Advice please, which 24" folding tricycle: Jorvik or Scout?

DIscuss anything relating to non-standard cycles and their equipment.
andrewh1973
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Apr 2020, 9:24pm

Advice please, which 24" folding tricycle: Jorvik or Scout?

Postby andrewh1973 » 30 Apr 2020, 9:44pm

Hi all

I'm looking to buy a 24" folding tricycle (for medical reasons I can't ride a bicycle as I never been able to balance), I note there's not a lot of choice in this market, however. Having ruled out the Pashley Tri-1 as too expensive I've narrowed down my choices to two brands, Jorvik and Scout. For Jorvik I'm considering https://jorviktricycles.com/jorvik-aluminium-folding-tricycle and likewise, for Scout, I'm considering https://buytricycle.com/product/adults-tricycle/

I'd like some thoughts please on both, given that they are similar in specification and looks but very different in terms of price. My main concern with the Scout is that it's only sold by that one online retailer (who appears to be a sole trader/partnership as they're not listed at Companies House) and I've seen no product reviews of it anywhere else and neither does the Scout brand appear to exist anywhere on the web as a maker of tricycles, so it feels like this is just a brand name Buy Tricycle uses on an OEM tricycle range - made by whom then? Yet they appear to have sold enough of them for them to have mostly decent reviews on company review sites. As for the Jorvik, I am not sure if it's just better quality than the Scout or if the higher price is simply down to their overheads being so much higher, being a larger operation with a showroom that Scout's Buy Tricycles retailer does not have.

So please give me your thoughts on both suppliers and if the tricycles themselves if you can. I lean towards the Scout on purely cost grounds and yet sometimes then lean towards Jorvik on supposed (my own assumed) grounds that they are either better supported or better quality (the old trick of price implying some given level of quality over something else that's cheaper) but is either leaning correct? Thus I need some opinion from those who know this industry on which of the two is actually the better bet. Thanks!

PAB855
Posts: 264
Joined: 26 Apr 2014, 3:07pm

Re: Advice please, which 24" folding tricycle: Jorvik or Scout?

Postby PAB855 » 13 May 2020, 4:10pm

Hi. My knowledge is limited to the non folding Jorvik 24inch wheels with e assist, the Pashley Tri 1 folding, which was later fitted with a retrofit e assist and five other upright trikes mostly with e assist, one secondhand ICE recumbent trike and one ( in current use) new ICE Adventure trike with retrofit e assist. The journey took five years.

I could tell you a bit about any of that if it's any use, but we were fortunate to have a charity in this area which had various adapted pedal driven machines and gave us the free use of a couple of these.

The Jorvik was perfectly good quality and there was no quibble when the electronic control unit had to be replaced free of charge. I had to assemble it myself, which was quite straightforward. If you search other postings in this CTC Forum you will find a wealth of experiences and advice, but it's horses for courses. Whatever you do, don't buy any upright trike without a test ride. I will say no more, but we are sticking with the recumbent , being fortunate to be able to afford it. Good luck

Cheers

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17414
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Advice please, which 24" folding tricycle: Jorvik or Scout?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 May 2020, 4:15pm

If you have never ridden a bike or scooter then an upright trike might suit you well. You won’t have “unlearn” how to ride a bike.

Recumbents are much more stable than upright trikes, which tend to be two wheels at the back, and therefore able to tip “out” of a corner - if you have no sense of balance that could be an issue.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.