Dahon Impulse D6 vs. Giant Halfway

C.J.Patten said:

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

C.J.Patten said:

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

C.J.Patten said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 <[email hidden]>, C.J.Patten

(') said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

Quoted message said:

C.J.Patten said:

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 said:

C.J.Patten said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, C.J.Patten
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes, in fairness, I test rode the Giant Halfway in slightly more hilly
conditions than the Dahon.
I was *just* at the edge of my capability to climb hills with the Giant -
likely I'd grow into it - but perhaps the D6 would be a poorer choice given
it may not have the gear range I need right now.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm confused. There are aluminum mountain bikes that don't seem to crack
apart - some without any kind of suspension.
By "impact" is this to say "hitting the frame with a hammer" (or throwing
rocks at it)?

This IS going to be a pathway bike but I'd like to know if I go aluminum I
don't have to worry about the frame spontaneously disintegrating through
regular use. (even if it's years and thousands of miles of regular use)
There seem to be a lot of Giant Halfway users out there with no reports of
(recent) self-destructions so I have to assume this is a reasonably designed
bike.

If it were able to take the beating, I'd probably put semi-knobbies on it
and take it on some dirt tracks - perhaps that's asking too much of this
bike though.

I'm strongly leaning toward the 'Halfway. I'm sure the Dahon would be a fine
bike but I'm looking for something I won't outgrow - or at least not feel
like I compromised. (realizing folders in general are a compromise)

The Giant seems to be the Cadillac of it's class though I don't know if the
idea that it's "halfway between a folder and a full size" is quite accurate.

Thanks VERY much for your input Simon!

Chris

Joe Canuck said:

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

But wrongly ascribed your experience to the frame material and not the
many other factors which would have influenced the harshness of the
ride. At best you could say your advice was misleading.

--
Tony

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

in message <[email hidden]>, C.J.Patten

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, C.J.Patten
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes, in fairness, I test rode the Giant Halfway in slightly more hilly
conditions than the Dahon.
I was *just* at the edge of my capability to climb hills with the
Giant - likely I'd grow into it - but perhaps the D6 would be a poorer
choice given it may not have the gear range I need right now.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm confused. There are aluminum mountain bikes that don't seem to
crack apart - some without any kind of suspension.
By "impact" is this to say "hitting the frame with a hammer" (or
throwing rocks at it)?

As in colliding with a moving motor vehicle, for example. Nothing less.

Quoted message said:

This IS going to be a pathway bike but I'd like to know if I go
aluminum I don't have to worry about the frame spontaneously
disintegrating through regular use. (even if it's years and thousands
of miles of regular use) There seem to be a lot of Giant Halfway users
out there with no reports of (recent) self-destructions so I have to
assume this is a reasonably designed bike.

Cracking of aluminium framed bikes is greatly exaggerated. It has
happened, largely with racing bikes (both road racing and cross
country) but it isn't at all common. The point is, though, a steel
frame that's been in a bad crash is almost always repairable (although
it may be uneconomic to repair); an aluminium or carbon fibre frame
frame which has been in a bad crash is usually not repairable.

Quoted message said:

I'm strongly leaning toward the 'Halfway. I'm sure the Dahon would be
a fine bike but I'm looking for something I won't outgrow - or at
least not feel like I compromised. (realizing folders in general are a
compromise)

I'd go for the Hafway - as I say, it _is_ a Mike Burrows design.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

Simon Brooke said:

Cracking of aluminium framed bikes is greatly exaggerated.

Ahem!

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/The_Stinger_Stung

Twice!

OK, misleading vividness ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Simon Brooke said:

Cracking of aluminium framed bikes is greatly exaggerated. It has
happened, largely with racing bikes (both road racing and cross
country) but it isn't at all common. The point is, though, a steel
frame that's been in a bad crash is almost always repairable (although
it may be uneconomic to repair); an aluminium or carbon fibre frame
frame which has been in a bad crash is usually not repairable.

Indeed in the one comparative frame fatigue test that has been reported,
aluminium frames were the only ones to survive the test intact. The
same was not true of steel bikes all of which failed prematurely. Of
all the frame materials - steel, aluminium, carbon fibre and titanium -
steel showed the shortest fatigue life.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

--
Tony

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

Just zis Guy said:

Simon Brooke said:

Cracking of aluminium framed bikes is greatly exaggerated.

Ahem!

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/The_Stinger_Stung

Twice!

OK, misleading vividness ;-)

Frame material or frame design? A case of anecdote over evidence to
which I reply http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

--
Tony

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

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip snip>

Quoted message said:

As in colliding with a moving motor vehicle, for example. Nothing less.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Cracking of aluminium framed bikes is greatly exaggerated. It has
happened, largely with racing bikes (both road racing and cross
country) but it isn't at all common. The point is, though, a steel
frame that's been in a bad crash is almost always repairable (although
it may be uneconomic to repair); an aluminium or carbon fibre frame
frame which has been in a bad crash is usually not repairable.

Thanks Simon... I see what you mean about the impact damage.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'd go for the Hafway - as I say, it _is_ a Mike Burrows design.

(frantically Googling "Mike Burrows"...😉

___________________________

Thanks Tony and Guy for the links.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/The_Stinger_Stung

I'm feeling more comfortable with aluminum now. I wasn't *un*comfortable
with it until I started reading about stress cracks etc. As with just about
anything, I think it's safe to say poor design is more of a concern than
material used.

Best regards,
Chris

"C.J.Patten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.)

One thing about most folding bikes is that the folding pedals really suck.
On my Dahon Speed TR 2004, I changed the pedals to the MKS removeable pedals
from Harris Cyclery (and installed toe clips and straps). I also sent an
e-mail to the VP of Dahon with an evaluation of the Speed TR, and mentioned
the pedal issue. Low and behold, the 2005 Speed TR has the MKS pedals as
standard equipment (whether that was due to my comments, I don't know).

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/pedals.html#folding

I would definitely not pay a premium for aluminum frame over chro-moly, if
anything it's the other way around. I suppose that if the bicycle is kept on
a boat then maybe aluminum is better, but there are still steel components
that would rust.

Personally, I was not looking at any folder with the limited gearing range
of the models you are considering, but I live in an area with a lot of
hills.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Indeed in the one comparative frame fatigue test that has been reported,
aluminium frames were the only ones to survive the test intact. The
same was not true of steel bikes all of which failed prematurely. Of
all the frame materials - steel, aluminium, carbon fibre and titanium -
steel showed the shortest fatigue life.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

The EFBe frame tests have been thoroughly discredited many times.

Steven M. Scharf said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

The EFBe frame tests have been thoroughly discredited many times.

Well, Tony, Scharf states with absolute conviction that you are wrong.
There are few more reliable indicators that you are right on the
money! The Scharf Test rarely lets you down.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound