So what bike are you commuting on + link a picture

littlestwoo

New Member
Ibren,
I'm quite intrigued by your bike, tell us more about it. It looks quirky but fast, I like it. How about a drive side picture?
Steve
 

bonj2

Guest
ibren said:
thanks for your insight in fact i can assure you that it is very stable and completely safe but after reading some of your other entrys you seem to often speak without thinking and ride in the same way
cheers
It just looks ... wrong. My main issue's with the seat tube assembly - it's only held on to the top tube with a couple of bolts, and it looks like the whole drivetrain / bottom bracket assembly was tacked on as an afterthought. Is that held on with a bolt aswell? And I can't tell for sure, but the rear dropout looks distinctly telescopic.
The steerer tube looks about 5 times too long. Steerer tubes just shouldn't be that long.
And how can it possibly be efficient with those titchy little 22" wheels?
 
bonj said:
It just looks ... wrong. My main issue's with the seat tube assembly - it's only held on to the top tube with a couple of bolts, and it looks like the whole drivetrain / bottom bracket assembly was tacked on as an afterthought. Is that held on with a bolt aswell? And I can't tell for sure, but the rear dropout looks distinctly telescopic.
The steerer tube looks about 5 times too long. Steerer tubes just shouldn't be that long.
And how can it possibly be efficient with those titchy little 22" wheels?
Time to do a bit of research on efficiency and wheel sizes Bonj :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Do you ever use NewsGroups (uk.rec.cycling and rec.bicycles.tech are interesting and very informative), I think you would enjoy them:smile:
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
It just looks ... wrong. My main issue's with the seat tube assembly - it's only held on to the top tube with a couple of bolts, and it looks like the whole drivetrain / bottom bracket assembly was tacked on as an afterthought. Is that held on with a bolt aswell? And I can't tell for sure, but the rear dropout looks distinctly telescopic.
The steerer tube looks about 5 times too long. Steerer tubes just shouldn't be that long.
And how can it possibly be efficient with those titchy little 22" wheels?

Why should a couple of bolts be any less effective than a weld, bonji? You think maybe, if it was a problem, safetywise, it wouldn't be sold? Most saddles are kept at the right height by a single bolt causing a friction fit, yet you presumably trust that? This has two bolts, passing through the frame parts, and held in place not only by the nuts, but also by gravity and the design of the junction - so the only way it's breaking is if they both snap. Which is about at likely as a weld snapping, I suspect.

Steerer tubes can be as long as you like, if they are stiff enough. Ever seen a Brompton? They seem to manage alright.

As for the wheel stuff... What do you mean efficient? I believe tests have shown small wheels to have equal rolling resistance to large ones, given suitably inflated tyres and a degree of suspension for comfort.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page15.html

If you just mean, don't you have to twiddle pedals more to cover the distance, than you don't understand the concept of appropriate gearing and I can't be bothered to explain...

Stop wittering about stuff you nothing about, and go back to talking about evolution...

Oh....

Ibren, I think that Airnimal looks fast! Under me, I suspect it would be a bit more sedate...
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
Why should a couple of bolts be any less effective than a weld, bonji?
Well if they're not, then why bother having welds at all? Surely it would make bikes a lot easier to make and modify to just bolt everything together - top tube bolted to headtube, etc. but the reason most bikes don't is because certain points on a bike are high stress points and so it makes sense not to have something that could come loose, which is why pretty much every other bike in the world has a weld there. But the designers of that bike obviously knew better than convention.

Arch said:
You think maybe, if it was a problem, safetywise, it wouldn't be sold?
I've no doubt it works. It's just looks... well, ... wrong.
Arch said:
Steerer tubes can be as long as you like, if they are stiff enough. Ever seen a Brompton?
Yes, I don't like them either. There's one chained to a sheffield stand in the communal bike storage area of the block of flats I live in. Surely that defeats the point of it - that you can store it anywhere, like in a cupboard or the boot of a car?

