mams99

I see all these videos of how to pack a folder for a trip or an S&S coupled bike for a trip, but what about a bike to throw in the trunk of a car? on a train where you don't have to worry about reserving a bike spot?

I have a folder - I have a Bike Friday NWT, but I'm also near the top of the weight limit. Sure, I could order a new Bike Friday with a higher weight limit, but that is $$$ and I can find used S&S coupled bikes for much less. Are they just tricky to get solid tight? The chain stays on, right? You just clip and unclip brake/gear lines and tighten it back up?

Right now if I want to ride my bike out of the city, I have to take our Honda Fit that has non-working AC. We have a Honda Clarity, but a bike can't fit in it well. Even with the Honda Fit, I have to take the front wheel off every time.

tds101 

It's designed for travel, NOT to be packed/unpacked frequently. As much as I hate to say this, a Brompton would most likely suit your needs.

Duragrouch

I agree with the above regarding a Bike Friday; Its problem as a frequent folder is that it has more loose parts when folded and *disassembled*, like the handlepost. Folded, it's not all one-piece.

With a full-size coupler bike, I think even worse. With the wheels on, still pretty large just folded in half, and with wheels off, more separate pieces.

For multi-mode transport, a Brompton reins surpreme, due to it's very compact fold, plus the added bonus of the chain folding to the inside between the front wheel and frame, so far less chance to get anything oily (although a frequent folder is a perfect application for chain waxing instead of lube). A Brompton is small enough to keep beside you or put in the overhead shelf on a train.

However if you don't need to lug a folder far or keep next to you on a train, a "bi-fold" folder bridges the gap for the two above. My Dahon 20" wheel folder, when unfolded, is nearly indistinguishable from a Bike Friday NWT. But it folds different. You fold down the handlebar, you drop the seat post (which also acts as a "landing gear"), and then fold the frame in half laterally, there is a hinge there. Bulkier than a Brompton (I think about 50% longer and 50% taller), but all one piece. Both wheels stay on the bike. The rear triangle doesn't "swing" underneath like a Bike Friday, so the rear rack stays on top and doesn't need to be removed. It's a "neater" fold. (Though the drivetrain is still on the outside, like a Bike Friday.) The added benefit is that, like the Bike Friday, it's fully tour capable. Again, pics of mine below, on the train (in baggage area at end of car) and in tour mode; From baggage to tour, or the reverse, 5 minutes; I need to take off and reattach the aero bar forearm pads, they impede the fold, and panniers and trunk bags on or off. Without panniers, the bike folds or unfolds in 15 seconds. Car fit: Dahon website has folded size of the Mariner, extremely close folded size to my Speed D7. I scienced the heck out of my build, it travels train or car well. 2X crank is not original! That's an upgrade I had to do myself. Other similar folding bikes: Several Zizzo models, and the Origami Bull which has fatter tires, disc brakes, and a front derailleur bracket to go 2X on the crank (I had to add one), both way less cost than a Dahon these days.

Now if I go air travel, I'll have to pull the wheels off and bike apart, to fit in checked luggage, possibly in two different parcels to each fit under 62" max girth.

mams99

I appreciate the responses, but WHY is it not recommended? or why do you not want to do that? Is it hard to tighten? Does it wear the parts out? There has to be a real reason and I just want to understand why.

For sure, a simple fold and toss in a trunk (not really tossing, but you get the point) is simple and I WILL keep my folder for jaunts nearby where I'm not carrying a load with me so I don't need to worry about a weight limit (as I'm not over at or over the weight limit) I just WILL be for a bike tour.

I'm talking about folding a bike maybe once a month tops, or once every few months (more likely) for when I want to go a bit farther from home for a bike ride needing to put on a train or in the trunk of a car ( live on the east coast, so train travel is a thing, but it's also rural with lots of rail trails everywhere too). I'm talking about taking it on Ragbrai, etc. (That will be a once in a lifetime thing I want to do - hopefully next year - And doing the Katy trail, etc.) I grew up in Iowa - doing RAGBRAI is definitely on my list of things to do. My husband is from Europe, I would like to do some riding there too. They are FULL of rail trails!

