VeloVision Online

Cassino Online Portugal

Welcome to Velo Vision magazine, covering specialised bikes, cycling as transport and human power. It's a quarterly dose of cycle inspiration.

The current issue is Issue 16. The next issue is out early March 2005.

Subscribe now!

NEW! Discussion forum

Magazine:
- Home
- Current issue
- Previous issues
- Magazine index
- Event listings
- Links
Information:
Subscriptions:
Free small ads

Search news story archive:

Sinclair's new folding bike

Sir Clive's latest gizmo is light and folds small - but has extremely tiny wheels...

Just launched in Singapore, Sinclair's new invention (which we speculated about earlier) is the 'A-bike' folding bike.

Pictures here:

at Yahoo news and bigger here

at the Straits Times

On the plus side it seems extremely light (5kg) - which unfortunately probably also means flexible. It folds neatly as far as I can tell from the pics, in ten or 20 seconds, depending on which article you believe. And cheap - Yahoo quotes US$300, or about £170.

On the minus side it uses extremely small wheels (like the Handybike) - which will be a real liability if the road surface deviates from 'perfect', and whatever he says in the article, they WILL be less efficient than proper sized ones. Doesn't appear to have any gears. And it puts the rider right over the rear wheel, for guaranteed wheelies under any sort of acceleration or hills. No obvious luggage capacity.

Thanks to Mark Sanders (of Strida fame) and others for the links. Mark was previously involved with Sinclair's X-Bike project.

Posted on 09 July 2004

Your comments ...

From: John ([email protected]) on 09 July 2004

Yet another daft Sinclair invention. I can't imagine anyone going further than the corner shop on this - and then where do they put their pruchases?

When's he going to give up trying to re-invent the wheel?

From: Seamus (etc) on 09 July 2004

I remember at the Open Road Try-Out Show in York everyone was so cynical about those dreadful mini-bikes and look what happened to them.

Why is it that we're always so ready to see the negative aspects of any new ideas or products to hit the markets?

From: Old (cynic) on 09 July 2004

Um, so what has happened to them? I humbly suggest most are now rusting happily away in sheds after being played with for a couple of weeks after Xmas.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 09 July 2004

Clive Sinclair is a genius...

...at PR, not design ;-) Who else would be able to get worldwide coverage for half a pram?

From: Mutt (sun hater) on 09 July 2004

If clive was born in any other country, he would be hailed as a hero; here in the UK, the media have labled him as a prat. Gullible sun readers who have never tried nor achieved anything should shut up or put up .... cycnisism is sooo easy.

From: andy sacaife ([email protected]) on 09 July 2004

i agree with Mutt, but crap is still crap!

From: Frederik ([email protected]) on 11 July 2004

Crap? Has anyone actually tried it?

Looking at it is is obvious it won't win the TdF, but maybe it can prove acceptable to the big public... keeping in mind that 'most people' are used to 'pretty crappy' bicycles and still use them surprisingly much... eh?

And 5kg could make a winning argument hanging under the backpack?

From: Bryan Ball ([email protected]) on 12 July 2004

I agree that it looks like crap but for 5 kilos and 300 bucks I'll probably almost certainly buy one. Like Frederick said... Would be great to leave in the boot of your car or at the office or something. There are lots of times that I wish I had a bike with me and don't.

From: andy ([email protected]) on 12 July 2004

Maybe Sir Clive is jumping on the huge sales bandwagon of HandyBikes and Stridas, as it does have a passing resemblance to them both. Though seriously, where the bike really scores is on weight because there isn't much of it (being only 5kg!). Which is probably a good thing.
If only my Brompton could be that light.

From: Antony (Again) on 12 July 2004

Followed the Straits Times link, got:

"Article Not Available

"The article you want has been archived.

"Readers have free access to articles published in the last 7 days. Archived articles are available to subscribers through our Newslink service."

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 13 July 2004

The great thing abought this bike, once you are fed up with it is, it does not take much space in a trash skip folded up.

From: Steven Brandist (stevenbrandist@ya..) on 13 July 2004

Bet you wouldn't say that if it was made of steel.

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 13 July 2004

Yes I would allso say so if it was made of steel.
You are better off walking, then wasting your money on such a bike.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 13 July 2004

Call it the Richard Branson Effect - but Clive Sinclair has this popular image of a plucky British inventor trying to change the world. In reality:

C5: Made by Hotpoint, very cheaply, and bombed totally.
Zike: Bombed again - two blocks of nylon with a bolt is not an acceptable replacement for a headset.
Zeta: Read the A to B review...

