Joe Remi

The bottom bracket is within the motor, then the motor mounts to the frame.

GTA

Hi Paul, I just see this thread.
Personally,I don't really care about the brand, I focus on the bike itself.

However, it was funny to see how you described the design of trying to put the battery into the tube. Because coincedentally, I am in contact with one of the key designers in SAVA and I was told that there are some "partner" companies buy SAVA bikes and rebrand them. I believe your "Firefly" is also designed by SAVA.

Anyway, it must be not easy to run a bike company, no matter if you design, produce, or just sell bikes.
The ORIGAMI FIREFLY is still a cool e-bike, from my perspetive. Thanks for introducing it to the forum, and I wish it sells well.

BTW,
I used to own a SAVA carbon folding bike, which is similar to your model "Dragon". It was too heavy (10.X kg as a carbon bike......), so I sold it soon. Perhaps weight is not cirtical for an electric bike.

Pinigis 

Yes, we are partnered with SAVA on this project. Our FireFly model is now on Indiegogo to raise capital for the initial production run.

Bonzo Banana

I don't see why there is any fuss about Origami effectively importing bikes with minor changes as they require that is pretty much the same as most western bike brands nowadays be it Trek, Cannondale, Canyon, Raleigh etc. Some may do more of the design themselves but pretty much they hand over their designs to the company that actually manufactures it and they get on with the real world of prototyping and testing and certifying.

There are a minority of brands that actually design and manufacture the main parts themselves, most are effectively importers. It's a particular beef of mine when you have brands that strongly promote their identity as Italian, German, American etc but effectively you are getting a Chinese bike with at best assembly in that country and you are paying a huge premium for that.

What I don't like about this particular bike is the carbon frame which is designed for a specific mid mount motor. If either the frame fails or the motor fails the bike is pretty much scrap apart from the minor parts you can reuse or you have expensive repairs or replacement parts. Don't get me wrong the bike is very attractive with a great spec but it feels like a high maintenance bike that could have your wallet flapping like a butterfly. For those with high disposable incomes who aren't so worried about long term costs.

The Carbon fibre frame seems more a trendy, fashionable feature rather than having a real purpose here. For me carbon fibre is for those who want to save every gram but the use of a motor negates that requirement.

For me the ideal folding e-bike would be a titanium frame, chromoly forks and hub motor. It may not be fashionable but it would be I feel the best option for most people in actuality who want long term reliability, strength and low maintenance costs. I'd probably have a 3 speed hub on the back and the motor on the front wheel. It would be utterly abusable with a lifespan of the main bike probably half a century or more and when the motor or battery fails they can be removed to make it a standard bike or replaced with easy obtainable cheap parts. As much as like the look of the Origami for me there is nothing more beautiful than polished titanium and because there is no coating on titanium you can always polish an old titanium bike to look like new. It's also the hardest frame material to deform, dent etc which makes it ideal for a folding bike. Unfortunately titanium is out of fashion it seems and the market has moved to shorter life disposable carbon and aluminium frames. Titanium is niche nowadays but for me the most premium material.

avole

That's a little jaundiced and inaccurate. The major manufacturers you mention certainly do design the frames for their bikes, which are then manufactured in one of the Chinas to those specs, Giant I believe does have a CF plant and builds frames for others. Other parts come from other places - drivetrain, handlebars, wheels etc so, just as with cars, these are assembly plants. Yes, some companies simply re-brand bikes developed in China, which seems to be the case here. There are also the marketing brands such as Raleigh, who simply import a bike then slap on their name.

There's nothing wrong with carbon fibre, which outperforms titanium in many ways. The savings are always the weight and longevity, which is why most airliners are a minimum of 50% carbon fibre now, where the fuel saving is increasingly important. Trendy and fashionable? No, not at all, though some buyers might be !

Pinigis 

Actually, the motor is replaceable if there is a failure, and the frame can be replaced as well. The real beauty of the integration of the mid drive motor is that it allows one to utilize the power of the motor over all nine gear ratios, so the rider can use the boost for hill climbing, speed, or anything in between.

Bonzo Banana

Giant were making CF frames for many like Canyon but became too expensive and many brands have moved away from them. For me they represent the best quality. Canyon moved to Quest composites for their carbon frames but still use Giant for their aluminium frames I believe or did about a year ago. That's the thing when brands are basically importers there is no consistency to quality as manufacturer's tender for contracts and often the cheapest get the contract.

You'll need to name a few brands because its diffcult to respond without knowing which brands you are thinking of. Accel group of the netherlands makes heavy use of fuji-ta to supply their frames despite assemble taking place in Europe for their various brands. Dorel of Canada use's fuji-ta too. Many are from fuji-ta's portfolio of frames or with minor modifications. There are exceptions but they are the minority not the majority.

