Re: Bike Friday for a touring bike?

[John Everett]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:39:55 -0500, Tim McNamara
> wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> My thoughts are either a Bike Friday model.... or a
>> Bruce Gordon BLT. Or maybe even a recumbent?
>
>Unless you really want to be able to fold the bike up for flying, go
>with the BLT. It's the best deal in touring bikes. Also check out
>the Rivendell Romulus.

I just returned (late last evening) from a cycling trip in New
England, thus the tardiness of this response. In our party of sixteen,
three were on Bike Fridays. Other than the "fold 'em into a suitcase"
feature I saw NO advantage to them. Even worse, one of the bikes'
wheels was slightly damaged in shipment causing a series of flats. The
party quickly ran out of 20" tubes and had to resort to patches to
keep going. This is okay for some (like me), but the guy who kept
flatting didn't share my faith in patches, thus he and his wife
skipped our day on Martha's Vineyard.

My girlfriend rode her Trek 520 (touring bike) and I rode my Fuji
Touring Series. These were fine choices except for some of the rough
roads around Watch Hill, RI. There we sort of wished we'd brought our
mountain bikes.

One of our group was on a brand new CoMotion equipped with S&S
Couplers. Seems to me if you want a "packable" bike that's a
reasonable choice for touring this would be a good way to go.

BTW, thanks to the Narragansett Bay Wheelmen for inviting us
(Naperville Bicycle Club, Illinois) to join their club ride out of
Tiverton, RI. It was the best ride of the trip.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

[Dan Chatten]

John,

I had the same situation in the spring. I was committed to getting
back in shape and now I'm a cycle junkie. I ended up purchasing a
Sequoia Sport from Specialized. I just passed 1,000 miles on the OD
this weekend, and I cannot say enough about the bike. The bike
retails around $800 US and you get a lot of bike for the buck - IMO.
I've only made two minor changes (clip less pedals and 700x23 tires).
The 700x26 tires were SOLID. Only one flat in 1000 miles of riding,
and here in NE the roads are tough.

Good luck with your decision.

Dan


wrote in message >...
> I wanna do a honest to goodness bike tour someday
> soon.... next year or so.
>
> Ive always ridden bikes.... for fun and back forth to
> work..... but have dreamed of doing a bike tour
> someday.
>
> Im not sure I do a fully loaded tour just yet. Id
> probably start out with just doing a credit card tour
> for a day or two in my local area.
>
> And just for the record..... Im 45.... abt 200lbs....
> and out of shape.
>
> Having said al the above.... what is a good bike to be
> buying to get ready for this touring?
>
> My thoughts are either a Bike Friday model.... or a
> Bruce Gordon BLT. Or maybe even a recumbent?
>
> More questions later but I will stop and wait for
> responses.
>
> Thanks in advance!!

[[email protected]]

>I just returned (late last evening) from a cycling trip in New
>England, thus the tardiness of this response. In our party of sixteen,
>three were on Bike Fridays. Other than the "fold 'em into a suitcase"
>feature I saw NO advantage to them.

So.... are you saying that if you do NOT need the
folding ability at all ..... to absolutely NOT buy a
folder as a touring bike?

[bikerider7]

Peter > wrote in message >...
> bikerider7 wrote:
> > wrote in message >...

>
> I've used my Bike Friday (now almost 10 years old) on a number of
> self-supported camping tours without any problems. All the components
> are standard Shimano (mine doesn't have the optional 3x7 Sachs/SRAM hub,
> but from what I've seen those are pretty durable devices) and the wheels
> are 20" - very widely available. (I notice you mentioned 16" tubes - do
> you have their recumbent model?

My mistake, I misremembered as 16" when in fact it is their usual 20".
However, I do not agree that 20" is so widely available (at least in the
places that I normally go bike touring), but we'll just have to agree to
disagree on that one.

As for the drive-train being "standard" my largest chainring is
(again, if I recall correctly) 60-tooth. That is not what I consider
standard. And yes, it is something that can break -- Southwest bent my
chainring the last time I flew with the bike.

> Parts can be
> FedEx'd (or equivalent) quickly almost anywhere in the world these days.

To each their own. I'd rather not put up with that kind of hassle
when all I need is a tube or spoke.

[Peter]

bikerider7 wrote:
> Peter > wrote in message >...
>
>>bikerider7 wrote:
>>
wrote in message >...
>
>
>>I've used my Bike Friday (now almost 10 years old) on a number of
>>self-supported camping tours without any problems. All the components
>>are standard Shimano (mine doesn't have the optional 3x7 Sachs/SRAM hub,
>>but from what I've seen those are pretty durable devices) and the wheels
>>are 20" - very widely available. (I notice you mentioned 16" tubes - do
>>you have their recumbent model?
>
>
> My mistake, I misremembered as 16" when in fact it is their usual 20".
> However, I do not agree that 20" is so widely available (at least in the
> places that I normally go bike touring), but we'll just have to agree to
> disagree on that one.
>
> As for the drive-train being "standard" my largest chainring is
> (again, if I recall correctly) 60-tooth. That is not what I consider
> standard. And yes, it is something that can break -- Southwest bent my
> chainring the last time I flew with the bike.

Not a very common occurrence though - and what would be the
possible downside? You might be limited in your top few gears
for a day or two using a 52 instead of your usual 60. Doesn't
strike me as something that's going to make a big difference in
any of my touring.

>>Parts can be
>>FedEx'd (or equivalent) quickly almost anywhere in the world these days.
>
>
> To each their own. I'd rather not put up with that kind of hassle
> when all I need is a tube or spoke.

Those I pick up in any local bike shop - I find that there are
far more of those that cater to kid's bikes/BMX and MTBs than to
road bikes. [Tubes are not an issue anyway - almost any size can
be made to work if you're careful with the installation. That
includes 700c tubes in MTB or 20" tires and 20" tubes in 700c -
it's not optimum but serviceable until you can get something
better.]

But if there's a serious problem I can call Green Gear at any
time (24/7) and they'll discuss how to get me rolling again as
quickly as possible including FedEx shipment of needed parts like
a rear triangle. The other bike I use for touring is my
Cannondale and I think I'd have a lot more trouble getting hold
of someone there on Thanksgiving day to talk about a quick frame
replacement.

[Peter]

bikerider7 wrote:
> Peter > wrote in message news:<YkEQa.53609$GL4.13943@rwcrnsc53>...
>
>>bikerider7 wrote:
>>
>>>As for the drive-train being "standard" my largest chainring is
>>>(again, if I recall correctly) 60-tooth. That is not what I consider
>>>standard. And yes, it is something that can break -- Southwest bent my
>>>chainring the last time I flew with the bike.
>>
>>Not a very common occurrence though
>
>
> Well, my experience is that eventually, anything that can go wrong on tour
> will (especially where baggage handlers are involved).
>
>
>>You might be limited in your top few gears
>>for a day or two using a 52 instead of your usual 60. Doesn't
>>strike me as something that's going to make a big difference in
>>any of my touring.
>
>
> The 60 was bent so far that the 52 didn't have enough clearance either.
> I dunno, can an outer chainring be removed and the rest of the
> chainrings still be held together without a spacer? Since it happened on
> my trip back, I didn't really have to try that experiment...

I don't understand your point here. I thought you were arguing
that the BF owner would have a much more serious problem due to a
bent chainring if he has a 60-tooth ring that's hard to find
while someone with a regular bike would walk into an LBS and get
a 52. I was just pointing out that switching the BF to a big
ring of 52 for the day or two it might take to get a 60 shipped
is not that big a deal for a typical bike tourist - the bike is
still rideable but you'd be coasting on more of the downhills.
The unconventional nature of a BF is not really a problem from
the standpoint of finding replacement parts since almost all the
components (incl. the crankset) are very conventional. And they
further back you up with responsive customer support that goes
beyond other bike companies with which I've dealt.
>
>>But if there's a serious problem I can call Green Gear at any
>>time (24/7) and they'll discuss how to get me rolling again as
>>quickly as possible including FedEx shipment of needed parts like
>>a rear triangle. The other bike I use for touring is my
>>Cannondale and I think I'd have a lot more trouble getting hold
>>of someone there on Thanksgiving day to talk about a quick frame
>>replacement.
>
>
> Cannondale frames are very bulletproof.

Only if you're using very slow bullets. There's no such thing as
a bulletproof bikeframe and if you tried to make one it would
weigh too much to be useful.

> I used an R500 for years
> of hard-core touring.

So - I haven't had any problems either with my 14-year old R800,
but I don't kid myself that it's somehow immune from being
trashed by even a rather minor impact.

> I really don't know what the BF policy is
> on broken frames but I'm not sure that's something they would be
> able to Fed-Ex in 24 hrs (I can, however, buy a new Cannondale
> frame at lots of retail stores around the world).

Try it on Thanksgiving day in some arbitrary small town in the
US. I doubt if you'll even get through to their customer service
department until the following Monday. And most small towns
don't have bike shops, but they do get FedEx shipments.

> As well, BF frames are heavy,
> and that quick-release joint at the bottom bracket makes them
> flexy. But if people like BF's (and I know a lot of people that
> do), more power to them....my own experience (as you can tell) was
> rather negative.

I can certainly understand that some people wouldn't choose BFs.
But the reason you cited of difficulty finding parts while
touring doesn't strike me as a valid one. I would recommend that
tourers choose the 406 wheel size rather than 451 (both are
labelled 20", but the 406 size is the common one for BMX bikes).

[bikerider7]

Peter > wrote in message >...
> bikerider7 wrote:
>
> > Cannondale frames are very bulletproof.
>
> Only if you're using very slow bullets. There's no such thing as
> a bulletproof bikeframe and if you tried to make one it would
> weigh too much to be useful.

Of course. But as far as frames go, my experience has been that
the touring Cannondale frames can take a lot of abuse and that
I'd be much more worried about the BF frame breaking.

>
> > I really don't know what the BF policy is
> > on broken frames but I'm not sure that's something they would be
> > able to Fed-Ex in 24 hrs (I can, however, buy a new Cannondale
> > frame at lots of retail stores around the world).
>
> Try it on Thanksgiving day in some arbitrary small town in the
> US. I doubt if you'll even get through to their customer service
> department until the following Monday. And most small towns
> don't have bike shops, but they do get FedEx shipments.

Are you suggesting that BF would build a new frame over Thanksgiving
break? They do have good customer service -- I'll give them that -- but
it took 6 weeks for them to build my P.R. frame (and BTW, the frame they
built me didn't come close to the measurements I had sent them...but
their lack of quality control is another topic entirely).

And as for Fed-Ex'ing parts, one can always order stuff from
Bike-Nashbar, Colorado Cyclist, etc.

[bikerider7]

Peter > wrote in message news:<fPYQa.58882$OZ2.10305@rwcrnsc54>...
> bikerider7 wrote:
> >
> > Are you suggesting that BF would build a new frame over Thanksgiving
> > break?
>
> I'm not sure, but I did call them years ago on Thanksgiving day
> because of a problem with my rear triangle. I was expecting to
> leave a message on an answering machine and was surprised when I
> got a live response. He asked if I was in a hurry and I replied
> that there wasn't any rush at all - I was at home and had other
> bikes available. I still got a new rear triangle in less than a
> week. I presume it would have been even faster if I had
> indicated I was stuck in some small town in the middle of a bike
> tour.

Interesting...your BF developed a problem in the rear triangle and
that didn't concern you? Granted, I don't know the details of your
particular situation but I know quite a lot of BF owners that
had frame problems which to me is a really bad sign.

