So what bike are you commuting on + link a picture

[bonj2]

Which part? Saddle to bars? Saddle to crank? Crank to floor?

Bars to stem, and stem to headset for a start.

Maybe when you post your details on the thousands of kiteflyers killed by electrocution last year, you can also list the names of dead Airnimal riders?

Maybe there aren't any. Maybe, just maybe, it's because most people are sensible enough not to look twice at it.

 

[Arch]

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.

I think it works perfectly well, because it's been designed to cope with the stresses - possibly with thicker tubing. I've never seen a bike with a long steerer tube in which the tube has snapped, and I've seen a lot of different bikes, ridden by some pretty hefty riders.

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?

So you know nothing of the rules of the UCI and how closely they define the bikes?

OK, point taken. But you don't need a spanner and lots of tools to undo those bolts holding the seat-tube assembly on?

Well, probably one spanner, one allen bolt. Is that too complicated for you? If the bolt happens to be a captive-headed one, you'd only need the one tool - I don't know whether it is, off-hand.

And does that mean the dropout IS telescopic, like I thought?

No idea, but I doubt it... Doesn't look telescopic to me, I think you're seeing the suspension block.

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.

Most people with bikes like this only dismantle them if they have to. I would imagine ibren leaves the bike assembled most of the time, and commutes all the way, but has the option of putting it in a case to take on a train or plane or bus for a longer trip like a holiday. Of course, if you own one, you tend to get very skilled at the process, so you could do it quickly and efficiently.

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.

Then you would be a dope, and eligible for a Darwin Award. Although actually, on most folding bikes I've come across, the safety tolerances either stop you getting it wrong or mean you can get away with a bit of sloppy assembly, for a while. You generally notice any problems straightaway and put them right.

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.

Well then, you prove yourself, as usual, wrong, and narrowminded.

 

[Yorkshireman]

OK Bonj, Have a quick look here http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/

"1. Why the small wheels?
The small wheels are an essential feature of the Moulton concept. They offer many advantages.


With only half the rotating mass of the wheels on a 'conventional' bicycle, it is possible to accelerate faster.
They are extremely stiff and much stronger than larger wheels because of the short spokes.
The aerodynamic drag is lower; there is less frontal area and less spoke area causing turbulence to slow you down.
The centre of gravity is lowered, resulting in improved stability.
The small wheels free up space normally occupied by large wheels, allowing luggage to be carried lower.
2. Aren't smaller wheels harder to pedal?

No, because:-


The gears are chosen so that they correspond to pedalling a bicycle with large wheels.
The smaller frontal area results in less aerodynamic drag.
The lower inertia means that you can accelerate faster.
If you are still doubtful, consider the HPVs (Human Powered Vehicles) developed for the ultimate performance - many
of these use the unique 17" Moulton wheels and tyres fitted to the AM series bicycles.
3. Why the space frame?


The construction makes it far stiffer and stronger than conventional frames.
The weight is similar to that of the best conventional touring bicycles - and the Speed model is comparable with the
lightest racing frames.
In conjunction with the small wheels it results in a low centre of gravity.
The standard frame size can be ridden by cyclists of almost any size.
The low top tube leads to improved safety and controllability.
The low top tube allows it to be ridden equally easily by men and women; it is also a major advantage for elderly or
disabled riders, who cannot easily ride conventional bicycles.
4. Why suspension?


It allows the advantages of the very rigid small wheels, high pressure tyres and space frame to be enjoyed while giving
a much more comfortable ride than a conventional large-wheeled bicycle.
The road shocks experienced on a conventional bicycle are dramatically reduced. It is a light, simple, maintenance free system.
Improved traction - the wheels do not bounce going through corners or on rough surfaces.
Reduced strain on the wheels - the wheels stay true, spoke nipples stay tight and spoke breakages are extremely rare. "


Sounds a bit better than the average 'Double Boinger' for road use

 

[bonj2]

I think it works perfectly well, because it's been designed to cope with the stresses - possibly with thicker tubing. I've never seen a bike with a long steerer tube in which the tube has snapped, and I've seen a lot of different bikes, ridden by some pretty hefty riders.

Do you not see though how the potential for the steerer tube to bend during riding is greater than on a normal bike?

So you know nothing of the rules of the UCI and how closely they define the bikes?

