A folder would actually work fairly well for my current life-style (we spend about a third of each year in an RV escaping the winter weather) and I hate the idea of leaving bikes potentially exposed in the bike-rack - folders would, presumably, fit into the 'basement'. Snug and dry.
But those tiny wheels...and what about the gearing? What does that say about the performance? My style of riding has been to tackle hills in lowest (e.g., 'granny') gear and go slowly - just enough to stay upright - while, on more level terrain (and depending, of course, on the wind) I would seek to maintain a comfortable-to-me, ground-covering gear. It was good for me - I have, literally, never walked-up a hill (well, not with a bike) - and I've climbed more than a few so steep the big problem for me was to keep the front wheel in contact with the roadway! I was a touring cyclist, not a racer, but hundred-mile days were not uncommon and - while my current emphasis may well have shifted to just trying to get in better shape - I still wish to believe my bike is doing the best that can be done in aid of making touring (e.g. - My Goal) pleasurable.
I find myself imagining one just MUST need work harder to cover a given distance with tiny wheels - but I don't really understand the physics (or mechanics) of the problem. And, I can't figure out what gears (i.e., for instance, how many 'inches'?) are available with the Brompton 'six-speed'.
My method is to count the teeth in the largest freewheel and the smallest chainwheel to discover how 'near-granny' is my low-gear combo. And the actual size of the bike wheel plays a significant role in determining those 'inches' (e.g., my 27" road-bike wheel has a much larger circumference - thus a greater distance covered over the ground in one revolution - than a 16" 'folder' wheel.
But I can't figure out if that has any real bearing on 'ease-of-pedaling' sensation. Nor what the proper way to compare such a subjective concept (as my 'making touring pleasurable' standard, above) between my road bike and the Brompton might be.
For sure, having a 16" physical wheel will mean that the gear-produced 'practical' (or 'phantom?') wheel-size in inches will be comparatively low. If that freewheel-to-chainwheel tooth ratio were (an almost impossibly low) 1 to 1, the resulting 'granny gear' would be 27" on my road bike - while the same ratio would produce a miniscule 16" 'granny gear' on the Brompton. Except, maybe, there is NO freewheel on a Brompton? (I truly do not understand how a three-speed, let alone six-speed, shifter system works in this regard nor, now that I think about it, exactly what 'freewheel' means). I would LOVE to learn what those six Bromptom gears translate to - in inches - and how to do the math.
I still can't get past the fundamental concept that I would have to push the pedals around twice on the Brompton to cover about the same distance over the ground as I could achieve with one pedal revolution on my road bike, regardless of the gear. Nor can I decide whether or not those two Brompton-pedal revolutions would be more or less work than the one road-bike-pedal revolution. I know it comes down to the power of the 'engine', in some respect. That is, if the engine were not running poorly because of 'valve trouble' (as mine) AND was practically un-limited in capacity (as is NO human's), then the idea would be to push the highest gear attainable at all times - think how much faster one might go in a 120" gear. But, unlike the diesel-engine in my RV, my personal engine has much more finite limitations. Always has. So I prefer 'granny gears' for hills. I just can't decide if I'm trying to compare apples to oranges here.
Then there is the question of lost-energy due to lack of frame rigidity. One of the issues I have perceived in consideration of a mixte frame (OTHER than the stigma of riding a 'girls-bike' I mean) is that the mixte frame causes potentially less pedal energy to be transferred to forward motion AND contributes to excess frame weight. I wonder if a similar factor is present for the Brompton's folding-frame? And, BTW, what about MY weight? In my touring days, formerly, I came in about 200 lbs. Today it is, well, higher.
Is there a maximum-capacity for the Brompton?I have moved this post to this area because it seems more bike-technical in nature (than the former thread). Folks who have direct experience comparing 'folders' and road-bikes, and any knowlegeable about Bromptons in particular, are especially sought. But all opinions - however formed - would be worth reading and helpful to me.
robert
