Folding bike vs mountain bike

Question

I'm thinking of giving up my heavy Trek mountain bike for a folding bike. Anyone made the move to folding bike regretted it? Why?

I'll be using it around town, shopping, etc. We have a small apartment without storage.

Answer 1

My stable contains two folding bikes, and I love them both. I use them for different purposes. If this is going to be your only bike and you want to use that bike for cargo (with racks, etc), I recommend against using a folding bike unless it's one with larger wheels.

Disadvantages of folders:

• For offroad riding, nothing beats a standard rigid-frame mountain bike. If you forsee a decent amount of offroad riding, I strongly recommend against getting any folding bike.
• Coasting on a folding bike isn't quite as easy, due to the diminished momentum of the smaller wheels. This is a very minor point, though.
• Getting parts for a folding bike can sometimes be a little more difficult. A little planning can alleviate this, as can keeping spare tubes, spokes, etc around the house.
• Mounting panniers on a folder's rear rack tends to result in heelstrike, unless you have a folder with a very long wheelbase that's meant for touring. If you want to use this bike for shopping, that's a point against folders.
• Folding bikes are more expensive, and can be heavier, then their non-folding counterparts.
• Folders usually have a weight limit. The wheels are usually smaller and therefore sturdier than larger wheels, but the frame is a limiting factor. For example, the Dahon Curve has a rider limit of 100kg/220lbs. (When I bought mine, that was an across-the-board limitation, but they may have improved that.) So if you're a big guy, look into this.

Advantages of folders:

• Storage is easier, obviously. A plus in small apartments. It's also simpler to put the bike in a car trunk or back seat, or take it on public transportation.
• You can accelerate crazy fast on a folding bike, for the same reason you have to put a little more effort into coasting - the wheels are smaller and therefore lighter.
• Small wheels are fun! Folding bikes can be more nimble than bikes with full-sized wheels.

I love folding bikes, but unless you have no other options, a small-wheeled folding bike wouldn't be a good fit for your purposes. A folding bike with 26" or even 20" wheels, however, might work very well if you can fit it with a rear rack. Try one out in a store and see how it feels and if you can carry cargo easily.

Answer 2

If you're only using it for riding a bit around town, possibly using multi-modal train or bus connections (they are popular with London tube riders), small shopping trips, or commuting to work and you are not concerned about doing fast road rides, off road riding, or super long rides then a folding bike could be a good fit.

I borrowed a folding bike and found that I could fold it up in about 30 seconds and put it in a carrying bag rather easily after I did it about 5-10 times. At first it will take a minute or two while you are learning the proper order to fold and unfold (single speed and internally geared hub models are less complicated to fold).

They store very small and you can toss them in a closet when not in use. They are a bit heavy to carry around for long distances, but a lot of them can be pulled around by their seat while coasting on one wheel or a caster installed below the bottom bracket.

Hell, some people even tour on their bromptons: http://pathlesspedaled.com/2012/08/the-brompton-touring-book-is-here/

If you're going to go this way, I'd stick with the small 20in or smaller wheeled models from Dahon or Brompton. Larger wheels mean more weight and larger folded size, which negates a lot of the benefits of having a folder.

Answer 3

Whether a folding bike is worthwhile for you would depend entirely on how you intend to use it.

There's an argument for saying that the average rail commuter would be better served by two cheap/secondhand hybrid/mountain bikes locked at the start/end train stations, because:

• With larger wheels and a more conventional geometry, a mountain bike would probably give a better, faster ride than even the best folding bikes.
• They'd cost less than a good quality folding bike. Maybe half as much.

On the other hand, if you absolutely must be able to store the bike in a very small location such as under your desk or in the boot of your car, then it has to be a folding bike, or possibly something with S+S couplings that can be taken apart and packed away (although that's more expensive).

Answer 4

Do you intend to use the bike on a train? In some cities there are limitations to wheel size/requirements for bags etc. that determine if you have to get an additional ticket for the bike or not. This may factor into your decision. for example, City of Sydney requires no greater tire size than 20" and you are supposed to bag the bike when on the train (I've never seen this latter requirement enforced).

Also, how tall/heavy are you? I've found that some manufacturers/wheel sizes were unsuitable for my height/weight (6'2", ~100kg).

I had a 20" wheel fold-up bike (with the main "fold" in the centre of the frame). I loved it. I was able to stow it on public transport, jump into a cab if it was raining (9 times out of 10 it would just go in the boot of the cab). It rode a bit rough on some terrain (courtesy of the small wheel diameter), but worked wonders.

However, it ended in tears when the frame literally snapped in half at the fold point (the weld point failed, luckily at low speed—only minor grazes).

Thus, I would strongly recommend considering a frame design that doesn't include a fold joint in the centre of the frame (i.e. not like that used by Dahon, Tern, etc.) Alternate folding designs (e.g. Montague) would be my recommendation. If tire size is not an issue (see above), then these might also be a more comfortable solution for your requirements given you currently have a mountain bike.