Bike Friday used to do this ... I thought it required some filing of the sprockets. I understand that they do not modify the cassette anymore due to the hassle.

I like the frogs a lot, and have them on two bikes. I just measured them at the slightest hair over 3 inches (about 76.5mm) out from the face of the crank.

They require little maintenance, no more than any other pedal. THe fact that you CAN inject grease is a great plus, though. I do it a couple of times a year, plus anytime I ride through a down pour or flooded roads (which I end up doing once or twice a year, unavoidably). You're supposed to use a dry wax type lube on the cleats, and I do, and it may cut down on cleat wear, but I'm not that dilligent about it. The cleats have a set screw that allows you to take up any play in the interface due to wear. I've never unclipped accidently, and yet these are still the easiest pedals to get in and out of that I've ever tried. It's really hard to find anything negative for me to say about them, other than that they're relatively expensive. Countering that, however, is that rebuild kits are available should anything wear out or suffer crash damage. As someone who likes free float, they're far superior to SPDs for me. They're also light weight.

They lack a flat platform for times when your trying to ride them without cleated shoes; still rideable, they're just not very comfortable/stable in sneakers or sandals. They're also not the most elegant to the eye. Ok, see, I could come up with some negatives, but not much.

Haven't tried Eggbeaters, though I like the minimalist look/design, and the cheaper price.

I also use Speedplay X/2s, but have to say a prefer the walkability of the frog cleats on an SPD compatible shoe.

Good luck!

Jack

I have Frogs on three bikes I use for travel, including my Swift, so I can wear MTB shoes as my all day, on-bike and off-bike shoes. I concur that Frogs are the best, IMO, for that riding profile, and are the fastest to cleat and uncleat, bar none. Getting into the cleats fast, every time, makes a huge difference in mountain touring.

Frog downside: I have gotten hotspots after a full day in the saddle... the pedalling pressure is necessarily concentrated in the middle of your forefoot, given the small cleat. For me, the benefits outweigh getting hotspots. There's a tradeoff between stiffer soled shoe (to reduce hotspots) and softer soled shoe (for off-bike comfort).

The thudbuster is an inherently better design, but that doesn't mean the other one won't be sufficient for you...

I have a Dahon Yeah and a Swift, the stock posts look the same length, even though they have different clamps.

Thanks Bruce!

IIRC, according to Peter Reich the Dahon seatpost is a NOT recommended for the alloy Xootr Swift frames. I realize this may be *the party line* for liability reasons. I'd be curious to know if the Dahon seatpost and the Xootr/Swift seatpost are exactly the same outer diameter, or not. If the Dahon is a little undersized it would cause stress on the aluminum Xootr frame at the seat post clamps.

I'm not a big fan of CF anyway for both aesthetic (and *green* reasons: not recyclable, not renewable) but I do understand what a great material it can be.

Does anyone know what the stock handlebar and stem weigh? I've got the stock 100mm stem.
I can possibly get a good deal on some easton products, and thought that some of their carbon fiber products would be a nice replacement.

Thanks JackJ and maunakea! They sound far superior to my Egg Beaters, which jut 1.5cm further out from the insertion point. That 3cm total will allow my to close my suitcase without removing a pedal. The Egg Beaters are also difficult to ride without cleats. But they are very easy to get into and out of, lightweight, and cool looking. Nevertheless, I think I'm up for switching to Frogs.

pm, Frogs are even easier than eggbeaters to cleat and uncleat (sounds hard to believe, but do it once and you'll know), though not as radical looking, and yes, you can pedal with street shoes, but I wouldn't dance on frogs with street shoes.

[candidate for bike humor thread]

I think the use of a blender is far superior to Egg Beaters when it comes to Frogs.

Now, I just have to figure out how to justify getting my greedy fingers on a pair, given my Egg Beaters are relatively new...I wish I had posted for advice here rather than in the MTB forum!

I was doing some repair work on the bike and decided, what the heck, let's start weighing things.

Attached find a chart that may or may not be helpful:

http://www.zaftig.net/images/swift-weight-chart.gif

I have also put up a gallery of the various weights as well.

The frame weight is an approximation (subtraction of brakes,bb,crankset, and pedals). I'm not sure if my scale could accurately capture the true weight, but I'm pretty sure it's in the ballpark.

Excellent!!

I am also busy in this exercise; it will take a while longer. Just a quick one: What shifter weighs 90g? The newest XT weighs 125 each AFAIK.

I guess I'm cheating :

It's just the barend portion of the Dura-ace 7700 shifters.

Prior to building my Swift up a few weeks ago I weighed the frame and fork.
Frame = 2545 grams Fork = 870 grams I noted in the Swift thread that there's a difference in the tubing between the new frame and the older Zootr frame. The new one has larger outside diameter seat tube and seat stays..

Excelent idea, but you may have some weight mistakes here and there in the measurements, even if the scale is very accurate. After adding several small mistakes you may have a big mistake, most probably translated in more weight in your table, than the final product. So you have to add an extra row on your table that is the weight of the complete bicycle in order to compare with the previous calculations.