I don't know the exact rules, but neither do you it would seem, or you would be able to quote which rule that heap breaks.
I can hazard a guess as to the reason they define bikes closely though. Would it be something to do with ... safey?

No idea, but I doubt it... Doesn't look telescopic to me, I think you're seeing the suspension block.

It's got suspension? But it's a road bike! Why has it got suspension?

 

[bonj2]

Well then, you prove yourself, as usual, wrong, and narrowminded.

Oh, I'm wrong because I wouldn't ride it. OK. Nice to know my opinions are officially wrong.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Bonj - the extent to which you will make yourself look like an idiot never ceases to amaze...

You may well not like the look of the Airnimal. But apart from that you know nothing about it (or about bikes in general by the sound of it), but you're doing your usual thing of taking a prejudice and to retrospectively make it sound like this was the outcome of some rational thinking.

You'd really do better if you just asked some questions politely some times. Like, 'that's an unusual bike, not sure I like the look of it, but can you tell me more about it?'

And yes, it does make a difference it you've actually ridden one... obviously.

 

[Yorkshireman]

It's got suspension? But it's a road bike! Why has it got suspension?

Bonj, do me the honour of reading my post if you can't be @rsed to click the link (the one thats three or four above this one), the one that states "Improved traction - the wheels do not bounce going through corners or on rough surfaces" near the end. If you can't be bothered to at least make an effort to inform yourself when you're supplied with the information (or the means to obtain it) Shut Up

 

[Arch]

Do you not see though how the potential for the steerer tube to bend during riding is greater than on a normal bike?

Yes, but I also see the potential for the designer to design it so that that doesn't happen, which is what has been done.

I don't know the exact rules, but neither do you it would seem, or you would be able to quote which rule that heap breaks.
I can hazard a guess as to the reason they define bikes closely though. Would it be something to do with ... safey?

No, I don't. I do know that they are generally in order not to give an advantage to anyone because of their bike - ie the greater aerodynamic advantage of a recumbent.

I don't know that safety comes into it, no, beyond the basic level of demanding that bikes have brakes etc, which that bike has. If anyone dos have the rules to hand, I'd be interested to know.

It's got suspension? But it's a road bike! Why has it got suspension?

To absorb the slightly greater road shock, which is the result of the slightly smaller wheels. It's not boingy suspension like on an MTB, it's an elastomer block, and its the sort of thing found on many smaller wheeled bikes. But why would you ask, you never listen or learn or anything do you?

 

[Arch]

Oh, I'm wrong because I wouldn't ride it. OK. Nice to know my opinions are officially wrong.

Well, usually, yes....

 

[Yorkshireman]

But why would you ask, you never listen or learn or anything do you?

Bit like banging ones head against a wall, but with a big soft fluffy pillow tied to the head Arch ... Not painfull ... Just a bit of a waste of time

 

[HJ]

Nice bike Dom.

 

[Sore Thumb]

Oh dear.

Its a post a picture thread not post an argument.:?:

Maybe the thread should go to soapbox or maybe we should have a separate sub-forum for members scrapping.

Like at school, I'll meet you at the school gates ...............................

We could each slap each other on the face and then proceed to "scrapping forum" to keep the fight away from everyone else.

 

[Yorkshireman]

Oh dear.

Its a post a picture thread not post an argument.:?:

Yes ... But the 'discusion' stemmed from on of the pics

Maybe the thread should go to soapbox or maybe we should have a separate sub-forum for members scrapping.

Surely that would make it more like acf or BR and not the free and easy place that's CycleChat

Like at school, I'll meet you at the school gates ...............................

We could each slap each other on the face and then proceed to "scrapping forum" to keep the fight away from everyone else.

Looks as if it might have died down now anyway :?:

 

[HJ]

Oh dear.

Its a post a picture thread not post an argument.:?:

Maybe the thread should go to soapbox or maybe we should have a separate sub-forum for members scrapping.

Like at school, I'll meet you at the school gates ...............................

We could each slap each other on the face and then proceed to "scrapping forum" to keep the fight away from everyone else.

Oh, I'm wrong because I wouldn't ride it. OK. Nice to know my opinions are officially wrong.

Well, usually, yes....

Shouldn't this lot be move to Folding Bikes where is belongs, there is a shortage of threads there, so the rest of us can get back to showing the bikes we use to get to work, etc. Either that or meet behind the bike sheds after school and sort it out in the old fashion way. :?:

 

[bonj2]

(debate moved.)