Arch said:
As for the wheel stuff... What do you mean efficient? I believe tests have shown small wheels to have equal rolling resistance to large ones, given suitably inflated tyres and a degree of suspension for comfort.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page15.html

If you just mean, don't you have to twiddle pedals more to cover the distance, than you don't understand the concept of appropriate gearing and I can't be bothered to explain...
Yeah yeah, great. You need a bigger gear to make up for the lower circumference. I know. But again, why break with convention? What makes the maker of that bike think he knows better than over 100 years of bicycle evolution history, or that his crackpot idea is somehow better than the result of that carefully tuned, tried and tested evolution?
But surely those wheels can't keep the bike as stable as bigger ones when steering?
I just personally still wouldn't ride it because it looks like a death trap.

The whole thing looks exactly the sort of thing to come out of scrapheap challenge.

And just answer me this - if these bikes are that good, why aren't they more popular? If they're just as good as normal bikes, surely you would expect to see them alongside them in bike shops?
 

bonj2

Guest
That's another problem with it - the steerer tube is FAR longer than on a normal bike - but it needs to be able to cope with far MORE stress - as the handlebars stretch way way out in front, so the moment about the stem caused by the weight of your hands cannot be good for the headset at all! I wouldn't be surprised if that steerer tube is actually bent when he's leaning forward.
And is that lots and lots of normal spacers, or just one big tubular spacer?!
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
Well if they're not, then why bother having welds at all? Surely it would make bikes a lot easier to make and modify to just bolt everything together - top tube bolted to headtube, etc. but the reason most bikes don't is because certain points on a bike are high stress points and so it makes sense not to have something that could come loose, which is why pretty much every other bike in the world has a weld there. But the designers of that bike obviously knew better than convention.
<Psst> The point is, if you have a weld there, you can't fold the thing to fit in a suitcase. Which is the point of the bike...
Yes, I don't like them either. There's one chained to a sheffield stand in the communal bike storage area of the block of flats I live in. Surely that defeats the point of it - that you can store it anywhere, like in a cupboard or the boot of a car?
So you write off the bike, because it's owner is a dork? What do you ride bonji, so that I can make sure I don't like them...

Yeah yeah, great. You need a bigger gear to make up for the lower circumference. I know. But again, why break with convention? What makes the maker of that bike think he knows better than over 100 years of bicycle evolution history, or that his crackpot idea is somehow better than the result of that carefully tuned, tried and tested evolution?
What, like the evolution from the Ordinary to the safety? Wheels got smaller then... If everyone had followed your principle, we'd all be riding Penny Farthings. There'd be no gears, no difference between MTBs and Roadbikes, no specialist clothing, nothing except the most basic thing that worked.

'Why break with convention?' you said. How does that fit with your 'novel' idea for housing flood refugees in prisons and prisoners in flooded towns. I seem to remember then you said words to the effect "Don't be constrained by convention!"

But surely those wheels can't keep the bike as stable as bigger ones when steering?
Ah, there's the rub. Maybe you just have to be a better rider than you are. Although actually, you don't. I don't think there's a noticable difference.

I just personally still wouldn't ride it because it looks like a death trap.



The whole thing looks exactly the sort of thing to come out of scrapheap challenge.

And just answer me this - if these bikes are that good, why aren't they more popular? If they're just as good as normal bikes, surely you would expect to see them alongside them in bike shops?
Depends on the bike shop you go to. I've seen them in shops. On the other hand, they are a more specialist market, so not every bog standard shop stocks them. Curry's don't do top-range hi-fi do they? Tesco don't do truffles. Halfords probably don't do the specialist parts for an Aston Martin. Sometimes, bonji, stuff isn't in all the ordinary shops because it's better, more expensive, and therefore not of interest to the plebs...:thumbsup:
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
So you write off the bike, because it's owner is a dork? What do you ride bonji, so that I can make sure I don't like them...
I don't like them anyway. The fact that one particular owner chooses to take up the parking space of a normal bike is not the reason I don't like them, just an additional observation. The reason I don't like them is because they look like a deathtrap and that you have to pretty much pedal as hard as you can to go 5mph.

Arch said:
Depends on the bike shop you go to. I've seen them in shops. On the other hand, they are a more specialist market, so not every bog standard shop stocks them.
Yes, in pretty much the same way that those umbrellas-on-hats that the japanese invented and only get sold in the Innovations catalogue are a 'specialist market'.

