Full size folding bicycles for camping -- Good or Bad?

On May 27, 7:30*am, TS wrote:
Bicyles need to be as stiff as possible to avoid energy wasted in
twisting frame metal. *It is a given that a folding bicycle will be
absolutely less stiffer than any normal example.
TS

Non necessarily. If the frame is too stiff, the amount of shock
transferred to the rider can be unpleasant. I remember some of the
early thin aluminum frames where the tubing was glued to the lugs;
Vitus and Look had such frames. They weren't necessarily the
stiffest, but they were light and were used by many high-level
racers. The other end came with Cannondale, with their wider tubes
made of thinner material with welded construction. They were indeed
stiffer - some people didn't like how they felt.

Some people like less stiff frames for their ride comfort. Others
like the really stiff monocoque (one piece) carbon fiber bikes.

On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:49:08 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.

Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.

Have you seen this one? It's no skateboard!
http://www.militarybikes.com/products.html

...gary

On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:17:56 -0400, GaryO wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:49:08 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.

Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.

Have you seen this one? It's no skateboard!
http://www.militarybikes.com/products.html

Amusing how they don't mention the weight. Doesn't look terrible compact
while folded either. I'd rather have a standard bike on a bike rack than
that thing taking up luggage space.

For the $800 cost, you can get a trailer hitch installed, get a receiver bike
rack, get a standard bike, and still have money left over.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.

Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.

Spoken by someone who "knows" what's out there, and therefore isn't hampered
by the facts of the situation.

Hint to the clueless, you can get folding bikes with 26" -or larger wheels,
but you do have to do a little searching for 'em.

While having the experience of riding folding bikes with both smaller
and normal wheels (!), I find neither lacking.

Which bike have you experience with that was unstable?

Steve
www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.

Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.

How much does your standard bike cost? That's the problem. These bikes
are in no way "standard". They are expensive, crafted devices that
normally run well over $1000.

Steve
www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:17:56 -0400, GaryO wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:49:08 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.
Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.

Have you seen this one? It's no skateboard!
http://www.militarybikes.com/products.html

Amusing how they don't mention the weight. Doesn't look terrible compact
while folded either. I'd rather have a standard bike on a bike rack than
that thing taking up luggage space.

For the $800 cost, you can get a trailer hitch installed, get a receiver bike
rack, get a standard bike, and still have money left over.

On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:13:59 -0600, Zane wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:49:08 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:29:12 -0400, Steve Wolf wrote:
A folding bike does not imply a flimsy bike. There are many that have
traversed the world and were never found lacking. The only issue is
quality.

Actually it does. They invariable have very small wheels and the lack of
stability that goes with them. They are little better than pedaled skateboards.


Wheel size doesn't influence bicycle stability. One guy famously

bull****. Just because one guy can ride a bike with tiny wheels without
faling over doesn't make them stable. It just means that the guy has
a really good ability to balance himself with the bike aiding the
process.

Take a physics course sometime. High school physics will suffice.
Look up rotational inertia and procession.

AZ Nomad wrote:

Amusing how they don't mention the weight. Doesn't look terrible compact
while folded either. I'd rather have a standard bike on a bike rack than
that thing taking up luggage space.

For the $800 cost, you can get a trailer hitch installed, get a receiver bike
rack, get a standard bike, and still have money left over.

You have to wonder. If a person doesn't have a bicycle that they use
regularly, it seems strange to want to take one on vacation. If they do
have bike that they use regularly, the $100-150 for a good bike rack is
a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a folding bike, and good rack can
carry several bikes.

You're limiting yourself too much to wonder why one would buy a folding
bike just to camp.

The people I know with folding bikes don't hesitate to take them
camping. They also take them when they fly out on business or other
trips. They load them up when going to events, like concerts or
watching fireworks. They have them in the trunk in case their car
breaks down.

A good quality bike-in-a-bag isn't really limited to camping. The
people that have them normally have them with them no matter where they go.

I guess it is kind of like a good kite bag. You never know when you
need it.

Steve
www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link

Dave Smith wrote:

You have to wonder. If a person doesn't have a bicycle that they use
regularly, it seems strange to want to take one on vacation. If they do
have bike that they use regularly, the $100-150 for a good bike rack is
a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a folding bike, and good rack can
carry several bikes.

Zane wrote:

Wheel size doesn't influence bicycle stability. One guy famously
illustrated this by building a bike with wheels the size of skate
wheels, which rode and maneuvered just like a regular one, much to
people's amazement.. (I don't have a cite for this-- this was before
the internet.) The dominant stability factor is trail on the front
wheel assembly. The notion that gyroscopic forces are involved has
been debunked long ago.

The notion that gyroscopic forces are involved has not been debunked,
just the idea that is the biggest factor. There is still some effect.
However, there are other advantages to larger wheels, like their ability
to roll over obstacles. You can mount small curbs with large wheels, but
very small wheels will stop you dead. While it make be possible to ride
a bike with skateboard sized wheels, hitting a short curb or a large
crack in the road my teach you the advantages of wearing a helmet.