What do you think it the best bike for the city

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
> anything to the experience.

It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
>> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
>> anything to the experience.
>
> It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
> bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
> so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
> better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
> how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
> a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at all.
Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong steel MTB
frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs without a great
deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a mountain bike's not got
hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no reason why a town bike should
be that sort of weight, particularly at that price.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
> that price.

You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
"but".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:29:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Doki wrote:
>
>> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
>> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
>> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
>> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
>> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
>> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
>> that price.
>
>You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
>use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
>have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
>if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
>"but".

When I've watched commuting cyclists in holland of any distance - and
the ones I know who do it have pretty much all been on lightweight
racing machines - the Dutch bikes are used almost universally around
town, for short journeys at low speeds often carrying a lot of weight.
They maybe commuters, but they're only going 2 or 3 miles, not the 10
or more that is common in London.

Jim.

 

[Roger Merriman]

<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 23 Apr, 19:23, "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Don Whybrow wrote:
> > > Doki wrote:
> > >> Don Whybrow wrote:
> > >>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > >>>> Doki wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
> > >>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
> > >>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
> >
> > >>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
> > >>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
> > >>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
> > >>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
> > >>>> it's a rather different case.
> >
> > >>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
> >
> > >>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
> >
> > >> Almost 20 kilos!
> >
> > > You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> > > up the thread a bit.
> >
> > Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> > Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike
>
> Comfortable commuting? Strip down a tourer- designed for long stints
> in the saddle, tough, plenty of gears etc.
> I wouldn't want to be riding a 20Kg + roadster away from traffic
> lights every two minutes, let alone into a headwind!
>
> If you want fast- get fixed and get fit!
>
> Cheers,
> W.

it doesn't make that much differnce away from the lights, even fully
loaded to 60lb or there abouts big green can pull across the lights
before the racers and cars have got them selfs in gear. yes you do feel
the gradients but on the other hand, your not trying to go fast your
trying to get from A to B big paniers to carry stuff what ever that
might be, big tires to absorbe lumps and bumbs, and armored against
puntures. yes with a more upright postion wind is horrible but again the
bike is less twichy.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
>> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
>> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
>> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
>> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
>> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
>> that price.
>
> You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
> use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
> have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
> if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
> "but".

Perhaps they're of the same school of thought as my mate who built a jump
bike using the heaviest components available, on the basis that they won't
break.

On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty much
universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about driving. I
see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a missed
opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you have
something heavy and leaden.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jim Ley wrote:

> When I've watched commuting cyclists in holland of any distance - and
> the ones I know who do it have pretty much all been on lightweight
> racing machines - the Dutch bikes are used almost universally around
> town, for short journeys at low speeds often carrying a lot of weight.
> They maybe commuters, but they're only going 2 or 3 miles, not the 10
> or more that is common in London.

For some values of "common", methinks, but not others...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
> people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty
> much universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about
> driving.

So you say, but that strikes me as sweeping conjecture rather than a
real truism about the quality of Vauxhall cars.

> I see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a
> missed opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you
> have something heavy and leaden.

Where you have something to fix or fettle very often, they have
something they hardly ever to have to do anything with: who's having the
fun then?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
>> people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty
>> much universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about
>> driving.
>
> So you say, but that strikes me as sweeping conjecture rather than a
> real truism about the quality of Vauxhall cars.

I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big RWD
execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of Vauxhalls sold
are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says so. People do tend
to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas of life.

>> I see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a
>> missed opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you
>> have something heavy and leaden.
>
> Where you have something to fix or fettle very often, they have
> something they hardly ever to have to do anything with: who's having the
> fun then?

There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that never
broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike. You could
build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub dynamos,
gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's not got the
comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a comfy shape has
to be heavy.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big
> RWD execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of
> Vauxhalls sold are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says
> so. People do tend to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas
> of life.

Well, I don't read many car reviews, so I just dropped in to Honest
John's and looked at the Vauxhall that might interest me, an Astra
estate. And it has 4 stars (out of 5), which isn't a good start for
your thesis. Of course, if you're into boring estate cars like I am and
not hot performance sports equipment we might be looking for different
things, as with bikes. Another couple, just for a bigger sample...
current Corsa gets 3 stars, Zafira gets 4 stars, so you seem to be
overtstaing the horror

> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> comfy shape has to be heavy.