>
> > They do have good customer service -- I'll give them that ...
>
> > And as for Fed-Ex'ing parts, one can always order stuff from
> > Bike-Nashbar, Colorado Cyclist, etc.
>
> And which of those have a 24/7 phone number with a service rep on
> call to discuss technical issues and repair/replacement options
> to get you back on the road as quickly as possible?

No idea...I have only dealt with LBS's and since I always try to buy
the most reliable, non-exotic stuff on the market, I have never had to
make an emergency long distance call to a service rep (my BF being the
exception of course).

[David]

>
> My mistake, I misremembered as 16" when in fact it is their usual 20".
> However, I do not agree that 20" is so widely available (at least in the
> places that I normally go bike touring), but we'll just have to agree to
> disagree on that one.

Are you telling me that people who tour on their bents (recumbents) are
going to be out of luck when it comes to replacing their tires on the
road?? Some bents use the same 406 tires that the Bike Friday bikes
use too and that is where I got my replacement tires and tubes from. I
have seen MANY PEOPLE tour on their bents for more than 1 year at a
time and they don't seem to have any problems whatsoever finding
replacement tires and tubes.

>
> As for the drive-train being "standard" my largest chainring is
> (again, if I recall correctly) 60-tooth. That is not what I consider
> standard. And yes, it is something that can break -- Southwest bent my
> chainring the last time I flew with the bike.
>

They bent your chain ring and yet your front derailleur survived?
Most recent Bike Fridays have a chain ring guard (a metal piece) that
surrounds the chain ring, preventing the chain to bounce out during
shifting and also probably provides some measure of protection from
damage in airline luggage handling. If a regular bike gets damaged by
the airlines with both derailleurs bent as well as the chain ring, you
have no choice but to push your bike. With the Bike Friday and a Sachs
3x7 or a 3x9 hub, even if the rear derailleur got snapped off, all I
have to do is shorten the chain to make it a single speed bike with a 7
or 9 speed internal hub still intact. You can at least tour with it
until you find a bike shop that can sell me a rear derailleur and new
chain!

[Chalo]

(bikerider7) wrote:


> However, I do not agree that 20" is so widely available (at least in the
> places that I normally go bike touring), but we'll just have to agree to
> disagree on that one.

You can get ISO 406 (20" BMX) tires in many grocery stores and all
Walmarts. They are as broadly available as ISO 559 (26" MTB) if not
more so, and way more available than ISO 622 (700c).

The ride qualities of the 20" wheel size don't suggest touring to me,
but there's no disputing that the tires and tubes are available
everywhere.

Chalo Colina

[James Thomson]

"David" > wrote:

> They bent your chain ring and yet your front derailleur survived?

Easy to imagine. The lower part of the chainring is relatively exposed, and
not close to the front derailleur.

> With the Bike Friday and a Sachs 3x7 or a 3x9 hub, even if the
> rear derailleur got snapped off, all I have to do is shorten the
> chain to make it a single speed bike with a 7 or 9 speed internal
> hub still intact.

The epicyclic part of the hub is a three-speed. The cassette body takes
seven or (eight or) nine sprockets.

James Thomson

[[email protected]]

>With the Bike Friday and a Sachs
>3x7 or a 3x9 hub, even if the rear derailleur got snapped off, all I
>have to do is shorten the chain to make it a single speed bike with a 7
>or 9 speed internal hub still intact.

If I do decide to go for a Bike Friday.....Im
definitely gonna go for the internal geared rear hub.

Is that a good idea in your mind??

[[email protected]]

>
>The ride qualities of the 20" wheel size don't suggest touring to me,
>but there's no disputing that the tires and tubes are available
>everywhere.

Im curious why you think this?

What size do you think is a good size for touring?

[cyclist101]

bikerider7 wrote:
>>You can get ISO 406 (20" BMX) tires in many grocery stores and all
>>Walmarts. They are as broadly available as ISO 559 (26" MTB) if not
>>more so, and way more available than ISO 622 (700c).
>
> There are no Walmarts in Europe.

