downtube

The plan is to use two names in 2015 and 2016, Downtube and Bike1.com ( each printed on one side of the bike ). In 2017 we will be Bike1.com

Thanks,
Yan

BikeKraft

Good to see red is offered again.
Fenders too.
I think this may do it for me, I really like the old 8H after all these miles.
I agree Yan it does seem like a tough crowd.
I looked over the original Downtube thread and things were pretty much positive for the most part.
Maybe just a sign of the times.
The Genesis bike got hammered for non bike reasons.
Oh well, good luck with the new product line.

downtube

How's the new red? They will have a red fork, this was a sample.

downtube

Jur,

I would like to respond to each of your points:

1. We have used a 30.4mm seat tube since around 2008 ( maybe 2007 ). I would disagree with the conclusion that it will flex and bounce. To minimize flex we use very long seat tubes ( the new mini seat tube is almost 2" taller than the old one ). I am 6' tall 200lbs and I have not felt any noticeable flex on any of my bikes ( including the new mini ). Additionally some riders will appreciate the option of using a standard suspension seatposts ( with a shim ), I think Cane creek posts are a bit over 400mm so they are not for tall folks. The frames do last a while, I have had less than 10 frame cracks since we increased the seat tube to 30.4mm ( 2007 or 2008 ).

2. The handle post is the same distance as the 2008 mini which you and many others loved. There was a problem with the 2008 mini....the fold was clumsy, the 2015's fold great. Additionally an Aber Hallo stem will allow for a tight fold and allow the rider to stretch out. Not enough you say? Well I have 29.4mm to 25.4mm shims and aluminium tubes. You can put any 1" threadless stem on this setup to get the same reach as the old "great" mini. Additionally the new stem have a stem dial like the Brompton....it is much stiffer than the old stem.

In short the new mini has the same reach as the old "great" mini by using a shim. Additionally it has a tight fold which the old mini did not have.

3. Yes the wheelbase is shorter than the old mini. Let me explain.....we use a 70T ring and 22T rear cog to get the best gearing possible on a 16" wheel bike. The longest belt Gates produced is 122T. Using the giant 70T ring we end up with a shorter chainstay. All manufacturers will experience the same issue ( until the belts get longer ). Honestly I believe the advantages of the belt outweigh this cost.

Please ask Bike Friday about their $2000+ Tikit with Nexus 8 and Gates setup....I bet it has similar chainstay length.

4. The gearing is great for the majority of the population. 70T is the largest available ring ( they were just produced in July 2014 ), and 22T is the smallest cog, hence it will be hard to get a better gear range at this time.

5. I assumed the sale offer was an excellent opportunity for customers. We are moving warehouses and I could use some help. Instead of making space for a huge number of bikes it would be easier to presell them for less. That way we do not have to warehouse them and the customers will save money. I see this as a win-win. Pre orders would ship right away. Once we warehouse them the prices will go up.

Nothing is perfect, however I think we have an extremely competitive product at an excellent price.

Do you have any other concerns? Questions?

I added info on the new mini to the "big" Downtube thread. I hope we can continue discussing there.....I kind of fell in love that thread.

Thanks,
Yan

downtube

Let me address all of these issues one at a time:

#1 Belts drives require the chainstay length stay constant. The old suspension system would not work with the belt drive. There are no mass producted belt drive rear suspension bikes on the market and we did not want to be the first. I am familiar with the Cavalerie rear suspension belt drive system, I do not believe anything else exists.

#2 Usng a Gates drive and 16" wheel the rear chainstay had to be shortened. To get a proper gear range we had to use 70T front and 22T rear. The longest chain Gates produces is 122T. I am sure you will find bike friday has a similar chainstay on their 16" wheel Nexus hub with Gates belt.

I do not believe anyone else is doing a folder with Nexus hubs and Gates belt drive, hence that is my only reference for comparison.

#3 The new integrated headset is much better than the old threaded style ( lighter ). What are the advantages of the threaded system?

#4 I think the ride quality is excellent. Did you ride it? If not how do you know it is bad?

Thanks,
Yan

downtube

I would encourage you to find one on alibaba for $150. The closest thing I could find is the bikefiriday tikit for over $2000 with Shimano Nexus 8 and Gates carbon drive.

I got my first sample of this bike in October 2012. It has been a work in progress for two years. I was hoping to use Cdrive belt system, it would drop the retail price of the 8H down by about $100 and the mini by about $140 ( the big 70T ring and long belt cost more than the normal 55T/24T 8H). Unfortunately Cdrive just did not have the proper gear options for the Shimano hub.