So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".

I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Don Whybrow]

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>>
>>> Almost 20 kilos!
>>
>> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
>> up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

I happen to have a Ridgeback in the shed, a Nemesis, with some
modifications like pannier rack, mudguards and dynamo. This brings it
closer to the spec of the bikes above. What it doesn't have is a
chain-guard or skirt-guard. I have just been out with the bathroom
scales and without these additions it comes in at just under 18kg. Also
comparable to the bikes above.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"My God! The thought of that evil man, loose in London--with
money, from God only knows what source--fomenting riot and
rebellion during a public emergency--and in control of an Engine-
driven press! It's nightmarish!" (Gibson-Sterling, "The
Difference Engine")

 

[Squashme]

On 24 Apr, 20:18, Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doki wrote:
> > Don Whybrow wrote:
> >> Doki wrote:
> >>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>
> >>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> >>>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> >>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> >> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> >> up the thread a bit.
>
> > Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> >Ridgebackor Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.
>
> I happen to have aRidgebackin the shed, a Nemesis, with some
> modifications like pannier rack, mudguards and dynamo. This brings it
> closer to the spec of the bikes above. What it doesn't have is a
> chain-guard or skirt-guard. I have just been out with the bathroom
> scales and without these additions it comes in at just under 18kg. Also
> comparable to the bikes above.
>

When my old Holdsworth finally collapsed last October, I found that
things had moved on in the last 25 years. I bought a Ridgeback
Velocity, and added a rack and bags. I'm happy with it, although, for
me, it's awfully modern. It would probably fit your budget if you
checked around (seen at £249 and less, I believe).

Similar to mine:-
http://www.elmycycles.co.uk/pics/velocity.jpg

 

[Jim Price]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
> <[email protected]> said in
> <e22ff9d0-2fce-455a-a597-feb7d81170b8@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
>> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
>> high street)
>
> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets

I was going to suggest a folder if any public transport options might
need to be used, and the Brommie is a very good one, but getting one in
the region of £300 is not going to be easy for a new one.

--
JimP
Disclaimer - I have one too, so I'm biased.

 

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big
>> RWD execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of
>> Vauxhalls sold are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says
>> so. People do tend to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas
>> of life.
>
> Well, I don't read many car reviews, so I just dropped in to Honest
> John's and looked at the Vauxhall that might interest me, an Astra
> estate. And it has 4 stars (out of 5), which isn't a good start for
> your thesis. Of course, if you're into boring estate cars like I am and
> not hot performance sports equipment we might be looking for different
> things, as with bikes. Another couple, just for a bigger sample...
> current Corsa gets 3 stars, Zafira gets 4 stars, so you seem to be
> overtstaing the horror

I now suggest that all car reviewers are on crack. Top Gear gave the Meriva
3 stars for christ's sake. It's the most terrifying car I've ever driven,
mainly because you can barely see out of it and you get more steering feel
from a computer game.

OTOH I've just been out buying a boring estate car - it's a boring turbo
diesel but the designers didn't completely forget that someone might
actually want to have a smile on their face whilst they drive it.

>> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
>> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
>> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
>> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
>> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
>> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
>> comfy shape has to be heavy.
>
> So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
>
> I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets

Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Frozen gorillas can be used to control the temperature of a warm
and stuffy room.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> OTOH I've just been out buying a boring estate car - it's a boring turbo
> diesel but the designers didn't completely forget that someone might
> actually want to have a smile on their face whilst they drive it.

We got one yesterday, as it happens (a Fabia), but there's things to put
smiles on our faces that don't involve speed. If I'm driving for 4
hours then adjustable seat and steering wheel height actually make more
of a smile difference to me than what's under the bonnet, as long as it
isn't chronically under-powered. The air conditioning will be nice if
we're stuck in a queue on a hot summer day, the cruise control for
motorway stints down to England, and so on. The Stig might prefer
something else, but then we're different people with different
perspectives on cars.