The total weight is very close (+/- 200g) to the weight of the bike with everything together. I have done that many times. Sorry I didn't make a note of it.

If you cleaned it before weighing you'd save a few grams ;)

Disclaimer: If you're doing this just to have fun building up a folding bike, please completely ignore this post. :)


I hate to say this, but methinks that being a weight-weenie with a folding bike is, well, a little bit pointless.

Based upon my high accurate Bathroom Scale Comparative Weight Technology Method™ :D, my stock Xootr Swift with Ergon grips and bar-ends runs 24 lbs. My 20 year old steel road bike? 25 lbs.

Guess which bike is faster, more comfortable, and climbs better? ;)

If you're looking for a fast bike that is still reasonably comfortable, and weight is actually important, go get a 700c road bike. There's even some alu / carbon bikes that come in at 19 lbs for about $1,000 USD if you want to drop the pounds. My steelie probably cost less than the combined price of the parts discussed here (assuming you are purchasing parts, rather than re-using what you've got).

If you want specific components on your bike, by all means go for it. But other than finding a good riding position and swapping out tires, you will not go any faster on a 22 lb Swift than on a 24 lb Swift.

You're not going to go any faser on a 15 pound bike. Some of the world speed records were set on bikes that were purposely build heavy so that the rider could build more momentum.

IMHO, folding bikes are the only bikes that make sense to be a weight weenie about because they're the only bikes specifically designed to transform into dead weight.

I will admit immediately that you can't get a Swift as light as a roadie, but indeed that is not the point. The point for me is to make it as light as it can be without going the weight weenie route, eg no ti bolts or stuff like that. Just judicious selection of components which for me aren't horrendously expensive. If you carefully selected all components, then it will be as light as it can be without being expensive. And it will likely be heavier than a typical roadie, although I will be glad if I can match or better my pal John's Ultegra-equipped Trek. He looks down his nose at anything except a roadie. :D

OK, again, just to be clear: By all means have fun with your projects. "Fun" being the important part!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled mini flame war. :D

Ehh, I dunno... Plenty of cyclists have to carry their bike around, not just foldies. Heck, tons of roadies in NYC are hauling their bikes up and down several flights of stairs on the north side of the GWB, even as we type -- in Look cleats no less. ;)

How many people really put their bikes into a bag and keep the bag slung around their shoulder all day long...?


Heh.... Fortunately, I've had very few discouraging comments, usually when I tell a shop owner I did a Century on a folding bike.

However, I think that you will be at a slight mechanical disadvantage to your buddy's Trek, even if you shave off a few pounds. Why do I believe this?


Geometry
The Swift's frame design was intentional made to match hybrid rather than road geometry. This makes perfect sense, since they currently only offer one frame design, and want to make a bike that many people can use comfortably.

However, one result is that for a fair number of people, the cockpit is smaller, so you may have a harder time stretching out and getting the aero "flat back" position, which makes a difference in performance. You can lower the handlebars, but only so far without interfering with your ability to generate power as well.

The only folding bike that I know of that really addresses this problem is Bike Friday, which is a) custom fit and b) has bikes specifically kitted out for serious road riding. I assume a major part of the difference between a Pocket Rocket and a New World Tourist, for example, is the geometry.


Gearing (single chainring only)
If you have a single, your range will be narrower and the gaps between gears will be smaller than a double. Trekkie John could match you gear-for-gear on the hills, power down the hills faster, and fine-tune his cadence better than you on a single.

Personally I find singles easier and fun, but I think this will result in a minor mechanical inefficiency.


Comfort
Long story short, a road bike with 700c tires (23 or 25's) will be more comfortable than the all-aluminum Swift with "skinny" tires (1.35). I assume the steel Swift will soak up more bumps, but at a weight penalty. The effects of road fatigue tend to add up after awhile, at least they do for me. :D


Weight?
Bottom line is, weight makes very little difference to performance. An extra 10 lbs on the flats changes nothing, and on, say, a 4% grade will save you, I dunno.... let's say 7 watts?

I know it's fashionable to get as light as humanly possible, mainly because the pros insist on it. But I'm not sure I see the actual utility for the 99.99% of the rest of us. Except makineu. ;)


So I may be wrong, but my guess is that you might have have to produce as much as 30 watts more than Trekkie John just to keep up with him on the flats, no matter what road bike he's on.


This is pretty much why I got a 700c road bike for a few specific purposes -- fast training, fast group rides and centuries. I think the Swift is a respectable bike, and might even be an adequate road bike for some folks. But when it comes to performance, I don't think any bike that was designed as an all-around one-size-fits-all hybrid can really match a bike that was specifically designed for serious road use.

Let's talk geometry for a moment.

Let's say that for a Trek and a Swift, you get seatpost, seat, stem, handlebars and pedals in exactly the same relative position. I don't see why this is impossible. In fact I think for average people this is easy. (I'm mr average. :D )

Assuming these are the same, and assuming the weights are much the same, and assuming the all-over stiffness is much the same, why would there be a difference in performance? (Leaving out your valid points of gearing.)