I have a used NWT already, but I fear I'll top it out when carrying gear (maybe I shouldn't worry about that? I'm NOT topping out upper weight limit now, but carrying gear, I will go over weigtht limit... but if I have a travoy attached to a rear rack? is that better/easier on the bike (I already own a Travoy with adaptor for a rear rack hitch).

I just don't want to be in the middle of nowhere when it breaks because of being overstressed.

Tourist in MSN

What is your goal with an S&S coupled bike? Is it just for splitting a bike in half to make it easier to put inside a car? Or take onto a train?

The Amtrak policy on folding bikes is clear that they have to fold. If you can convince Amtrak that your coupled bike also deserves to be considered a folder, then it should work but you would likely have different Amtrak employees each time.

Do you really see inexpensive used S&S coupled bikes out there? I do not recall how much extra my S&S bike frame cost to get it from the manufacturer with the couplers, but it was not inexpensive. If you really see a used S&S coupled bike in your size at a good price, go for it.

I do not know how important it is to use the special S&S grease on their couplers. I bought the grease and have been VERY frugal with it because it is not cheap. Maybe you can get by with cheap grease?

I see no reason that you could not split the frame on a frequent basis.

If you get an S&S coupled bike, carry a S&S wrench all the time. A few years ago one of my couplers started to loosen on a long ride and at that time I did not carry the wrench, so I had to stop a few times to try to tighten it by hand.

I used a mountain bike inner tube to make some sleeves for each end of my S&S "nuts" to keep the dirt and grime out of the coupler threads. If you ride on gravel, you may consider that, see photo below.



The downtube coupler gets a lot of road grime thrown up on it.

And, if you do this, you might want to carry some worn out socks so that you can slide a sock over the side of the coupler that has exposed threads for when you travel with the frame split. And maybe some rubber bands to keep the socks in place.

If your weight rating on the Bike Friday is on the frame, not any of the components, maybe buy a new frame and move the components over to it? I have no clue what a used Bike Friday frame is worth, but you should be able to get something for the old frame.

I bought my S&S coupled bike frame to save on airline oversize fees. The couplers and the case paid for themselves, but soon after my last flight where they did pay for themselves, American and Delta canceled their oversize fees for bikes. United followed soon after. S&S couplers are not as popular now that they do not offer as much in savings.

And if you are thinking of flying to Europe with an S&S coupled bike, you need a case for it. And it takes a lot of time and work to turn this (next photo) into the assembled bike (in the photo after that).



The above photo is most of my bike in the S&S Backpack Case. The rear rack and a few other parts went into my other checked luggage bag.



Another option are Ritchey Break Away frames, but I think if you are talking about a heavily loaded bike, I think the S&S couplers are stronger than the Ritchey downtube coupler.

mams99

This is very helpful and I thank you. I have seen some S&S coupled bikes for a decent price - there is one now on Ebay in my size, but it would still be the most expensive bike I would own. I guess I'm overthinking it. I just know hauling a bike for us is a big PITB. I guess I'll be asking on a different thread of this site more about my questions about that.

If I lose a few pounds I don't need to worry about it. Loaded or unloaded I'll fit within the BF NWT weight limits. I WAS fine until this past year when stress levels went through the roof (teen with autism taking classes at CC and caring for my MIL full-time and she has dementia. Once I'm more active again that weight will naturally come off as is my usually. MIL is starting a day program now 2-3 times a week so we can LEAVE THE HOUSE!

Duragrouch

I think couplers hold up. I haven't used them, but the tapered teeth seem conducive to a tight joint, and (I think) will accommodate any wear over time. But no experience, so others could tell you more.

Coupler bikes were a fantastic innovation when other options didn't exist for a high quality compact bike (i.e., not a Raleigh 20, strong but heavy and limited gear range). But coupler bikes still have the drawbacks of multiple "loose" parts. But again, they were a lifesaver back in the day, and still are for someone that wants full-size wheels for any reason. Having said that...

