Thanks for the follow-up. Also keep in mind that the holes for the fork and rear triangle are too small for the 556 brakes. I did have to gently dremmel/bore out the hole a bit.

Peter's info about the brakes gave me a thought about the forks: The Swift's forks must be a unique size (certainly considering the caliper brake mounts) so the changes of finding a lighter fork that fits must be pretty slim.

They race BMX with 451 wheels. So perhaps there...

But My Swift comes in at 9kg. There is scope for another 0.5kg to be dropped, and even more with another fork. But perhaps going with aero wheels (HED) becomes more important than weight at that sort of mass.

I think the problem with finding forks is that on the swift the length of the fork must be unusually long for a 406 or 451 wheel. A shorter fork would upset the handling I presume. I'm presuming no-one's found a decent fork replacement yet.

I've modified my expectations of my swift project to include the standard forks. Especially when 9kg is acheivable without resorting to extreme weight-weenieism. Speaking of which....

I have discovered an alternative headtube/bar solution. It's the 'mosquito' bars made for the custom moulton New series 'speed' model. The clever bit is not so much the bars but the wishbone stem:
http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/frames.asp?id=news - see 3/4 down the page
The stem fits the bike like a standard quill stem so you would have to saw off the swift's headtube above the headset races like a standard quill-stemmed bike. You would also lose the quick-release capability, and you would be stuck with the mosquito bars as they are of a non-standard diameter (7/8" or 22.3mm) so I don't think you could fit standard drop bars or flat bars in the same clamps. Perhaps flat bars in 7/8 diameter could be found or had made. The bar itself actually looks the perfect shape for me but unfortunately it only comes in one very narrow with: 14" / 355mm which is too narrow for me. The final negative is that it is extremely expensive: retail price is £350 for the bars and wishbone stem. So it's not for me but perhaps food for thought for others on this forum. Any narrow-shouldered swift-riding weight weenies out there?

The Shimano BB-UN54 bottom bracket (w/hollow spindle) is on sale at Nashbar for $19...last day. This would make a nice weight-reducing replacement for my UN53 68x107. Those of you with the (really) heavy stock BB would want to go with the 68x115 (stock is 68x116, at least on my Swift, so your chainline might be off by 1mm, which can be 1/2 compensated for by having both of the rear axle washers on the drive side).

Bike friday also sells a separable bar similar to this design for ~$50

Rickybails: What is it about the wishbone stem that impresses you? Overall weight compared to the stock Swift steerer setup?

A few pictures
 

Good answer.

That wishbone stem is available in 3 lengths - the longest is 190mm which should give a really good range and enough height for the swift.

I mentioned that the disadvantage was that you lose the quick-release removal, but if you turn the handlebars 180 degrees before you fold, then the headtube angle combined with the forward position of the bar and stem should mean the bars sit a lot lower when turned around.

I did ask moulton if they could make wider bars but they said no because the bars were made for them by someone else in just the one size. If you were really keen though you could find out who that company was and ask them if they'd do a special.

I'm going with a cheap Profile TT base bar (AKA 'bull bars', AKA 'stoker bars') for now until I dial in the correct position through trial and error. Maybe further down the line I will consider something more exotic like the mosquito bars.

One a completely seperate topic (well, still within the area of making a swift lighter) I have just place an order for parts to 'pimp up' my swift. I'm getting new wheels and gears as well as the bars already mentioned. I've ordered Alex r390 451 rims with ultegra front hub and capreo rear (24 spokes both wheels), ultegra rear mech and dura-ace STI shifters. Haven't decided on spokes yet and it looks like there is not much choice. All the good DT spokes are not available in short sizes. The choice is between Sapim Lazer (light but perhaps a bit weak), Sapim CX-ray (light and strong but ridiculously expensive) and plane-guage DT spokes of the type used on cheap bikes and wheelchairs (most sensible but not at all appealing). My current frame of mind is to forget about sensible and go with the aero CX-ray spokes for some unashamed bling-factor. It's going to take a while to get all the bits together as some of the parts have to be sourced from overseas.

I was also considering a regular hub (i.e. limited to 11 tooth smallest cog) as the capreo hub is a bit on the heavy side. However I did all the sums and in the end there wasn't much in it. To get the same range as a capreo 9-26 cassette you need an 11-32 cassette. This would forces me to use a mountain bike rear mech (a little heavier than a road mech) and a 62-tooth chainring instead of 52 (a little heavier again) and if I ever wanted to convert to a 2-ring chainset then I would have much more luck getting a front mech to work with a 52-tooth big ring than a 62-tooth big ring. Also with 52-tooth big ring I have the option to go for higher gears (54,56 etc.) if I need. When I worked it all out the capreo route was only slightly heavier than a dura-ace or ultegra rear hub but a fair bit cheaper. In fact with the money I saved I might just be able to justify those aero spokes.

While I'm at it I'm going to try tubeless wheels as well, using 'stans' kits. Tubeless is very hit and miss on road tyres at high pressures and there's a good chance the tyres will blow off the rim 10 yards down the road on the first ride. It all depends on the strength of the bead and how well a particular tyre hooks into a particular rim. However for me it's worth a shot - I converted my mountain bike to tubeless 5 years ago and I haven't had a single puncture since.