There is a huge cost saving to using stock fuji-ta portfolio frames as they are cheaper, have no design or prototyping costs and are pre-certified. Such designs are already tested around the world by various importers so are often stronger than new designs. Such models make up the low and middle majority of bikes sold. Innovation is normally at the high end of pricing with relatively few sales. The majority of bikes sold in most countries are very low cost models.

All evidence I have seen is the design element of many brands is massively overstated for marketing purposes. I disagree about your points about carbon fibre on airliners I don't think that information is relevant at all for bicycles but there is a great channel here about an ex Boeing engineer who specialises in carbon fibre bicycle frames now and shows the inconsistencies and dangers of carbon frames. He loves carbon frames and makes his own but shows the many issues with frames fairly.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9...4lLOHpb_zbIedQ

Actually a good video here that addresses your point about airliners but it isn't relevant because he points out common manufacturing flaws in carbon frames and it's brittle nature.

kidshibuya

The majority of the brands people are buying design their frames in house. Name one that doesnt?... Here is a list, just find one brand:
https://www.ranker.com/list/the-best...ds/desertrat89

Most brands use their own designs but get the manufacturing done in Taiwan, which is the way you want it. It might sound better to some to have the frame made in some western country but the fact is that it would be worse if made there because the expertise is in Taiwan. You dont want amateurs making your carbon parts.

All weight counts, there is no 4th law of motion that says the rest are void if a motor is used. Less weight will mean the battery lasts logner, the bike is easier/faster to maneuver, brake and accelerate plus easier move about when not riding or caught with a flat battery. If this wasn't the case then physics would brake down, as if an extra kg makes no difference, so another makes no difference, so another makes no difference and so on till you have infinite mass that is as light as s feather.


Yeah you are absolutely right. Mistakes can be made in carbon fiber production but welding titanium is completely fool proof, it simply can not fail, corrode or suffer stress fractures.

And for the record there are many ways to make a carbon material, many ways of layering and compositing. You cant just use one example to say they are all bad. Its largely a myth that carbon detonates a nuclear warhead when it gets a little stressed. There are ample examples of little cracks or tears in carbon with the overall part still working. Hell if carbon just shattered like many would like people to believe then those who repair carbon would be out of the job.

Bonzo Banana

Is that really true in a practical way, lets say 3 years from now when both motor manufacturer and frame manufacturer have moved on to new models will there be any chance of replacing those parts at a reasonable price.

If I buy a hub motored wheel e-bike I can simply replace that wheel with the latest model as long as it shares similar electrical characteristics. 36V etc. Will the new mid mount motors have the same mountings? I've seem quite a few issues written about with mid mount motors and expensive repairs plus excessive drivetrain wear. To my mind the motor needs to go on the front wheel this keeps the bike simpler and more reliable and also means sorting punctures is easier or at least makes it so it takes a similar amount of time to fix punctures front or back.

Bonzo Banana

My point about carbon was its a performance material that isn't robust and if you are putting a motor on the bike anyway in my mind its seems a waste to compromise the long term use of the bike especially if a failed carbon frame means the investment in expensive electrical components is also wasted.

I'm not sure what you mean by that list many brands there are actually Chinese bikes with little input from the main brands. If you just look at the fuji-ta video you can see they openly claim to make Cannondale and Bianchi and many of their stock portfolio road frames are near identical to those sold under those brands. The company is the largest bicycle manufacturer in the world with 20 million complete bikes made a year and a huge number of frames for other companies to assemble around the world. They have comprehensive design, testing and certifying facilities and many of the Cannondale and Bianchi models are clearly derived from their own portfolio of models which is a good thing as fuji-ta's designs are excellent, well-tested and very high quality. I'm sure I could look at many brands there and make the case easily that the bikes are pretty much designed in China. What on earth would fuji-ta want from Cannondale or Bianchi anyway they are an advanced manufacturer using state of the art design and manufacturing equipment they know their own processes, materials etc. Cannondale or Bianchi might want a few tweaks to geometry or styling and they choose the colour scheme but what else could they possibly need from these brands? Also worth pointing out that fuji-ta have nothing to do with Taiwan they are a mainland China company and from I've read while the frames may be made there for Cannondale I think bike assembly is somewhere cheaper like Vietnam at least for the European market (to avoid EU duty possibly).