I have ridden the Handybike - at least it's steel, so the frame doesn't flex (much) - and I wouldn't use one outdoors.

From: Ann Onymoustopolis (no thank you) on 13 July 2004

Is this the same Clive Sinclair who invented the pocket calculator in 1972 before going on to invent the first affordable home computer in 1980 and the first handheld television in 1984 (as seen in Space 1999)?

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 13 July 2004

He did not invent the pocket calculator, the first was made by Texas instruments.
The first affordable Computer was the Apple, by Jobs, and Woznavic.
Dick Tracys two way wirst radio and TV predated Space 1999 by a decade.

From: Prat In The Crowd ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

Richard Branson effect? Tim Henman effect, more like...

From: Antony (making an observation) on 14 July 2004

Affordable computer? Apple? In the same sentence?

I've never been able to afford an Apple!

I could easily afford a Sinclair Spectrum, however (in the 80's I mean, not now).

Hmm, hang on a minute, doesn't the Mac G5 have an aluminium case?

Surely this makes Steve Jobs "Engineeringy Challenged", to quote Ralf?

From: Ann Onymoustopolis (no thank-you) on 14 July 2004

Don't be an ass Ralf.

Dick Tracy is a F-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-L charcater. The TV's that Clive made were real. They used them in Space 1999 just because it was an easy way to produce a special effect.

The first Apple home computers cost 100's of pounds more than the Sinclair ZX80

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

Sinclair did very well with electronics - taking an already-existing idea and mass-producing it to make it affordable. He went a bit too far (membrane keyboards?!), but it was a good business model.

Unfortunately, you can't quite do the same thing with bikes. The C5 was spot-welded out of pressed steel, with a lead-acid battery, a washing machine motor, and a "made by Hotpoint" sticker.

From: Simon Brooke ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

What Clive Sinclair does is take an existing product concept and production engineer it for extremely cheap manufacture. Yes, I agree his classic failing is to take the cheapness too far and produce something which isn't quite fit for purpose.

However, this bike isn't for us. It's a bike for non-cyclists. It is designed for (and will probably be mainly used for) very short journeys in urban areas, probably mainly on the pavement.

It may very well prove more than adequate for this. It is extremely unlikely to put anyone off real cycling, because it clearly isn't a real bicycle. On the contrary, it may well bring converts to cycling who buy one of these, find that it isn't up to what they want, and go on to something better.

In short, it may well be a Good Thing[tm] and I'm not going to knock it until I've tried it.

From: gNick ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

Great a pedal powered micro-scooter ideal for that group of things that are sold on marketing rather than use - Segway anyone!
It seems remarkaby bulky when folded as well.
Regarding the greatness or not of Sir Clive - I remember Mr Burrows ranting on after the launch of the Sinclair power assist unit that he and his team would be technically good but fundamentally flawed. Hence the C5 which wasn't height adjustable, that power assist aimed at commuters/shoppers but took the place of the rear mudguard and rack, the Zike which had an excellent motor arrangement but dodgy steering.
Happy days

From: Steven Brandist (stevenbrandist@yaho...) on 14 July 2004

Simon Brooke said "On the contrary, it may well bring converts to cycling who buy one of these, find that it isn't up to what they want, and go on to something better".

This is indeed my story. Some years ago I foolishly thought I needed power assist to get me the 10 hilly miles to and from work on my mountain bike. I bought a Zeta 2 and found it wasn't really that good... but my re-discovery of cycling took me to a Spokesfest, and had a go on a recumbent. I was hooked. Two months later the second car is sold and I am commuting everyday by recumbent/Birdy/Unicycle (with assist from the bus part way of course).

Steven
Leicester's most handsome Unicycle rider

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

Antony,
I said that Aluminium was not a good material for bikes.
Aircraft or computers?
When did I write so????

From: Seamus (etc) on 14 July 2004

Wow! What's this then? Two postings from Steve Brandist after a big layoff.

Welcome back.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

The Segway is - however much I hate to admit it - an absolute hoot to ride, though. You also can't fault the engineering or build quality either.

From: Antony (again) on 14 July 2004

http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=620

"And Aluminium is for the engineeringy challenged."