Thanks,
Yan

BruceMetras

Yan, If you ever do reconsider going to 8mm pitch products (C-Drive) .. take advantage of me .. that's what I run on my IGH SRAM-P5 Moulton (80/25) .. you can get larger front rings than the 80t C-drive from overseas cog suppliers .. I have an 80t and 100t ( both 130 BCD) sitting on the shelf.. also belt length is no problem in 8mm pitch so you can run as long a chainstay as you like, and have ease in ratio changes using off the shelf Gates belts that are very inexpensive.. other than designing an additional proper belt snubber at the rear (Strida and Moulton), it makes for a simple, comparable, much less expensive system.. I'm on the same belt for my day to day TSR-5 for over two years..

downtube

Bruce

We need to talk. Can you call me? Or should I call?

Thanks
Yan

washuai

Obviously, I've seen that before and I expect you didn't make your decision lightly about name change. However, bike1, while one hand sounds a little bit like a slogan "bike one", as in shorthand for ride me. It also sounds very generic and less "American". The other makes me think of steel and a company that's been around a bit.

downtube

Thanks for the positive note on our name! To be honest I have received a lot of slack about the name. I figured this is a good time with our impending product line changes.

FYI we plan to have a partnership for electronic conversions in 2015. As usual they will be good and cost effective.

Things look exciting!

Thanks
Yan

NaturalFork

Nice to see new stuff. I have a 9FS 2011 .. and I love it. It is my main bike. The only problem I have had is a broken spoke (I am fat).

Azreal911

That has nothing to do with being fat, just make sure your spokes are properly tensioned on a regular basis

rhm

Yan, we discussed this in person in Philadelphia when I picked up my current 8H frame from you, but I want to say it publicly as well:

I really can't consider the Nexus 8 hub an "upgrade" over the Sturmey Archer one. I understand you had quality control problems with the latter, and therefore I understand your decision from a business standpoint. But having ridden both hubs for thousands of miles, I must say riding with a SA XRF8 is much more enjoyable experience than the Shimano Nexus 8 / Alfine 8. The steps between the gears are so uneven on the Shimano that I never really figure out what gear I want to be in. If I gear a bike so that the highest and lowest gears are appropriate, then the biggest steps seem to be placed right in the part of the range where I spend most of my riding time. To fix this I have to rejigger the gearing (change the chain ring or cog size or both) with the result that the whole range is either too high or too low (as, apparently, on the new mini).

downtube

rhm,

I recall your concerns. However I was unable to continue with Sturmey Archer, they sent me a full container of faulty hubs and did not want to take responsibility. Trust takes time to build and SA lost it very fast. I am open to working with them in the future, but they need to change a few things.

What are you thoughts on the NuVinci hub? Would that be an upgrade??? I'm joking.

Thanks,
Yan

rhm

Ha! Well, I see you're joking, but I'll play the straight man anyway. I have a Nuvinci on an Xtracycle that I now use almost exclusively for riding back and forth between my home and my beehives. The ride goes down a road, up a gravel driveway, and across a roughly mowed field. Sometimes carrying up to a hundred pounds of bee equipment etc. And for this (and this kind of) purpose the NuVinci is pretty good. For less unusual riding, it wouldn't be. Let me explain.

The nice thing about most Sturmey Archer hubs is that when you shift, you instinctively know what your next gear will be. You don't chose that gear, but when you get it, it is just what you expected. With the Shimano, the jump is not always quite what you expected; so as a result you often shift into a gear that's either a little too high or a little too low. It's not an awful experience by any means; but the even shifts of the SA are much more pleasant. In contrast, the NuVinci is even less predictable; it is virtually impossible to shift in even increments, and as a result you waste time searching for the perfect gear when it would be easier to just adjust your cadence.

Anyway... deal killer? No. Nexus / Alfine hubs are, alas, acceptable. I'm not a businessman, just a bicyclist. My point is only that the Nexus/Alfine is not what I'd call an upgrade. If Shimano business practices are better, they deserve the business. If Sturmey Archer can't get their business practices up to the level of their engineering, they will go the way of Suntour. That would be sad, but I won't blame you (or even Shimano).

bhkyte

I like the idea of a nexus hub being compactable with brifters. The versa shifters make 8 and 11 speed to match afline and nexus.
Personaly I consider this an upgrade from an SA.
With a few upgrades its looking quite an interesting proposal to me.

Any uk import yan?

downtube

Actually I have a deal with FedEx shipping to Europe is around $190. Let me know if your interested.

Thanks,
Yan

Shahmatt

It's great to see Yan here defending his product. While reading down the thread my impressions of the bike have gone from negative (likening to Alibaba bike) to very positive.

I would like to know if this bike can be pushed around on its two main wheels after folding.