Here in the UK many UK shops are importing mountain bikes and winning awards for their quality price ratio often beating many more expensive brands for feel, geometry etc. Brands like Vitus and the Calibre Bossnut have been award winners so if the big brands are designing their bikes they are certainly doing a very poor job of it. The reality is shop brands have simple logistics so they can afford the better chinese frames and components for the same price point because they import and sell directly without middlemen. Surely if a shop brand bike can outperform a much more expensive famous brand bike then their design input is adding no value. I don't believe there is design input by them but if there is it must be very poor.

One last point I will make is by designing their own frames they will add hugely to their costs. If they come up with a genuinely new design it has to be prototyped, tested and certified which is very expensive and I believe fuji-ta will require a large order for such work. This will add hugely to the retail price and make the product less competitive. I'm not saying they aren't doing this but you can understand the financial pressure to buy a pre-certified frame design which gives them a much larger margin and reduces risk.


Road Bikes - Tianjin Fuji-ta Bicycle Co.,Ltd.

Bonzo Banana

Again that link shows a very fair appraisal of carbon fibre from a person with massive knowledge of the material. As stated poor carbon frame manufacturing is common. I'm not sure why you make such a ridiculous point about titanium but any fair assessment of titanium vs carbon fibre would certainly show it to be a much safer frame with long term durability and strength except for rare exceptions. Titanium welding is difficult and requires specialist equipment but a high quality strong frame is easily achievable by a skilled welder.

GTA

No doubt that carbon fiber is one of the best materials for bikes, but not specificly for FOLDING bikes, because the joints and reinforcements still need to be metal structures, in most of the cases.

kidshibuya

All I asked was for you to give the name of one single brand. You failed. Its super easy to see why you failed also. Take a look at any new bike review on youtube of any of the big manufactures flagships and you can see the reviewers point out the design changes for the new model. The frame designs are changing each generation, especially for aero bikes.

And mistakes in manufacturing are not "common" and I very highly doubt you have any numbers to back up your claim. Look at the professional tours, has there been any difference in the rates of bike failures since the switch from aluminum to carbon?... No. Why? Carbon bikes are a risk right? Are all pro riders just super lucky?

Lets see some actually data and not dribble:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/...tigue_test.htm

Oh what do we have here?... Titanium bikes not looking so hot now we have actual data and not internet scare mongering are they? And that was against old (very old) generation carbon frames. The only bikes that survived the test were carbon and aluminium, steel and titanium seem pretty poor choices for longevity. In fact everyone's go to "last forever" steel is by far the worst, the first three bikes to fail where steel. But nobody will believe it because their preconceived notions are far more important than data and test results.

Even your premise of keeping an ebike forever is highly questionable. Do you really believe we are now at the pinnacle of ebike tech and in 15 years your ebike wont be vastly outdated? Still think you will get latest generation batteries compatible in tech and form factor? Think you will be able to get a motor that fits also? This field will move so fast that anything you purchase now will be just junk soon.

Bonzo Banana

mkatz

A (relatively) lightweight folding ebike with an integrated bottom-bracket motor: I'm interested. I look forward to reading reviews after it has been released!

Pinigis 

mkatz

agreed. I used to have a Riese & Muller Tinker; at 50lbs+, it was too heavy for me to lift into or out of my car. The reason that I'm going to wait for owner reviews relates to my experience with the wide varience of functionality (e.g. smooth delivery of power, ability to handle hills, smooth action of the disk brakes, "twitchiness" of steering...) that I've experienced in my testing of bikes and of folders.

I look forward learning of the continued development of this bike.

Pinigis 

If you are in the Richmond, VA area, you are welcome to come by and try it out. I think that you will be pleased because the power delivery is exceptionally smooth since the mid-drive motor is directly amplifying the rider's input for a very linear output.

mkatz

Unfortunately, I'm a west coaster (Portland, Oregon).

kidshibuya

What... You said Cannondale and Bianchi, you seriously going to claim they dont do in house design? All the factory tours and unique designs and hundreds of bike reviews some kind of huge conspiracy? The pro teams riding them, sometimes testing new prototypes are being fooled? Are all the teams actually riding the same bike but there are drugs in the water or something making everyone just think the bikes are different? Or maybe its trick paint the Chinese invented, makes bikes look different when they are all the same design... Yeah, makes sense.

Oh please... We dont ride metal cubes, we ride bikes and bikes have welds and designs. You will note that is was the welding that killed the steel bikes. Its not the material in question, its the completed bike frames that contain the material but only have the structural properties of itself as a bike frame. You are basically claiming that you can tell the strenth of any frame just by the materials used in it, which is laughable. Equally laughable is your claim that the tests are not valid because they were race bikes (light), is there a class of bikes that are OK in your mind to test? What market segment is the officially approved structural integrity segment? Should we be testing the sub $300 store bought bikes as nobody has gone over their designs eliminating performance deficiencies?