The 451s will make your already big bike (when folded) even bigger with little or no gain in comfort or tire selection. The other thing to consider is that Shimano hubs are all old fashioned cone and bearings. Some like them because they can be maintained more readily with cone wrenches, but they really aren't as light and durable as modern sealed bearings. I just bought an XTR rear hub for super cheap, and it is very impressively smooth.

My Capreo hubs were not perfectly smooth when I bought them, but they were easy to adjust and are now reasonably smooth. I do love the gearing.

Oooo, I wonder if you could add a quick release to do that on the fly.

The tyre selection for 451's is considerably worse than 406 but as I'm happy on stelvios that's not an issue (at least not until someone brings out a better fast tyre in 406 only!). I agree with you on the hubs. I've been using DT Swiss 240s on my mountain bike and would never go back to shimano hubs offroad, so it's been hard to choose 'inferior' shimano hubs over these for my swift. But the price difference is considerable and for me the gearing is more important.

I'm converting to 451s just because they will roll a little better than 406's. Not much in it though. If I already had decent 406 wheels I wouldn't bother changing.

Does anyone know how the quality of the capreo rear hub compares with the rest of the shimano range, e.g. is it '105-level' or 'ultegra-level' etc.?

Can you post a link to this? I can't find it.

Also, does anyone know where to find other wishbone-type stem designs, even without the adjustability of the moulton stem?

This isn't a wishbone support style, I wrote that before seeing the adjustable image

http://store.bikefriday.com/index.ph...3db5&cPath=157

But still highly packable

I see. I'm interested in the actual wishbone shape. The way my bike folds, the seat hits the handlebar stem dead center. A wishbone handlebar stem would allow the seat to go between the handlebars. Both securing the handlebars for a more solid fold and reducing the folded size.

Those Bike Friday STI touring bars are nice. Do they fit the stock Xootr Swift stem? Could I mount the grip shifters and stock brakes (with plans to switch to aero brake levers when I get some extra cash?)

I think clamp diameter is standard mountain size (25.4), but the region where you mount other stuff is the ~22m (7/8"). The advantage of these is that because there are splittable, you can still get a gripshift on the inside. I don't have a stock xootr, so don't know what parts came with it.

Also not obvious from the picture is that the bars angle inward as you move farther forward.. which actually seems more anatomical.

The BF splittable bars should fit most stems, but they require a reinforcement sleeve to keep the bars from flexing. Don't know if this sleeve is included with a bar purchase.

There is a sleeve that goes over the 7/8 tubing that brings it to the 25.4 size, mayube this is what you're talking about? Also internal to the 7/8 OD tubing is another tube that pairs the two together.

However, for me this is a moot issue since the torque required to flex this would have bad consequences on the usually long stem. I'm gentle with my folding bikes with pulling on the bars.

That's the one.


I appreciate the fact Bike Friday does both. When it comes to potential safety issues, this type of redundancy is OK by me.

The flex is most noticeable (and felt) on the tandem when my stoker cranks hard and pulls on the bars. Just to make sure, I've sat back there and pushed and pulled on the bars: I can see the flex. For a regular rider or captain, I assume it's easier to deflect the torque because the handlebars rotate, but all bets are off if you stand up on the pedals and pull back hard.

Patented, On-The Fly Adjustable Stem

http://homepage.mac.com/lenrubin/PhotoAlbum1.html

Third picture on the first roll.

Is anything going to come of his design (ultimate folding bike)?

This weekend I took my Swift out on another 200km Audax ride. I was up there with the faster riders, and was home 2nd.

To my pleasant surprise, SWMBO was waiting for me at the 3rd (150km) support stop, to where she had ridden from home! (We don't live far from some parts of the route for that ride.) Anyway, she was standing near my Swift while I was refilling my bottles, and she overheard some of the other riders talking about the "funny small-wheeled bike." Things like "inefficient small wheels," "huge chainrings that wear out faster" "overall efficieny lower by 15%" and stuff along those lines were idly discussed. It didn't take much to deduce the others clearly thought I was a bit of a thickhead to be riding THAT in a ride like THIS!

At first when she told me all this, I was indignant, determined to convert the others. Then I thought, no, why put them out of my misinformation? :) The Swift is my secret weapon. They think, "slow and thick as a brick", then I drop them! :D One guy at the end complemented me on how well I rode that little bicycle. :) :) :)

I ordered a steel Swift from HPM back in March and took delivery of it in June. I'm finally getting around to taking it apart to treat the frame and decided to weight it for those of us that need to know about things like that. :) So, here you go...in grams.

Frame w/steel headset cups and all bolts 2805
Fork w/bearing race 895
Seatpost 725
Steerer tube, outer 255
Steerer tube, inner 260

Unlike the aluminum Swifts the steel one has a two piece steerer that telescopes. The inner attaches to the fork and is 1 inch OD. The outer slides up and down on the inner and is 1 1/8 OD. You need the inner but could eliminate the outer if you wanted to save 255 grams by using a 1 inch stem or more likely, a 1 1/8 inch stem with an adapter.

I have about 200 miles on the steel bike and well over a thousand on the aluminum. I can't tell any difference between the two as far as handling or comfort.