This was very insightful and I think I can understand your point. Would you also be able to comment on the differences between the Alfine 8 and Nexus 7? I have a 16" wheel folder with a Nexus 7 coupled with 48T chain ring. I've pondered on trying to improve its range and the Nuvinci has been suggested as the best alternative. If not the Nuvinci what's the next best hub, a Rohloff perhaps?

rhm

@Shahmatt,
I have no experience with the Nexus 7 hub, but understand the,1:1 gear is at the middle of the range as we'd expect. Most hubs are like that (all three speeds except SA S3X; all five speeds; all seven speeds; Shimano eight; Rohloff). With a 16" wheel you really want an overdrive hub, where the 1:1 gear us at the bottom of the range. The only options I know of are the Shimano Nexus Four and the Sturmey Archer. I've used both of those on bikes with 16" wheels and that works well. To use the others on a 16" wheel you need a bigger than usual chain ring (52t is too small in my opinion). Such rings can be hard to find; worse, a lot of bikes won't fit a bigger chain ring no matter what you do.

I have not tried putting either a Rohloff or a NuVinci on a folding bike. Both have rather tricky cable arrangements on the left side of the frame and I just don't like the idea of messing with repeated folding etc.

That's not to discourage you! After I discovered the Sturmey Archer SRF8 hub I didn't see the need for further experimentation. If you don't like the SRF8, which I can understand, then you should definitely keep looking for a better solution.

bhkyte

Dual drive with a 56 tooth front chain ring works really well on a 16 wheel folder.
27 speeds.
56 tooth gogs are easy to get hold of. Birdie and bike Friday sell them and make the matching chainguards. There are also 56t available on ebay at resonable prices.

Shahmatt

@Thanks for your comments. My problem is somewhat unusual. My bike is a front wheel drive folding recumbent built using a Cruzbike kit. With the 16T sprocket and (16", 349 wheels) I get a range as follows in gear inches:

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]Low[/TH]
[TH]-[/TH]
[TH]-[/TH]
[TH]-[/TH]
[TH]-[/TH]
[TH]-[/TH]
[TH]High[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]30.5[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]35.7[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]40.6[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]47.7[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]55.2[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]64.4[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]74.5[/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The 30.5 low end is necessary to me mainly because, being a front wheel drive bike (and the body weight being nearer to the rear wheel), the front wheel is susceptible to slipping if too much power is delivered. This is particularly a nuisance when starting off from traffic lights. By changing the low end from 30.5 to say 35 by increasing the chainring size I'd still be able to manage on climbs, but will have great difficulty taking off smoothly.

The dual drive (Schlumpf?) is an attractive solution but it is expensive and installation is quite a specialized business. The Patterson Metro is an alternative but I read somewhere that there is "persistent" power loss at both speeds, and somehow I didn't want to invest.

One option I am considering is the elliptical shaped single chain rings like a Doval 50T. The advantage here is that the chainring has a small and large radius - for the 50T it's roughly a 48T to 52T range. So on first "push" the ring feels like a 48T but as the crank arm goes around it quickly increases to a 52T resistance. My thinking is that the 48T first push will be enough to get the start I need at traffic lights, but on full rotation I average out to 50T worth of chainring power. 50T will give me a top end of 77.6 (about a 4.5% increase). The more elliptical the chainring the stronger the effect I suppose - so I'm in the market for a more elliptical chainring with higher tooth count. This is a bit difficult to visualize I guess and is not a true range increase, but may solve my problem.

Changing rear hub is possibly the best solution though. I wish these decisions were easy to make. Sorry about the thread hijack - we seem to have gone off topic.

smallwheeler

if i were you, i would refrain from drawing any further comparison between what you are offering here and the bike friday tikit - an award winning design, hand-made in USA from true temp steel with conventional bike wheelbase that comes in three sizes or custom built to specs and folds in 3 seconds. drawing comparison to it, only highlights what a great deal it actually is. sshhhh.

regarding headsets, it is total bike industry BS that integrated headsets offer any advantage to the average rider. what is the weight difference between an integrated headset and a conventional headset? let's say, 30 grams tops. [reference] 30 grams means absolutely nothing on the average folding bike.



not only that, but integrated headsets actually use the aluminum headtube in lieu of the cups used in a standard headset. as a result, very often the "weight savings" is gone due to the necessarily increased tube thickness required to support it. what happens if the headtube isn't machined perfectly round? what actually goes on in the headtube under regular and routine braking?

for anyone who is interested, you can read here why chris king, the maker of the best headsets in the business, doesn't make integrated headsets.








the belt-drive is an option you are offering as an upgrade/ upcharge for this platform, correct? the point i was making has nothing to do with the drive assembly. it's about the platform. it's a pretty safe bet that not too many people are going to be interested in yet another dahon knock-off frame.