Yes there are, in Germany and the UK (asda) for now. WalMart has ongoing
plans of expanding in those countries and others.

http://tinyurl.com/h8g3
http://www.asda.co.uk

[Sheldon Brown]

Chalo Colina wrote:

>>You can get ISO 406 (20" BMX) tires in many grocery stores and all
>>Walmarts. They are as broadly available as ISO 559 (26" MTB) if not
>>more so, and way more available than ISO 622 (700c).

An anonymous poster sniped:

> There are no Walmarts in Europe.

Carrefour!

Chalo is correct if the bike in question had the commmon-as-dirt 406 mm
size. Unfortunately, _some_ Bike Fridays use the much harder-to-find
451 mm size. I would agree that 451 is a very poor choice for touring,
but that 406 is a good choice if speed is not a major priority.

I don't think there is any other tire size in existence that is as
widely available as 406.

Sheldon "Ubiquity" Brown
+----------------------------------------------+
| I will be making my grand opera debut in a |
| Concert Performance of Bizet’s Carmen |
| July 31/August 1, M.I.T. Kresge Auditorium |
| Cambridge, Mass http://web.mit.edu/gsp/www/ |
+----------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Chalo]

wrote:

Chalo wrote:

> >The ride qualities of the 20" wheel size don't suggest touring to me,
> >but there's no disputing that the tires and tubes are available
> >everywhere.
>
> Im curious why you think this?
>
> What size do you think is a good size for touring?

Smaller (e.g. 20") wheels translate much more surface bumpiness into
vertical motion at the axle. They fall deeper into holes and are less
capable of rolling out. At any given tire width, they sink more into
soft surfaces than larger diameter wheels and offer less directional
control under those circumstances. Their tires have noticeably more
rolling resistance and wear out more quickly than larger ones.

If pressures are lowered to moderate the ride quality shortcomings of
small wheels, rolling resistance climbs even more. The smaller the
wheel, the easier it is to pinch the tube (other factors equal). This
imposes a limit on minimum pressure which is higher than for a larger
diameter wheel.

Small wheels are stronger and lighter than large ones, and make
bicycles much easier to pack and transport. Still, I don't think this
makes up for their limitations except under circumstances dictated by
travel arrangements.

I think 700c is the best wheel size for touring. It is one of the
largest diameter rims, and the variety of tires available provides
lots of configuration options: From light wheels and tires in a
race-like setup for a lightweight rider on a sag-supported tour, all
the way up to 60mm wide tires that give an outside diameter of almost
30" and unmatched ride and traction qualities.

They don't fit in a suitcase, but once on the road, 700c wheels work
better for most roadgoing purposes than other wheel sizes.

Chalo Colina

[[email protected]]

>I think 700c is the best wheel size for touring

OK

However I was gonna go for 26" inch wheels and tires if
I buy a Bruce Gordon BLT.

What's your thoughts on that.... i.e. 26"?

[cyclist101]

wrote:
>>I think 700c is the best wheel size for touring
>
> OK
>
> However I was gonna go for 26" inch wheels and tires if
> I buy a Bruce Gordon BLT.
>
> What's your thoughts on that.... i.e. 26"?

I think both 26" and 650c are adequate for loaded road touring, and in
my experience they're just as practical as 700c. Chalo mentioned some
benefits of 700c. The only other drawback is a gear-inch trade-off (on
the top end) because of the larger diameter of 700c compared to
MTB/650c, but you can remedy that through gearing. You don't need really
tall gearing on a touring bike anyway, especially if you're fully-loaded
and/or in hilly areas.

You'll appreciate wider MTB tires especially if you decide to do much
off-road, backwoods touring. If you have enough adjustment in your
cantilever brakes, you can also switch between MTB and 650c wheelsets
depending on your preference.

Talk it over with Bruce Gordon when you order.