Had high quality 20" wheel folders existed, like a Bike Friday, there would have been a smaller market for coupler frames. Regarding your BF:

Weight is most critical for rider weight, in the middle of the frame. As I mentioned previously, rear rack weight will be transmitted directly through the rear dropouts to the rear axle and wheel, and the rest of the frame shouldn't feel that weight. But if you want to run a Travoy, that's also an option, though you should hook it up with touring weight and do a test ride, including fast descents, to make sure of no stability problems; I used a B.O.B. trailer on a three week tour, which had a pivot behind the rear tire, like a car trailer and not a 5th wheel, and on high speed descents, I had to really lock the steering and make slow movements, otherwise I would get "sway amplification", stability issue, and this was with a LONG wheelbase recumbent; On my 700c race bike, in a short slow test ride, it was uncontrollable. The Travoy attaches at the seatpost I think, better than behind the tire, but you should still check stability with a load, including climbing out of the saddle, rocking the bike left and right, the high attachment point may be an issue, or not. Most trailers, with the trailer hitch pivot at the rear axle (like a 5th wheel geometry), should have little to no problems in this regard. However, traveling, the Travoy may add too much transport bulk, maybe not if treated like panniers all strapped together, so a big waterproof duffle strapped to the Travoy.

Amtrak issues, as noted above, might be an issue with a coupler bike, though if in a bag (a must, due to loose parts), I would bet you can bring onboard and put in the luggage rack with no problems.

You could also just "Rinko" one of your current large-wheel bikes (japanese bike touring train style; wheels off, handlebars/stem removed, fork removed, and into a bag with frame). This is not fast disassembly or assembly, but would work for the beginning and end of a big trip. Possibly would work for Amtrak in-car luggage. Definitely would work for air travel where bikes are not charged extra, but you may pay normal checked bag fee. Southwest airlines where checked bags are free, a big NO, a rinko'ed bike won't fit in their 62" max girth, and for oversize Southwest charges a lot.

My personal feelings summary: For light touring, take the Bike Friday NWT, if it's a comfortable fit. For heavy touring, I think you could still do the NWT, and have a lot less transport bulk without the Travoy. But I cannot recommend the original BF rear rack if you have one, crazyguyonabike (big blog online, world tourer) used a NWT with one and the folding rack fell apart, I think you need a better one. BF NWT should also do air travel within 62" max girth, according to him (web page below).

Relevant: When Ewan McGregor (yes, that one) and Charley Boorman decided to ride motorcycles in heavy touring around the world, they first contacted a respected dirt-bike maker in Europe, who hedged at the loaded weight and mileage. They then spoke to BMW about using R1150GS bikes, one of the first "dual sport" motorbikes designed for both on and off road, and BMW said, "Of course. It's what it is designed for." My Point: Traveling with a bike? It's what the Bike Friday was designed for. Frequent folder, folding and unfolding every day? Brompton; It's what it is designed for.

Or if you need things like a suspension fork, and if few times needed to break down the bike, go Rinko with your full-size bike.

Useful links:
Rinko:
https://www.bantambicycles.com/blogg...ko-vs-couplers
https://www.rossmancycles.com/rinko
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2...ing-your-mind/

BF NWT touring guy (both trailered and not, huge tours, third world, TRUST his durability comments, this is just one page of many on his blog):
https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/...page_id=367799

Russ Roth

Having owned one, it isn't that hard to separate the halves to store in a car. The cable separators will help as well. First time trying to line up the ends with cable tension convinced me they were a good idea and they don't cause things to go out once the cables are stretched. But, if I was looking for a more full sized folder I'd probably go with a montague. They're not the most impressive bikes but they are real folders and they've been around for decades. S&S is more about a travel bike than a convenient folder.

pinholecam

If its just decoupled and 'folded', and the price is good, then go for it.
You don't even need to decouple the cables since the 2 parts of the frame won't leave each other for the 'fold'

Just be prepared that its slower to disassemble, though its really not too bad.
Wheels out - 2 mins
Decouple - 2 mins

Schwinnsta

About half the weight of the rack, perhaps less, depending on how it is loaded, does go through frame. The rest goes directly though dropouts.

