Dahon Impulse D6 vs. Giant Halfway

Hey folks!

I've narrowed my choices down to two, aluminum-frame, 20" wheel folding
bikes.

They both ride nicely though I've only had about 15 minutes on each. I was
hard pressed to tell much of a difference between them.

I've copied prices and some tech specs below. If there's anything you see
that says "oh boy, watch out for that kid" I'd appreciate the heads up.
(I've left out items that are the same on both bikes; eg: they both come
with fenders, folding pedals etc.)

_________

$450CAD "Avenir" (Canadian rebranded "2004 Dahon Impulse D6" - Aluminum):
http://tinyurl.com/9r2e4
Add rear rack: +$30. So really the Avenir/D6 comes to...
$480CAD

$730CAD Giant Halfway: http://tinyurl.com/77d8l
Comes with a nice integrated rear rack (don't know how stable it'll be
without side braces though).

_________

Giant Halfway: Shimano Revo shifter, 7-speed, Shimano Sora derailleur.
13-28T freewheel, 48T crank

Avenir/D6: Tourney, SRAM 6-speed grip shift, Shimano Tourney derailleur .
14-28T freewheel, Suntour SR 52T crank

FYI: Dahon makes a steel-frame version of the Avenir for about 50% of the
cost. (!) My last bike was Cro-Mo and never let me down but I'm leaning
toward Aluminum. There doesn't seem to be a weight penalty... should I
reconsider the steel frame or is the aluminum likely more maintenance free
long-term?

Thanks folks.

Chris - Ottawa, Canada

C.J.Patten wrote:

Hey folks!

I've narrowed my choices down to two, aluminum-frame, 20" wheel folding
bikes.

They both ride nicely though I've only had about 15 minutes on each. I was
hard pressed to tell much of a difference between them.

I've copied prices and some tech specs below. If there's anything you see
that says "oh boy, watch out for that kid" I'd appreciate the heads up.
(I've left out items that are the same on both bikes; eg: they both come
with fenders, folding pedals etc.)

_________

$450CAD "Avenir" (Canadian rebranded "2004 Dahon Impulse D6" - Aluminum):
http://tinyurl.com/9r2e4
Add rear rack: +$30. So really the Avenir/D6 comes to...
$480CAD

$730CAD Giant Halfway: http://tinyurl.com/77d8l
Comes with a nice integrated rear rack (don't know how stable it'll be
without side braces though).

_________

Giant Halfway: Shimano Revo shifter, 7-speed, Shimano Sora derailleur.
13-28T freewheel, 48T crank

Avenir/D6: Tourney, SRAM 6-speed grip shift, Shimano Tourney derailleur .
14-28T freewheel, Suntour SR 52T crank

FYI: Dahon makes a steel-frame version of the Avenir for about 50% of the
cost. (!) My last bike was Cro-Mo and never let me down but I'm leaning
toward Aluminum. There doesn't seem to be a weight penalty... should I
reconsider the steel frame or is the aluminum likely more maintenance free
long-term?

Thanks folks.

Chris - Ottawa, Canada



I have an aluminum frame mountain bike (Giant) that I use mainly for
urban riding.

To do over again, I would not purchase aluminum as it is a harsher ride
than steel... but thats just me and I enjoy comfort.

Wow. I had NO idea!

Since you ride in exactly the same city as I do, I'd say that's a common
frame of reference. (no pun intended)

Thanks Joe!

Chris




"Joe Canuck" wrote in message
...
C.J.Patten wrote:

Hey folks!

I've narrowed my choices down to two, aluminum-frame, 20" wheel folding
bikes.

They both ride nicely though I've only had about 15 minutes on each. I
was hard pressed to tell much of a difference between them.

I've copied prices and some tech specs below. If there's anything you see
that says "oh boy, watch out for that kid" I'd appreciate the heads up.
(I've left out items that are the same on both bikes; eg: they both come
with fenders, folding pedals etc.)

_________

$450CAD "Avenir" (Canadian rebranded "2004 Dahon Impulse D6" - Aluminum):
http://tinyurl.com/9r2e4
Add rear rack: +$30. So really the Avenir/D6 comes to...
$480CAD

$730CAD Giant Halfway: http://tinyurl.com/77d8l
Comes with a nice integrated rear rack (don't know how stable it'll be
without side braces though).

_________

Giant Halfway: Shimano Revo shifter, 7-speed, Shimano Sora derailleur.
13-28T freewheel, 48T crank

Avenir/D6: Tourney, SRAM 6-speed grip shift, Shimano Tourney derailleur .
14-28T freewheel, Suntour SR 52T crank

FYI: Dahon makes a steel-frame version of the Avenir for about 50% of the
cost. (!) My last bike was Cro-Mo and never let me down but I'm leaning
toward Aluminum. There doesn't seem to be a weight penalty... should I
reconsider the steel frame or is the aluminum likely more maintenance
free long-term?

Thanks folks.

Chris - Ottawa, Canada

I have an aluminum frame mountain bike (Giant) that I use mainly for urban
riding.

To do over again, I would not purchase aluminum as it is a harsher ride
than steel... but thats just me and I enjoy comfort.

I noticed recently onthe uk.rec.cycling forum a thread with links to a
UK folding bike society. In turn that seemed to have lots on various
folders, including magazine and private reviews.

Good luck


--
p_b_floyd

C.J.Patten wrote:
Wow. I had NO idea!

Since you ride in exactly the same city as I do, I'd say that's a common
frame of reference. (no pun intended)

Thanks Joe!