(As a complete uncut sentence)

Not, "And Aluminium is for the engineeringy challenged bicycle builder."

Or, "When it comes to cycles, Aluminium is for the engineeringy challenged."

It's a global statement, or at least it reads like one.

Besides, if aircraft and car manufacturers can use aluminium to good effect, why should it be that it's useless in every conceivable type of wheeled human powered vehicle?

Is it totally impossible that someone, somewhere, could put it to good use in the cycling world?

From: steve green ([email protected]) on 14 July 2004

It's worth reading "Sinclair and the Sunrise Technology" ( I'm not sure of the correct title, and can't remember the aUthor's names; it was published by Penguin in the mid eighties. It's a pretty scathing expose ( you'll have to imagine the acute accent on the last e ) of cuddly Clive's "inventions", yheir usefulness, and his business methods.

From: Steven Brandist (stevenbrandist@yahoo...) on 15 July 2004

Well, thank you Seamus.

A note for your diaries. The Non-ferrous Material Appreciation Society will be having its first meeting next week at Clive's house. Non members welcome. Tea and biscuits served.

From: Span Tally ([email protected]) on 15 July 2004

Darth Ben wrote: "The Segway is - however much I hate to admit it - an absolute hoot to ride, though. You also can't fault the engineering or build quality either."

So it bloody well should be at that price!

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 15 July 2004

Antony, as I tryed to explain before, and you seem incapable to understand, there is no such thing as "just" Aluminium.
There are different typs of Aluminium, for different uses.
As I said before, nonweldable Aluminium with a high allycontent used in aircraft, or used in cars, is not the same as the soft, weldable lowgrade Aluminium used in ceap bikes.
Higher grade Aluminum bikes are not welded but epoxyed because the material is not weldable, without damageing the tubes.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 15 July 2004

The Segway kinda proves the old maxim, though - You can have two of: Cheap, High-tech, Reliable - not all three at once.

Aluminium: I hate to get into this one - but aluminium is not a bad material for bikes, it's just that some designers don't understand it's different properties compared to steel. I have seen broken steel, aluminium, titanium and carbon frames - aluminium frames are not statistically any more likely to break than any other material.

From: Steven Brandist (stevenbrandist@yahoo...) on 15 July 2004

Ah, I see Ralf, this is why the Burrows trike is built in the way it is (glued on bits on the end of aluminum pipes).

To clear this whole matter up, Clive has asked me if you would like to be our guest speaker at the next meeting of NFMAS. The only condition is that you have to arrive by non-ferrous transportation method (aircraft, aluminium or wooden bike, walking, space hopper, Land Rover - without chassis although, mini-scooter or the Sinclair A-Bike). Hope is isn't to inconvenient. Hope to hear from you soon.

From: Ralf Grosser ((Steelfreak)) on 15 July 2004

""To clear this whole matter up, Clive has asked me if you would like to be our guest speaker at the next meeting of NFMAS. ""

I would love to be a guest speaker.
I would also bring along some samples (or pictures) of broken Aluminium frames.

""The only condition is that you have to arrive by non-ferrous transportation method (aircraft, aluminium or wooden bike, walking, space hopper, Land Rover -""
Well, non iron typ transportation would be a Boing 707, or my own nike sneakers.

THe point I was trying to make is, I like steel bikes. I also think that aircraft are well made with Aluminium.
But this does not mean that a bike has to be made of it.

I see a lugged reynolds 531 diamond frame as a piece of art.
I own 3 bikes with high grade steel diamond frames.
My Pedersen and also my AM 14 are steel. The Copenhagen Pedersen has traveled more then
70 OOOKm and the Alex Moulton has done more then 35 OOOKm.
I like my steel, but I have seen bikes with aluminium Frames that had to be replaceds after two years.

From: gNick ([email protected]) on 15 July 2004

Sheesh
I presume those against aluminium alloys for frames use steel rims, cranks, seatposts, brake callipers,....
If used correctly it is a perfectly practical material - my Speedy is now 21 years old and has suffered much in its life but I've never had a fatigue failure.
Remember that a v. light bike may have been designed as a race only beast with the frame longevity traded off for lightness.
Or it may be crap design.
Steel does have the advantage that it can be easily repaired just about anywhere though....