Duragrouch

Most rear racks are centered over the rear axle, so nearly all the payload weight goes there, the rack stays just hold it from tipping over forward or back, very little load, if there was, most flat stays would buckle, especially since most people curve the stays (I don't).

On a Bike Friday New Word Tourist, most of the rack payload is behind the rear axle, it must be for panniers to have heel clearance when pedaling. My bike is not a BF but extremely similar configuration when unfolded, and if you look at the pic I posted of mine (post #3), you'll see that. This required extra-super-long rack stays that did not come with the rack but were purchased separately, and those are clearly evident as well; Much compression load on those stays and they would buckle and fold up instantly, they are so thin and long. With the panniers well behind the rear axle and supported at the dropouts, if anything, the rack stays would be in *tension*, which would actually slightly counteract the longitudinal bending moment on the frame due to rider weight. I carefully mathed out my rack configuration before building up the bike.

Schwinnsta

[QUOTE=Duragrouch;23180216]Most rear racks are centered over the rear axle, so nearly all the payload weight goes there, the rack stays just hold it from tipping over forward or back, very little load, if there was, most flat stays would buckle, especially since most people curve the stays (I don't).

Yes, but the stays take the load to frame and dropouts. Most of the load does go to the rear wheel as you say, but the racks front stays carry a portion of the load and most of that too goes to the rear wheel. The rack stays must carry the load, or what else holds it up? And if the rack stays don't buckle, then they are structurally adequate.

Duragrouch

[QUOTE=Schwinnsta;23180221]Our comments crossed while each other were writing. Please see my additional comments in my last post.

The rack stays don't take load to the dropouts, but to the seatstay braze-on eyelets, and I engineered things so the tension load there is small, as those welds are not large. I could replace my rack stays with cooking twine and the rack wouldn't move when static. Only under hard braking, might the rack stays take any compression load, and it would still be small, especially if I place the most dense things at the bottom of the panniers, to reduce the vertical moment arm. I also did not attach the rack stays at the normal forwardmost position on top of the rack, but went lower with structural clamps (seen in folded pic), to get a more favorable force angle on the rack, to reduce loads further.

Schwinnsta

[QUOTE=Duragrouch;23180223]I pretty much gave up on the rack that came with my Zizzo. I may put it back, but I think using for panniers would be nearly useless, as it's too low and too forward. I could use it for a top of the rack bag. I mainly use Brompton blocks. I made a clip on beam rack that I sometimes use to supplement the front block. Because the beam is short, 3 or 4 inches, the cantilever effect is not noticeable.

Duragrouch

[QUOTE=Schwinnsta;23180237]Yes, the rear rack that came with my Dahon was the same way, strong enough, but too low and far forward to be able to hang any panniers. Even full-size racks, while tall enough, most are too forward for our folders. That Blackburn one worked perfect, but no longer made. But Axiom makes one that puts the panniers behind the axle (like mine), and, has a lower tier for the panniers (like mine) so easier to put a trunk bag on and off, or have a flat bag on top of both panniers. The super XL length stays are from Jandd, or I think Topeak too. The structural clamps are rubber covered stainless steel P-clamps, found at marine supply store, correct size for where you want to attach on the rack. I chose the fatter rod.

tcs

BikeFriday lists the NWT weight limit @ 230 lbs, rider + gear.



Brompton lists the weight limit @ 242 lbs, rider + gear.

It's 2024. There are any number of modern true folding bikes with 300 lb. weight limits. Quick fold, Amtrak-compliant, 1/3 cost of a BikeFriday.