[Sheldon Brown]

A shy person asked:

> However I was gonna go for 26" inch wheels and tires if
> I buy a Bruce Gordon BLT.
>
> What's your thoughts on that.... i.e. 26"?

The 559 mm (26" mountainbike) size is the best choice for heavily loaded
touring, i.e., camping with tent and cooking stuff, or for touring on
poor surfaces.

622 (700c) is the best choice for light (credit-card/B&B/hostel) touring
on good roads.

The 406 (20" bmx) size used on most folding bikes is also perfectly
satisfactory for touring when speed is not a major priority. Wider
tires in this size are very, very sturdy, and they'll give a decent ride
if not overinflated, though at some cost in rolling resistance.

For touring, the following are the only essentials:

•Durability

•Load carrying ability

•Comfort

Additional features that are highly desirable, but not essential would
include:

•Low gearing so you don't have to walk the steep hills

•Easy availability of replacement parts

•Weather protection (i.e. fenders/mudguards)

•Efficiency

•Beauty

Sheldon "Insert Nickname Here" Brown
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tour on popular routes like the Oregon Coast you will see |
| just about anything with two wheels out there, with any |
| amount of luggage strapped on in any conceivable way. |
| Everyone seems to be having a good time doing it. |
| However, certain choices will reduce breakdowns, and |
| make the trip less a project of transporting equipment, |
| and more one of enjoying the scenery and cultures. |
| --Eric Salathé |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[[email protected]]

bikerider7 > wrote:

: There are no Walmarts in Europe.

Recently I asked my Local Bent Shop if they stock inner tubes for
20" tires. They answered in negative, as you can get perfect inner
tubes for the size at Tarjoustalo (literally "discount house",
sounds a bit like Walmart right?).

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Chalo]

wrote:

> However I was gonna go for 26" inch wheels and tires if
> I buy a Bruce Gordon BLT.
>
> What's your thoughts on that.... i.e. 26"?

Great size; best tire and rim selection of any wheel size. The
inherent superior strength of the ISO 559 wheel (compared to ISO 622)
allows a lower spoke count with equal strength to a 700c wheel (e.g.
32 instead of 36, or 36 instead of 40).

It's often easier to make a normal-fitting frame for a normal-sized
person, with good tire clearance, by using 26" rather than 700c
wheels. And frames with clearance for 2" or wider tires are much,
much more common in 26".

There is probably no place left on Earth where 26" MTB tires are not
available. That's a plus if you ride in the remoter parts of our
planet.

I like 700c a bit better now that fat tires are available in that
size. I have spent most of my miles, and all the fastest ones, on 26"
wheeled bikes, though.

Chalo Colina

[David]

In article >,
James Thomson > wrote:

> "David" > wrote:
>
> > They bent your chain ring and yet your front derailleur survived?
>
> Easy to imagine. The lower part of the chainring is relatively exposed, and
> not close to the front derailleur.
>

It requires quite a bit of force to bent a chain ring and it's odd to
have only concentrated on the chain ring when the frame is more exposed
than the ring. Just unlucky I guess? I have heard more about bent
frames, dented tubes (those thin Columbus Foco) and stuff, including
one of the stachion tubes of my Marzocchi Z.3 BAM light fork when the
now deceased Royal Airlines (a Canadian carrier) damaged it while
coming back from the big island.

> > With the Bike Friday and a Sachs 3x7 or a 3x9 hub, even if the
> > rear derailleur got snapped off, all I have to do is shorten the
> > chain to make it a single speed bike with a 7 or 9 speed internal
> > hub still intact.
>
> The epicyclic part of the hub is a three-speed. The cassette body takes
> seven or (eight or) nine sprockets.

Thank you for correcting the error. You are indeed correct. But
still, a 3 speed bike is better than no speed at all. I remember that
in the old days, youth hostel tourers ride on 3 speeders!!