Arch said:
Curry's don't do top-range hi-fi do they? Tesco don't do truffles. Halfords probably don't do the specialist parts for an Aston Martin. Sometimes, bonji, stuff isn't in all the ordinary shops because it's better, more expensive, and therefore not of interest to the plebs...:thumbsup:
Are you seriously comparing that work of crapola to aston martins, bang and olufsen and truffles?! :thumbsup: Well, if they're that good - I ask you again why haven't more people got them? I've seen far more aston martins, bang and olufsens and truffles than I have bikes like that (not counting when watching scrapheap challenge on tv). If they're the work of an unsung genius, why have they not made it into major races like the TdF yet? I'll tell you why, shall I - because even though they may work and be just about able to cope with the increased stresses put on parts of them due to their crap design, they're not as good as normal bikes. Fact.
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
I don't like them anyway. The fact that one particular owner chooses to take up the parking space of a normal bike is not the reason I don't like them, just an additional observation. The reason I don't like them is because they look like a deathtrap and that you have to pretty much pedal as hard as you can to go 5mph.
So, you haven't actually ridden one then? Funny, I've ridden with plenty of people riding them at 15-20mph with no more effort than a 'normal' bike.

Are you seriously comparing that work of crapola to aston martins, bang and olufsen and truffles?! :thumbsup: Well, if they're that good - I ask you again why haven't more people got them? I've seen far more aston martins, bang and olufsens and truffles than I have bikes like that (not counting when watching scrapheap challenge on tv). If they're the work of an unsung genius, why have they not made it into major races like the TdF yet?
I suspect because the rules of the UCI have stifled bike design and development and don't allow anything different. Anyway, they aren't designed to ride in the Tour de France, they're designed to pack small in order to be taken on other methods of transport easily. Your mountain bike wouldn't be seen in the TdF would it? Does that mean it's rubbish? No, it means it's not designed for out and out speed, but for off-roading. Can you really not see the concept of design for a purpose?

I'll tell you why, shall I - because even though they may work and be just about able to cope with the increased stresses put on parts of them due to their crap design, they're not as good as normal bikes. Fact.
Ignoramus. You've never ridden one, you've never seen one, but you can't bear to think that they might work. I've heard of Popes with more flexible belief systems than you...
 

Peyote

New Member
bonj said:
they're not as good as normal bikes. Fact.
It depends what you expect from a bike surely. I reckon an Airnimal would be a lot better bike than my Spesh Allez if I wanted a fold up bike. Actually I've only got a bottom of the range Alllez and from what I've heard about Airnimals they'd probably wipe the floor with it!


I love it when people put 'Fact.' after their opinions, it's so David Brent!


I like it anyway Ibren. Not a fan of Bromptons, but that's just personal prejudice!
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
So, you haven't actually ridden one then? Funny, I've ridden with plenty of people riding them at 15-20mph with no more effort than a 'normal' bike.
Ah, the old "you've never ridden one" get out.
I wouldn't ride one because the geometry's all wrong. I'm still waiting to hear what you think about my reservations about the stress on the steerer tube caused by the long handlebars and its ability to handle that stress what with being so long.

Arch said:
I suspect because the rules of the UCI have stifled bike design and development and don't allow anything different.
Oh, I see! So it would be in the Tour de France, but politics gets in the way! I see, now. So what rule exactly have the UCI made that specifically prevents that bike entering? That it must not be a deathtrap?

Arch said:
Anyway, they aren't designed to ride in the Tour de France, they're designed to pack small in order to be taken on other methods of transport easily.
OK, point taken. But you don't need a spanner and lots of tools to undo those bolts holding the seat-tube assembly on? And does that mean the dropout IS telescopic, like I thought?
And the fact that it's easy to dismantle means you're having to assemble it every time you reach the park and ride or whatever and continue your commute. Obviously this is down to the rider, but if you're in a bit of a rush and don't assemble it quite correct, it could easily fall apart while you're riding it.


Arch said:
Ignoramus. You've never ridden one, you've never seen one, but you can't bear to think that they might work. I've heard of Popes with more flexible belief systems than you...
I've already said I can accept that it will work. But I wouldn't ride it because it looks like an inefficient deathtrap that was cobbled together on scrapheap challenge.
 
Top Bottom