Seems like I'm usually carrying enough stuff on my bikes to offset minor advantages from shaving grams on components.

My lightest folder has to be my BF Crusoe. It feels light to me, but I remember another rider hefting it and saying how heavy it was (she had a Ti bike). Better not to weigh it; it won't make me any happier.

I'm a bit shorter than average, and was able to get pretty close to my road bike position even on my Dahon Speed by putting on a stem with more forward extension (and drop bars). I could see that the one size fits all bikes would be more of a problem for tall people.

'kay... note: I am definitely not an expert on bike geometry.

And who knows, I may wind up posting about this in the Road forum, possibly even playing Devil's Advocate and demanding to have them explain why a road bike would be faster than the Swift. :D



Easy, eh? ;) Maybe, maybe not....

I'm 5' 8", fairly average height. My Swift has a 100mm stem with a steep rise, 580mm flat bar (bigger than the stock one), roadie a 60mm quill stem. The roadie is still further out than the Swift. To get the Swift's flat bar equal to the tops, I'd probably need a 100mm stem with no rise (or a 130mm with rise).

Not bad, but the center of the hoods are about 100mm further out than the center on my bar ends.

If they made a version of the Swift with drops, then ok, you can say that getting a longer reach is "easy." But as it stands, that either means major changes to the stock Swift, getting a custom Swift, or getting a frameset and building it up. In any case, it means a fair amount of effort and extra cash. (Not sure which one of these you're doing, btw...)

And what about the seat tube angle? On the Swift it's slack (72º), which puts you in a slightly more relaxed position. On a road bike, it will be more aggressive (~75º). Just from this, it may be difficult to get a Swift set up exactly like a road bike.

Differences like these are very subtle, but they do affect power transfer, aerodynamics, load bearing and comfort.

And if I could explain it any better than that, I'd take up frame building. :D


By the way, although I did not swap out the bars on my bike, I have tried lowering them. They're currently even with the saddle on my Swift; but 2" and even 4" below the saddle did not wind up making a performance difference, at least not one I could detect via the quantitative methods at my disposal (i.e. no PowerTap ;) ). I hop on a road bike, and even on the hoods I'm noticeably faster than on the Swift with lowered handlebars. So, something must be going on.... and I assume some of that is reach and seat tube angle.



To answer that, I think we'd have to figure out:

- how the absence of the downtube effects performance
- how the frame design (e.g. seat tube angle) affects performance
- how the fork shape affects performance
- what's the effect of the Swift's trail & handling on overall performance
- is the acceleration quantifiably different than on a 700c road bike
- specifics on wheel and tire setups
- does the Swift design transfer power as efficiently as a road bike

Until I learn how to build frames, though, I'm not 100% sure that I'm qualified to answer. ;)

Separately we'd have to look at comfort. I don't think it's wild speculation to point out that 20" wheels are less comfortable than 700c; that fast 406 tires are harsher than fast 700c tires; or that fatigue from discomfort effects performance, especially on long rides. Or, if you're using the aluminum Swift, that an all-alu bike with a straight fork will be harsher than a steel, alu + carbon, or full carbon bike.


In short, the Swift frame was originally made, actually, as a city bike. It can do a surprisingly large set of tasks fairly well, albeit with its own unique compromises. And performance-wise, it can beat some 700c bikes -- I'm much faster on my Swift than on my "comfort" bike, which has 700c 38 wheels, is very upright, and has suspension everything.

But it's simply not designed to be a road bike. As a result, I think that no matter how you slice and dice it, you will have to expend more energy on a Swift to go the same speed on a true road bike.

:eek: :D :D

Right on. I can't imagine anyone questioning this.

As far as the weight charts someone posted, maybe I missed something, but important details seem missing (are the wheels standard Xootr parts, is the frame steel or alloy, which alloy frame version, etc.)

Not that I'll be referring to the charts much... I am only interested in trimming weight on my (Xootr) Swift from the standpoint of carrying the bike folded, and for mashing up steeper hills (I live in SF and am converting my Swift to a Swixie... a fixed gear folder). Any lightweight components fitted by me will be bought for stylistic reasons... the weight loss will just be a nice bonus. ;)

Well I can. There is so much myth & hype in the biking world, I like to question the assumptions. So far the assumption is a roadie is faster, and I'm really curious as to why this must be so. I am thinking of a pure wattage aproach to pedalling effort here, leaving out other (perhaps important) issues like comfort. Comfort eg has been in the same post cut 2 ways against the Swift:andThere's a bit more, but I don't necessarily want to descend into a mire of details. Just pointing out that there are assumptions made... :)

And I'm building up a Swift from the frame up. Peter sent me one to Oz. So each part is getting careful consideration for cost vs weight. eg I might be crazy and go after a Scott MTB Ritchey WCS carbon seatpost at 230g, which is the required 34mm diameter, but aside from being able to find one to buy, I'd probably be looking at far over $100. So I got a Ritchey Pro 31.6mm alloy instead, cheap at $25, and use it with a shim. Shim 40g, post 280g.