I thought this eight-part blog post was interesting, comparing detail frame design and component differences between two folding bikes at different price points:

https://handsonbike.blogspot.com/p/ch...ium-bikes.html

It's good and informative, but I think a bit extreme to be useful. He compares a $150.00 bike, which is as cheap as you can possibly buy a folder, against one that is one of the industry standards for a good, quality product. With the expected results. I'm completely new to current folders (and have been bending the group's ear for the past week), and even I know enough not to bother with the absolute cheapest example available. I'd have found the comparison a bit more informative if he had contrasted a $300-400.00 folder (which is what I would guess would be the cheapest you can go and still get something useful) against the Dahon.

Not to bag on the site because I think it's useful and the author does walk people through a lot of fun and interesting upgrades, but a lot of the comparisons employ circular logic and just rehash marketing material. Something like...

1) The nice bike employs 7075 alloy aluminum in its frame.
2) The crap bike doesn't.
3) The nice bike is better because it employs 7075 alloy aluminum in its frame!

I agree.

I read that blog post several weeks ago, and found it "revealing" to say the least. But I have to agree with "Sykerocker" that the comparison is extreme. In fact, even compared to my $200 (New) Greenzone Value Edition, the Aleoca R2R is quite inferior.

Ed

You can do this apples to apples type of comparison and say, "Look here at this bike, then here at that bike" forever. But bikes don't work as parts alone. They work as a whole.

I could do a comparison between my 70's Dahon Quaker State Premium folder and my 2008 Dahon Speed Pro TT. But that would be pointless.

After riding a bunch of folding designs, ranging from really crummy to superb, I've come down to one thing which separates the real players from the wannabees: Thoughtful engineering.

We could talk about the incremental nature of the Brompton, both parts and frame. We could talk about the super-easy fold of a Swift or Tikit. We could talk about the outstanding ride qualities of a Moulton. But the parts on a folder have to last too, especially under heavy use.

A good folder doesn't have to be expensive, but often is because a lot of engineering, R&D and real world testing goes into it, and the parts and frame have to be up to that standard. If any folder expects to be around for long, it's in it for the long haul, not the quick buck. That's what breeds loyalty, and of course, sales.

a comparison A&B between two fold in half bikes by 2 China based companies with a whole different price target..
I Get that it is a real basic guide for non mechanical novices .


Just that using aluminum for the frame is not the only indicator a bike is better.. so shallow in that regard.

I agree, "we know this already" as other have stated may be true, but not for everyone.

I have a friend that have seen and tested my folder. She have several full size bikes, old and new. She decided last fall that a folder would be nice, but she wanted it cheap.. So she started looking at the local "Craiglist" and soon asked me if it was ok to buy a bike similar (looking exactely the same) as the cheap bike. One seller asked approx £120,- one asking £180,- .Both the bikes were new. She was convinced that the cheapest bikes were a bargain. I managed to talk her out of it. Two weeks later a Dahon mu p8 was offered. Seller said he bought it for his daughter and she rode it maybe 50 kilometers and then parked it. He asked £170,. My friend lost interest and wanted to wait for a cheaper bike.

This article may not be for you but there are peopel out there that know absolutely nothing about bikes and can not judge the quality of anything mechanical. I am going to post a link to this article to my friend and hope it helps her judging. I know she trust my judgement but also I suspect she think it is possible to find a fair bike cheaper than that.

The most important issue here is not the bike, but how much the person "VALUES" the bike. Consumers aren't stupid. They are smart and they mostly know what they want. If they are serious about owning a folder, they will gear themselves towards a premium bike. That's the same with a full size bike too!

What is "VALUE"? Value is the time the person wants to spend on the activity and the future possibility of expanding this activity to include the bike that will be up to the job and be able to last.

You can see this with people and their buying habits too and bike makers know this so sometimes they can position themselves to be mainly a value player or a premium player.

Are we looking at the same link? The author goes into detail as to how the more expensive bike's frame is:

lighter
stiffer - built using shaped and butted tubing
less prone to corrosion

and then has a paragraph about different steel alloys and how some of the best bikes are made with the best steel alloys.

And to those people, a marketing pitch like "our bike are less expensive because we cut out the middle man and sell direct!" seems reasonable.

Very true - but how many craigslist, ebay and internet sellers will let you return a folding bike after a fair period of use if you find it doesn't work well as a whole? So...that gets the neophyte buyer down to reputation, history on the market, and comparing detail specifications.

If she comes from a big wheeler background then she is right, you can buy a good used big wheeler for £120, $120, or 120 euros, because there are just so many of them about; folders though, that's a different matter.

Something I'd like to address with a lot of (folding) bike reviews is regarding components. I've read so many reviews and posts about headsets, derailleurs, BB etc. that are disparaging towards 'old tech' but IMHO they're biased with the primary argument being "if it's an old design, it's inferior" which is just plain false. Before threadless stems, cartridge BBs and cassettes/freehubs the average cyclist was capable of racing, commuting and touring with ease and reliability. Advancements in technology have certainly benefited elite racers who don't have to pay for their gear, but the average cyclist can still get along with old tech that just plain works.

She got some free fro me (who got them from the dumpster guys) and some she bought from flea markets, at approx £20,-. Think she bought a new hybrid approx 15 yrs ago but she is using 3 speed hubgeared bikes now.

Not to forget: A lot has improved over the years with low-end bikes. Steel rims have given way to double-walled alloy, cotter pins and steel cranks have thankfully vanished, LED lights (and double cables) now seem standard on dynamo-equipped bikes, the cheapest frames are sturdy aluminium, bendy steel sidepull brakes have been superseded by tough efficient v-brakes, 4-point fastening for carriers is now standard, cheap hub gears change silkily instead of the old thunk-thunk-thunk.

As long as there are no gimmicks on a bike like suspension, disc brakes or whatever, there are good deals to be had among the el-cheapos.

There are some good deals out there evrn with disc brakes and suspensions. Shop.origamibicycles.com/cricket-2.html.

Thankfully no. I know I'm alone in thinking this but I love ashtabula cranks.

A steel crank sheared off nastily on me once climbing a hill so I may be biased!

Ashtabulas, bless 'em, are still prevalent on kids bikes, some Oriental folders, and supermarket BMX's. They are thought to be 'child-proof.'

Heavy, though.

i guess it's always a case of you get what you pay for.

Not always, if you look at the Flying Pigeon thread there are bikes at the lower end of the market that punch above their weight.

Well, generally, but I think there's stuff out there that's over priced and sold to folks via an excellent marketing campaign.

Yeah that would probably influence my opinion as well but thankfully that never happened to me. I like the fact that the crank is one solid unit and employs large bearing races in the BB. I also install twice the number of balls in the BB (loose/cageless) so it tends to make for a very strong BB assembly.