[David]

In article >,
> wrote:

> >With the Bike Friday and a Sachs
> >3x7 or a 3x9 hub, even if the rear derailleur got snapped off, all I
> >have to do is shorten the chain to make it a single speed bike with a 7
> >or 9 speed internal hub still intact.
>
> If I do decide to go for a Bike Friday.....Im
> definitely gonna go for the internal geared rear hub.
>
> Is that a good idea in your mind??

While I am no expert with gearing, I always believe that with a 20"
bike, you really have no choice but to go with an internal geared hub
to attain a workable gear ratio. The hub on my Friday works great and
has never let me down. I ofcourse have a mechanic service it before I
go on any major bike trip.

[David]

>
> Smaller (e.g. 20") wheels translate much more surface bumpiness into
> vertical motion at the axle. They fall deeper into holes and are less
> capable of rolling out. At any given tire width, they sink more into
> soft surfaces than larger diameter wheels and offer less directional
> control under those circumstances. Their tires have noticeably more
> rolling resistance and wear out more quickly than larger ones.
>
> If pressures are lowered to moderate the ride quality shortcomings of
> small wheels, rolling resistance climbs even more. The smaller the
> wheel, the easier it is to pinch the tube (other factors equal). This
> imposes a limit on minimum pressure which is higher than for a larger
> diameter wheel.
>
> Small wheels are stronger and lighter than large ones, and make
> bicycles much easier to pack and transport. Still, I don't think this
> makes up for their limitations except under circumstances dictated by
> travel arrangements.

What I found to mitigate the problem is to use a smooth fat tire on the
front with a max pressure of 50 psi (The Haro Ninja) and at the rear, I
use a Primo Comet with a max pressure of 110 psi. I ride a Brooks with
a Rockshox suspension seatpost to smooth out the bumps on the rear due
to the high tire pressure I use. This is the setup I use to tour and
have found to be just as comfortable as my full sized touring bike.
I certainly would not take it off-road though.

[whitfit]

Sheldon Brown > wrote in message >...
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>
> >>You can get ISO 406 (20" BMX) tires in many grocery stores and all
> >>Walmarts. They are as broadly available as ISO 559 (26" MTB) if not
> >>more so, and way more available than ISO 622 (700c).
>
> An anonymous poster sniped:
>
> > There are no Walmarts in Europe.
>
> Carrefour!
>
> Chalo is correct if the bike in question had the commmon-as-dirt 406 mm
> size. Unfortunately, _some_ Bike Fridays use the much harder-to-find
> 451 mm size. I would agree that 451 is a very poor choice for touring,
> but that 406 is a good choice if speed is not a major priority.
>
> I don't think there is any other tire size in existence that is as
> widely available as 406.
>
> Sheldon "Ubiquity" Brown

When I was riding in France last summer, I had a stupid day where I
left some of my things in a friends car (I was with him for a couple
of days, and then going off unsuported) including my flat kit... I
got a flat at the beginning of the day, on a Sunday afternoon in the
middle of the Pyranees, and after help from a fellow cyclist in the
form of a glueless patch, eventually found an open bike shop, but they
had no large 622 tubes.... Mostly mountain biking in that region,
from that shop. I don't know what the lesson is, but no matter what
size you have, carry your own spares!!

Whitfit.

[Doug Milliken]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, David wrote:

> > If I do decide to go for a Bike Friday.....Im
> > definitely gonna go for the internal geared rear hub.
> >
> > Is that a good idea in your mind??
>
> While I am no expert with gearing, I always believe that with a 20"
> bike, you really have no choice but to go with an internal geared hub
> to attain a workable gear ratio. The hub on my Friday works great and
> has never let me down. I ofcourse have a mechanic service it before I
> go on any major bike trip.

Moultons <www.moultoneers.net> have used small rear cogs for ~20 years now
to get a normal range of road gears. Shimano has recently "validated" this
concept with their new small-wheel Capreo group, the 9-speed cassette
starts at 9 teeth for top gear.