well in steel.

MnHPVA Guy

I'll have to reply to the questions about tires later.

I just found out that the kid who shot the High School pricipal to death in Wisconsin today was trying to kill my brother-in-law when the principal tried to take away the gun. Things will be a little hectic around here for a few days.

LittlePixel

That bike's geometry looks like a scaled down 80's mountain bike. Boy has it got a short wheelbase!

So I saw my first Hammerhead in London tonight (in a fabulous metallic orangey-yellow paint) and spent most of the last 4 miles trying to keep up with it (this being on my full-size 700c fixie Peugeot). Nippy is too small a word for it! What I like from behind was it's simplicity. The bent chainstays look a little awkward in the side-on promo shots but from the rear they have a real elegance, helped by the unfussy roadie caliper brakes and - did I mention it? - the amazing paint. Topping it all - when I finally did catch the scamp up it was only as he mounted the pavement (that's sidewalk US Readers) and pulled a smoking-skid to stop outside his house. They look very fun and despite earlier comments I think I could happily add one to the fleet. Raf - you should get one of these and add S+S couplings. I don't think you'd regret it.

Hey - anyone got any news from interbike? Twas but a year ago that we first saw the Hammerhead and Hon Solo. I wonder what's cooking for 07?

BruceMetras

The Joey's design is versatile, being able to take both wheel sizes easily.. If I was forced to choose only one 'folder bike' to own, it would be an Airnimal Joey.. I have a Chameleon, so I can't answer your brake question... the aluminum frame on the Chameleon is artwork, and a complete bike at right round 20lbs, is fully appreciated by me..

Bruce

spambait11

You won't get many builders/modifiers using S+S's on alu frames. And shame on you for not catching up to him sooner on your full-sized!

invisiblehand

Can't do it ... the frame is made of aluminum.

That is one cannot retrofit couplers to an aluminum frame.

invisiblehand

That is awful. I hope that things turn out well.

LittlePixel

Is the Hammerhead not steel then? The stays looked for all the world like steel to me. Shame if not - a bike like that should be in light 531 steel if you ask me.

Fear&Trembling

There are a Hammerheads on Uk Ebay. The 7.0 model has £200 off the retail price...

bookishboy

Thanks for the pics, MnHPVA Guy. Take your time with the things going on with your family; thank god the gun situation didn't hit closer to home with the injury or death of a loved one.

The bike looks really sharp, and athough I'm no expert, the joins look very very neat. I do have to say that I really really liked the look of the frame geometry of the other fellow's bike too, the one he called "Tesseract". There's something about it, it looks like a very clean design, simple, elegant.

James H Haury

It should be instructive to see if dahon retains thier minibikes in the product lineup.

LittlePixel

Yes those Hammerhead bargains on eBay UK are tempting but for the fact I'm skint!

Here's a really nice 'Bianchi' Minivelo (In Japan naturally)



https://www.you-rin.com/bianchi/minivelo.htm

MnHPVA Guy

As he builds luggless, Terry can use any type of geometry you want.

MnHPVA Guy

57.5mm on Sun Rhyno Lites
Your LBS can order the KHEs from QBP. I got the Comets from J&B but they are no longer in the catalog. Another promising tire is the Vredestein Perfect Moiree but the only US source I know of only carries them up to 47mm.
A harsh riding bike always feels faster. But the energy that slaps you in the iscial tuberosities is subtracted from your forward momentum.
Here's the bike, 23.5 lbs with Apples.

To give you an idea how much I care about weight on this bike.
I started with a thinwall bb shell and bored the ID out so there were only 6 threads at each end, then holesawed a 1/14" hole in the backside.
I eliminated ½ the spokes in the front and 1/3 in the back.
Single chainring to save the weight of derailleur, shifter, cable and extra rings.
Bars and seat struts are non-adjustable.
I sent to England for a 1-3/8" x 0.032" main tube, despite having 1-3/8" x 0.035" on hand.
V-Brake noodles at the brake levers so I could have a sharper curve and eliminate 14" of cable.
I tossed the rear QR and tapped the axle for 6mm bolts.
Steerer tube is plain gauge 0.058 and the fork crown is a piece of 7/8" tube.

What I didn't do was spend money on expensive, lightweight components. That might have saved another pound or two, but any idiot can write a check. I was doing this as a design exercise.

So, you can believe I wouldn't be using such a heavy tire unless I really, REALLY liked it.
Confidence. I may go very slightly slower uphill, but I bomb right through, or over, stuff that slows everyone else down. Part of this is the stabilizing effect from the greater self-aligning torque of a wider contact patch. (If they ever come out with a 305-60 I'll get one.) But most is the way those fatties swallow up irregularities.

On most of our rides I believe my "average" speed would be slower on Stelvios. And that's without figuring in at least one flat per ride, which was my average on Stelvios. At 35psi I don't even get those tiny tread cuts that any high pressure tire gets after a few miles. I don't outcoast everyone I ride with, probably only 90% of them. Some guys will outcoast me on smooth roads but not on rough ones.

At my age I don't do a lot of sprinting, so the fact that it's rotating weight isn't important.

Not if you are going fast enough that aerodynamics are more important than rolling resistance. Unless the roads are bad and you will be riding in the dark much of the time.

willzz

space is a premium over there, hench the bikes too..also they are generally shorter too..
i've stayed in a hotel.. and could'nt believe how small the shower was..aside from the room too. .just my obs..

trentschler

Thanks for all your helpful and insightful remarks. I'm going to pull out my 50s and experiment with them some more. The 60s appeal to me because the overall diameter is slightly larger than 451 mm Stelvios, which my bike was designed to run.

I'm not a speedy brevet rider at all, so aerodynamics are probably less important in practice than comfort and improved handling and stability. And I'll bet that if I made an effort to save some weight on the frame, as you did, I could compensate for the added weight of the tires. It's worth investigating, in any event.