> I'm not exactly a sporting person.

You're cycling choices suggest differently. You at least have a
personal liking for sportive equipment (and there's nothing wrong with
that). You have an MTB (a sports bike) and a racer (another sports
bike). You worry about angles on the frames, and so on.

> I just don't see why a utility bike
> shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm
> not suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything
> like that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town
> than my racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600
> odd quid for what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

Because it will last (quite possibly for another 50 years) with minimal
maintenance fuss while being very comfortable to ride as long as you're
not in a hurry and carrying large amounts of stuff without the carriers
wobbling around or breaking.

If you look at contemporary Dutch roadster design you'll see they take
advantage of lightweight materials, but rather than make the bike
significantly lighter they add more stuff. The Batavus reviewed in the
latest Velovision being an excellent case in point.
Lightness is a real virtue if you're carrying it up stairs (lots of
people live up stairs in towns, so fair dos) or want rapid acceleration
(those in a hurry, especially couriers, so again fair dos), but if not
then it's just a way to spend extra money on something that doesn't help
and makes the bike more desirable for thieves. Light is generally a
good thing, but there's other stuff you can have instead which may be
worth more to a lot of people. Which is why I ride a 20 Kg tourer
(comfort and robustness) and a 20 kg freighter (loading potential).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[bornfree]

On 24 Apr, 08:38, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> > position.
>
> Hmmmm, seehttp://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/saddleheight.jpg
>
> That's a folder and I'm in an upright position (my head is a bit forward
> as it was just the state of balance leaning on the wall while the shot
> was taken, look at the body rather than head and neck)
>
> > A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> > Mark pointed out.
>
> But the shot of your bike, unless you have /very/ short legs, suggests
> the saddle is a bit low.

Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
leap off one side every time I stop.

I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
won't be the same here.

But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington wrote:
>Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets
>
>Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)

A Brompton? Is that one of those things that fold and unfold?

 

[Peter Clinch]

bornfree wrote:

> Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
> leap off one side every time I stop.

It's not in any way unusual for a correct saddle height to require
coming off the saddle (forwards is as good as to the side, often better)
when stopping a bike unless the bottom bracket is relatively low,
whether on a folder or a "normal" bike.

> I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
> 16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
> wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
> won't be the same here.

The wheel size isn't really anything to do with it: it's quite typical
for the bars and the seat to be more or less the same height,
irrespective of wheel size. A low seat height well below the bars,
unless the bars are particularly high (they usually aren't on folders as
it makes the fold more problematical) or there is a laid-back "chopper"
style riding position, usually means excessively bent knees and low
pedalling efficiency.

The thing to look at in the picture of the Brom isn't the wheel size
relative to anything, but the absolute saddle height compared to the
ground. I'm only 5'8" with a 31" inside leg but I have the standard
seatpost as high as it will go.

> But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.

What matters here is it might make /you/ happy, by way of faster and
much more comfortable over any sort of distance.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[bornfree]

On 25 Apr, 11:22, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
> > leap off one side every time I stop.
>
> It's not in any way unusual for a correct saddle height to require
> coming off the saddle (forwards is as good as to the side, often better)
> when stopping a bike unless the bottom bracket is relatively low,
> whether on a folder or a "normal" bike.
>
> > I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
> > 16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
> > wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
> > won't be the same here.
>
> The wheel size isn't really anything to do with it: it's quite typical
> for the bars and the seat to be more or less the same height,
> irrespective of wheel size. A low seat height well below the bars,
> unless the bars are particularly high (they usually aren't on folders as
> it makes the fold more problematical) or there is a laid-back "chopper"
> style riding position, usually means excessively bent knees and low
> pedalling efficiency.
>
> The thing to look at in the picture of the Brom isn't the wheel size
> relative to anything, but the absolute saddle height compared to the
> ground. I'm only 5'8" with a 31" inside leg but I have the standard
> seatpost as high as it will go.
>
> > But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.
>
> What matters here is it might make /you/ happy, by way of faster and
> much more comfortable over any sort of distance.
>
> Pete.
..