note the discernible differences between the two. the rear portion is nearly identical. the wheelbase is identical. the most prominent differences are the non-curving fore-section of your bike and the apparent lack of tabs for racks and no headtube carrier block. what's not seen: all of dahon's "mu" era bikes feature triple-butt tubing, it's a critical aspect of the engineering that makes the signature curved frame possible. does your bike have triple-butted tubes?

whether with a belt-drive or electric assist, built-in coffee mug warmer, or any other bells and whistles, i would imagine the last thing anyone would want to see is yet another one of these:



the above is not even a criticism really. it's more an observation. but consider this- the reason your bikes have had popularity is due to three factors- 1- they are cheap. 2- they are decently built for the price point, and 3- most importantly, they have a sufficiently distinctive appearance that separates them from the herd of similarly priced bikes which are, almost without exception, dahon knock-offs in one aspect or another.

trust me on this - there will never be a yahoo chat group or group ride formed around an appreciation for the langzhou folding bike or any other other above pictured knock-off bikes.

here's the criticism (and it is intended to be highly constructive!):

there are many ways a dealer/seller/importer could possibly use a forum like this. how have you used it? well, let's see. off the top of my head i can recall you informing us of your relationship break-up; we got to read your childish bickering with the origami bike importer; and of course who can forget your righteous indignation and personal campaign to call out tern on it's egregious behavior regarding their frame breaks and recall issues.

what a monumental waste of an opportunity.

you may not realize it, but there is a lot of knowledge and experience in this sub-forum alone. also, many readers here may not be aware, but downtube has a big following in indonesia- they have their on yahoo chat group, they even have t-shirts and logos and do group rides.



in my opinion, that's an astonishing piece of good luck for you.

had you been wise, you could have used this sub-forum and the indo yahoo group to crowd source data for the possibility of introducing a new bike model. a thread entitled something like: "what would you like to see in a new downtube 16" model?" would have netted a treasure trove of free data.

for example, you probably would have discovered that few people are interested in ever seeing another dahon copy. you would have learned that brucemetras had access to desirable belt-drive components you didn't know about. you would have learned that abandoning the brand name and changing it to the generic, bike1.com was a very bad idea, etc. and who knows what could be garnered from the indo yahoo group? some of those guys are architects, engineers, and serious veteran cyclists, too..

well, i suppose it's still not too late...

rhm

Yeah, interesting project! But off topic indeed. Is there a thread on it? If so, send me the link and I'll follow up there. For now, let me say: you already recognize that the real problem is front wheel drive. Just as back wheels don't have much braking power, front wheels don't have much pulling power. You can't solve this problem by changing the gearing. No matter what you do to the gearing, the front drive wheel will slip if you pedal too hard. The only solution will be: don't pedal so hard.

cplager

His bike isn't just front wheel drive, it is also a recumbent where his weight is much more evenly distributed between wheels.

I've got a similar bike and can make it up very steep incline s (well, for short distances anyway). FWD isn't a problem.

He's also right that you want low gearing. I use 20" wheels and have a range between 17" and 106".

I'd personally recommend going with a double or triple front crankset, a chain tensioner, and whatever IGH strikes his fancy.

downtube

smallwheeler,

Let's address one question at a time.

#1 Chris King Headsets - Your statement that Chris King does not sell Integrated Headsets is not completely true. I was a top dealer of Chris King headsets for many years. They actually sold integrated headsets ( about 7 yrs ago ). However they charged over $100 retail for upper and lower bearings . No one bought any, so they discontinued it and try to defend the old style.

I would encourage you to get an objective source for comparison. Objectivity is one thing Chris King is not. I believe the direction and magnitude of the forces should be defined before any conclusions could be made on the matter. The diagrams provided are incomplete IMHO.

Our previous mini used a threaded headset with a quill stem. I can not imagine you find that setup better. Forget the 30 gram for the headset....you may want to add the weight of the steel quill. Clearly we made a huge upgrade!

#2 Bike frame similarities - I believe you are claiming all bikes pictured are the same. I would agree that all share the same folding characteristic...you can add Dahon, Tern , and Oragami to the list. Though these share these characteristics they are not identical. The single biggest difference is the drivetrain, which is where we rock. Our new mini are a boater's dream, internal hub and belt drive, I expect these will move very well.

#3 Personal stuff - You'll be happy to hear me and my wife have reconciled. She is currently in Indonesia touring bike races and bike events. FYI she organized the Downtube Indonesian bike group and had all the shirts printed.

Additionally our 7 yr old daughter has won her first triathlon series by finishing first in two of the three races. She will be our first sponsored racer....I have Downtube kids bikes on the way for her and my 5 yr old son ( he finished 4th in the 5-6 age group ).

Thanks,
Yan