Schwinnsta

If you are budget constrained. A Zizzo Forte will hold up to 300 pounds, comes with rack and fenders, 8-speed Altus. $549

Duragrouch

A Deltech cable, or substitute as I have fabricated, increases Dahon's monobeam frame designs to 300 lbs and 10 year warranty. This is of special benefit due to the hinge in the monobeam. The same cable should increase the forward frame strength on a BF NWT as well, but does nothing for the strength of the rear triangle and connections, and, may get in the way of the rear tire swinging underneath the monotube during folding, unless the tire goes to the side of the monobeam when folding; I think yes, because BF Diamond Llama and All-Packa have diamond frames in the same shape and fold fine.

Duragrouch

True, but most don't have wide enough gearing, if just derailleur gearing. The Origami Bull frame comes with a front derailleur braze-on, and I've suggested to someone on here who appears to be a seller, to offer them turn-key with wide double crank and existing cassette, THEN it would be the equal of a Bike Friday. They said a month or two back, they would consider that.

Duragrouch

By power vested in me by the Lord High Grand Poobah, I declare the following terms:
- Frequent folder; Easy and fast fold, bonus points for extra compact when folded.
- Occasional folder: A bit longer fold time and/or more bulky when folded.
- Travel takeapart: Extensive time and effort to take apart for transport, but results in reduced baggage fees.

A frequent folder can be used for that, or occasional folder, or travel bike if can be packed small enough.
An occasional folder can be used for that, or travel bike if can be packed small enough.
A travel takeapart can be used for that, or as normal non-folding bike.

I have spoken.

Fentuz

Like other, I don't think a break away bike is best. I was looking into the Ritchey outback break away to use as a vacation/long business trip option. From what I coud see, it s not much different than rebuilding a bike and require some room.
You need to lay out the frame, put it together (not difficult), add the wheels (not difficult) , adjust the handlebar (not difficult but annoying), set the seatpost, reattach the cable (forget hydraulic) and adjust the gear shifting and brake. Nothing difficult and totally doable in an hotel room or air B&B etc. but, it will take at least 20 min and then clean up. Having to do that on a commute, no thank you. on a commute, I would accept to fit the front wheel on a "normal" bike and that s it, not a partial rebuild.
As I said these bike are great option for vacations as you can fit the lot in a std suitcase and use it at destinations but that's it.

Tourist in MSN

As others have mentioned on folding, there are various stages of folding that take more or less time.

It was easier for me to do the first fold on my Airnimal Joey to carry it up some stairs with tight bends than it would have been for me to leave it unfolded when I carried it into a motel room. So, I spent the two minutes to remove the front wheel and fold it. (Shown with normal SPD pedals, not the MKS Ezy pedals I typically use on it.)




To collapse that further if I wanted to get it down to Amtrak size for carrying onto a train, would take several more minutes, would also take a lot of velcro straps, etc. (No straps were used in the photo, I did this level of fold so that I could take some measurements.) Remove the stem extender, lower seatpost, remove the MKS Ezy pedals.




But to fold it to fit into a 62 inch case for airline travel, this is the S&S Backpack case. My Joey is a bit big with the 24 inch wheels, I have to remove the crank arms to fit it, remove the front fork, it packed easier if I removed the cassette from the rear wheel, etc. It took about the same amount of time as it takes for me to pack up my S&S bike for airline travel. Not very convenient.




That said, my S&S bike is a heavy duty touring bike, built to carry heavy loads. Frame is rated to carry up to 60 kg of luggage (not counting rider weight). At the time of the first photo, I think I had about two and a half weeks of food loaded on the bike with my camping gear. Obviously, not all S&S bikes are built this strong, but this one is.

Duragrouch

(above) OK I gotta admit, that is a bigger load than I could fit and manage on my 20" wheel folder. 60kg? That's a LOT of cargo. Mmm, maybe I could. It's the top bag on the rear that fooled me into thinking those were huge panniers, but I have all that space currently with 4 panniers, just not the top bag, and that does seem to make more sense than just a much smaller trunk bag on top like I have. In front, I have a huge space between the front rack deck and the handlebars for something bulky, but preferrably not too heavy.

CrimsonEclipse

Any creaking or noticeable flex on these coupled bikes?

Duragrouch

I don't have, but the coupler mating looks solid, interlocking teeth. I wonder how each side is attached to the frame?