Chris

Chris, you need to take that with a HUGE grain of salt.

The idea that certain frame materials themselves are "harsh," that
others are "resilient," that others are "firm" or "supple" or
"responsive" or "silky" or "noodly" is essentially nonsense.

Depending on the design of the frame, any material can be used to make
a more or less rigid frame, a more or less stable frame, a quicker or
slower handling frame, etc. etc. This has been discussed ad infinitum
in rec.bicycles.tech (check the archives). While agreement isn't
universal (it is Usenet, after all) the usual way the sides stack up
is: about a dozen engineers, bike builders and bike shop owners on one
side, saying what I've just said; versus two or three people who get
all their technical education from Buycycling magazine.

Cases in point: Early aluminum racing frames (e.g. the Alan frames)
were so flexible that the chain would scrape both sides of the front
derailleur in a sprint. They still won races, but nobody _ever_ called
them "harsh." Later aluminum Kleins and Cannondales had super-stiff
bottom brackets. They won races too. Buycycling called them "harsh."
European magazines, reportedly, never did. Yet all three of these
bikes were aluminum.

Folder case in point: Read what you can about the Bickerton folding
bike, made in England in the 1970s. Supposedly, it flexed like a worn
out spring. Nobody ever dreamed of calling its ride "harsh." Again,
aluminum frame.

From an engineering standpoint, there's no way any "harshness" is going
to be transmitted to your butt by a two-foot-long seatpost. That in
itself will be flexible enough to make it feel like you're floating.


- Frank Krygowski

C.J.Patten wrote:
Wow. I had NO idea!

Since you ride in exactly the same city as I do, I'd say that's a common
frame of reference. (no pun intended)



Don't worry yourself with Joe's comment. Its an old chestnut. The
frame material makes no difference to the harshness of the ride. The
tyres and tyre pressure, saddle and handlebar grips do.


--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

in message , C.J.Patten
') wrote:

Hey folks!

I've narrowed my choices down to two, aluminum-frame, 20" wheel
folding bikes.

They both ride nicely though I've only had about 15 minutes on each. I
was hard pressed to tell much of a difference between them.

I've copied prices and some tech specs below. If there's anything you
see that says "oh boy, watch out for that kid" I'd appreciate the
heads up. (I've left out items that are the same on both bikes; eg:
they both come with fenders, folding pedals etc.)

The Giant Halfway is a Mike Burrows design and has much nicer kit, but
I'm not sure whether that justifies the increase in price. It also has
a slightly wider gear range with lower bottom gears, if that's a
consideration.

FYI: Dahon makes a steel-frame version of the Avenir for about 50% of
the cost. (!) My last bike was Cro-Mo and never let me down but I'm
leaning toward Aluminum. There doesn't seem to be a weight penalty...
should I reconsider the steel frame or is the aluminum likely more
maintenance free long-term?

_If_ there is no weight penalty, the steel bike may be a better buy. OK,
it will rust if you scratch the paint. But steel frames are springier,
unlikely to crack, often more comfortable to ride, repairable if
damaged, and with moderate maintenance (say one respray every twenty
years) will last indefinitely.

In a major impact aluminium is likely to crack, in which case it's a
write-off - and, indeed, even if it bends it's almost certainly a
write-off. Furthermore, although aluminium does not rust, it will
corrode electrolytically wherever there are steel components connected
to the frame if it is not stored dry, and, over long periods of time,
these will destroy the frame too.

So long term the steel frame is a slightly better bet. Provided, of
course, there _is_ no weight penalty.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

wrote:

C.J.Patten wrote:

Wow. I had NO idea!

Since you ride in exactly the same city as I do, I'd say that's a common
frame of reference. (no pun intended)

Thanks Joe!

Chris


Chris, you need to take that with a HUGE grain of salt.

The idea that certain frame materials themselves are "harsh," that
others are "resilient," that others are "firm" or "supple" or
"responsive" or "silky" or "noodly" is essentially nonsense.

Depending on the design of the frame, any material can be used to make
a more or less rigid frame, a more or less stable frame, a quicker or
slower handling frame, etc. etc. This has been discussed ad infinitum
in rec.bicycles.tech (check the archives). While agreement isn't
universal (it is Usenet, after all) the usual way the sides stack up
is: about a dozen engineers, bike builders and bike shop owners on one
side, saying what I've just said; versus two or three people who get
all their technical education from Buycycling magazine.

I don't read any cycling magazines.

My comments were posted from personal experience.

Your mileage may vary.

Tony Raven wrote:

C.J.Patten wrote:

Wow. I had NO idea!

Since you ride in exactly the same city as I do, I'd say that's a
common frame of reference. (no pun intended)



Don't worry yourself with Joe's comment. Its an old chestnut. The
frame material makes no difference to the harshness of the ride. The
tyres and tyre pressure, saddle and handlebar grips do.



My comment was based on personal experience and was not "coloured" by
reading magazines... which I don't.

Buying a bike is a personal decision. I expect the OP to have done their
own research and not attach too much importance to personal experiences
supplied by others over the 'net.

The bottom line is... whatever it is they like, fits and feels good to
*them* is the right purchase for them... and that should *not* be
influenced by any comments on usenet.

wrote:

Folder case in point: Read what you can about the Bickerton folding
bike, made in England in the 1970s. Supposedly, it flexed like a worn
out spring. Nobody ever dreamed of calling its ride "harsh." Again,
aluminum frame.

No "supposedly" about it. They didn't call 'em "chocolate Bickies" for
nothing, y'know.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of
the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and
credulity encourages.