Hi everyone. Just a follow-up on my question regarding whether a NWT was sufficient for touring in Italy. I called Bike Friday to get their advice and when we reviewed my needs (the fact I'm an avid road biker that wanted a folding bike to use for touring but also for traveling in general), he suggested I get a Pocket Rocket. His rationale was that the Pocket Rocket can accept the same racks as the NWT and as long as I wasn't doing any heavy expedition touring or offroad stuff, that the Pocket Rocket could handle front and rear panniers and a handlebar bag and thus was sufficient for light/moderate touring (e.g, no camping equipment, etc...). My question is whether anyone has toured with the Pocket Rocket. The reps biggest concern is that I wouldn't find the NWT sufficient for road riding considering I typically do 50+ miles and ride the flats at about 20mph.

Any thoughts or advice or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff

trust the folk at bike friday. they are really good at what they do, and their recommendations are usually exactly what is needed.

The big difference between the NWT and the Pocket Rocket is the wheels, and what the wheels allow. The NWT will have 406 rims and v-brakes; the Pocket Rocket 451 rims and calipers. Even though both types of rims are nominally 20 inches, the 451s are a good deal larger (good for road riding). But the 406 rims give clearance for fat, cushy tires, while the 451s are limited to narrow road slicks up to 1 3/8". Even if you won't be going off-road, the 451s aren't good on bad roads. If you find yourself on cobblestone streets, you'll start hating the 451s in a few minutes.

For a supported or credit-card tour on good dry roads, the Pocket Rocket will be fine. Other wise, I think it's easier to spec out a NWT so that it'll be a decent road bike than it is to turn the Rocket into a tourer.

noahj,
Don't forget, jignall is a road rider. If you're used to 23mm tires and a stiff frame, 451 skinny tires are not really a problem.
Juan

Perhaps. Have you ridden on a cobblestone street?

noahj,
Yes, I have ridden on cobblestones on my 406 wheel bike. Was it like riding a paved road? No. However, it was no big deal.
Juan

jignal,

I had very similar issues to your own. I went with the Pocket Rocket (Pro) and have been satisfied.

thanks to everyone for their input. the bike friday peeps did highlight the wheel difference to me. luckily there's a BF dealer here in NYC so I'm likely going to try both bikes before making a decision. yes, i have ridden on cobblestone streets on a road bike tire and it's not fun!

this is great advice, thanks. your last comment makes a lot of sense. i guess i need to think a lot about what i'm going to be using the bike for. thx again.

I'm no Bike Friday expert, but briefly contemplated buying one. Isn't the Pocket Crusoe a compromise between the two bikes? Also, I don't see much of an advantage with the larger wheels. It will just be more difficult to pack. David at bfold in NYC on 13th street has a bunch in his shop.

Kinda sorta. The NWT is definitely a touring bike, with all that implies. The Crusoe is a lighter version, intended to be more of an all-around bike. Remember that these are custom bikes, so you can pretty much spec them any way you want.

Here's a comparison of models, based on the BF website. I'm assuming that <jignal> wants drop bars and a Capreo for the club rides, and a triple so that he has a low gear while hauling some stuff. The comparison isn't perfect...the Crusoe model has barcons, not STI, and the PRP is only a double:

NWT 23.8 lbs (10.807kg) $1,675.00
Pocket Rocket 23.0 lbs (10.455kg) $1,875
Crusoe Sport 27. 22.1 lbs (10.031kg) $1,830.0
PocRocket Pro 20.3 lbs (9.225kg) $2,260.00

Kinda typical, saving weight costs money. But between the NWT and the Pocket Rocket, you're saving less than a pound.

very informative thanks. to be honest, i doubt i'll use my friday for local club rides. the more i think about it, the more i think i should be erring on the side of touring. i doubt i'll be using my BF on local club rides bc i have a carbon road bike. i love road biking but wouldn't mind having something a bit more versatile for when i travel (particularly given the unknown factor of road conditions). plus, i'm not a roadie snob. sometimes cruising is just as fun as hammering. i'm going to check out bfold so i can hop on a few of these. i'll let you guys know what comes of it.

jeff

According to some of the Bike Friday folks, the Crusoe frame will shed something like 1.5 pounds; but you have a lower weight limit.

I don't think that you will have any problems with 406 wheels and the gearing. My big chain ring has 50t and the highest gear is 104 gear inches. A 52 or 53 tooth chainring should give you an extra boost if the 104 gear inches is not quite enough.

I've been going through a similar debate (Pocket Rocket vs, NWT) in picking a BF for my wife. She definitely wants brifters as opposed to bar end shifters. The brifter solution will be a little cleaner (no travel agents) with the Pocket Rocket because it has caliper brakes.

Just a thought in case that is important to you.

Speedo

For what it's worth I have a NWT because I wanted the pure tourer. It's definitely not a go-fast bike, but as a pure tourer it's great. I rode a century on it over the weekend. Not the fastest century I've ever ridden, but I felt great at the end. The bike didn't beat me up at all.

Speedo

good call. i weigh 220 lbs so the crusoe frame is probably not an option for me, which is likely why the BF folk didn't even mention the crusoe to me.

jeff

hmmm...can you explain what you mean by travel agents/expand on why PR will accept brifters easier? i definitely want brifters...

thanks speedo. you've been real helpful.

ps, what kind of speed did you avg on your century? just curious vis-a-vis NWT.

Alex Wetmore has a great explantion (with pictures!) here.

I have the Dia-Compe 287-V brake levers with bar end shifters. For brifters (on the NWT) you need the "travel agents" described in the article.

Just passing it along. Others on Bike Forums were incredibly helpful to me when I bought my NWT.

I did the century (rolly, but not really hilly) in 7:53. I would have been somewhat faster, but I stopped to rescue some damsels in distress: flat tire, spare had a broken valve stem, all their pumps failed, had to patch the original tube. It's hard to know how much faster I would have been on a faster bike. The fastest century I've done was 6 hours, but that was twelve years ago. I was hoping to do around 7:30, so I was pleased with the result.

Speedo

BTW, we just finished the Santa Fe Century. I did the first 63 miles with a moving speed around 19 mph. Unfortunately, I signed up for the century and not a metric century and just about blew myself up. I waited a long time at mile 80 since my wife did not bring rain gear and rain at 6000 feet is COLD.

Long story short, the bike is plenty fast.

I have a NWT with 105 brifters/crank and a capreo rear. There was only one spot on the century where I needed a higher gear. The new 105 triple cranks have 50/39/30 chainring combination. So you could always get an ultegra triple with the 52t big chainring.

In my case the engine was definitely the limiting factor.

(edit)
Two other things...

1) I think a century is a poor measure of "fast". But, what amazed me was how good I felt at the end. On all my previous centuries I was ready to get off the bike at 100 miles. This was the first century where I legitimately felt I could have kept going comfortably for a while longer.

2) It was funny how many people expressed surprise that I was riding a century on a folding bike!
(end edit)

Hah! I second all of the motions. The boss and I were able to keep tabs on each other since all of the faster/slower riders would tell us that there was another person riding with small wheels.