From: Span Tally ([email protected]) on 16 July 2004

Tsk, Mr. Green, and moreover tch! Your Speedy is a /recumbent/ and, as we all know, in Ralfworld(tm) the laws of metallurgy are DIFFERENT for recumbents.

From: gNick ([email protected]) on 16 July 2004

Silly me I forgot - of course all these roadie types who find a rigid carbon rear triangle "softer" than a steel of ally one have a superior sense of materials and can even detect variance due to colour.
Jibber jabber, Jibber jabber, Bathroom squeak.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 16 July 2004

This will be the same kind of person who can feel the difference that a stiff radial wheel makes compared to a springy 3X wheel? ;-)

From: Seamus (etc) on 16 July 2004

Are these at all like the CTC-ers who like a traditional 531 frame 'cos 'cos of it's comfort 'cos it's resilient and it doesn't flex much 'cos it's stiffer at the same time?

From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 16 July 2004

I own 4 bikes made of Reynolds 531, a Peugeot MTB, two Gazelle racers, and an Alex Moulton AM 14 blue.
They are fun to ride, and have given me 14, 14,1 and 17 years of trouble free rideing.
At the shop I moonlight, we have people who have had to replace their Aluminium frames after 2 years and less then 10 000Km of rideing.
THe joke about Müsing was how do Müsing riders great each other on the road?
They hold up on two or three fingers for the amount of frames that had to be replaced on garantie.

We also have people who had 40 year old Gazelle Duch Roadsters rebuilt, and they will be good for decades to come.

From: andy scaife (ontheroadfor.6.weeks.haha!!!) on 16 July 2004

So you won't be getting a Bridgestone Moulton then eh Ralf? Will you be coming to B-o-A this year? If so, maybe we should nominate you to tell Dr Moulton a thing or two about engineering. I'm sure he'd be delighted.

From: andy scaife ([email protected].) on 16 July 2004

BTW,In a blatant piece of misuse for which I pray Mr Eland's forgiveness...
My 12 year old daughter and I are departing on Sunday 18th for a 2000 km ride round England in aid of a local charity providing play schemes and activities for children with learning disabilities.
We are camping, but i am seeking offers of any type of accomodation. If you live near(ish) to the coast, of the Scottish or Welsh borders and can offer a floor, sofas, or even a garden for tent-pitching we would be SOOOOOOOOOOO grateful. I will be offline from now on swo please call and leave a message on 07780 586097. We will turn the phone on from 7 till 8 pm daily.
Thanks!

From: andy scaife (him@again!) on 16 July 2004

just notice the Musing think there Ralf. That used to be a joke relating to Raleigh Randonneurs, made from...531 then 853 wasn't it?
Chainstays used to snap apparently.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 16 July 2004

I've fixed several steel Moultons - the chainstays part company from the lower pivot tube at the bottom bracket. So I braze them back together with a lovely big fillet.

From: Ben - Kinetics ([email protected]) on 17 July 2004

...though it takes a while for them to go - around 17 years and 35,000kms at a guess ;-)

From: Ralf Grosser (Know where) on 17 July 2004

I have been to BOA in 1984.
I have met Alex last year in Salem.
He had me translate material on Airships.
He had just done a ride on a Zeppelin NT in Friedrichshafen.

We did talk about the Bridgestone Moulton.
I also testrode it at Salem.
It was not bad, but not better then my 17 year old AM 14.
He knows that in my opinion weldeabel Aluminium is not an optimal frame material.
There is an 80% chance that I may be in BOA this year.
Thanks for asking Antony.

From: R$alf Grosser (YESS) on 17 July 2004

BTW Antony, the first Moulton Prototype was rivited, not welded Aluminium.
Later models were steel, medium, as well as High grade.
Spaceframe Moultons are Reynolds 531 the newer Pashley Moulton APBs are also 531 Reynolds.

From: Ralf Grosser (Me) on 17 July 2004

I mean Andy, not antony!

From: Ralf Grosser (Me) on 17 July 2004

I mean Andy, not antony!

From: Ralf Grosser (Me) on 17 July 2004

I mean Andy, not antony!

From: Ralf Grosser (Me) on 17 July 2004

I mean Andy, not antony!

From: Antony ([email protected]) on 19 July 2004

> "Antony, as I tryed to explain before, and you seem incapable to understand, there is no such thing as "just" Aluminium."

So you'd agree then that writing, "And Aluminium is for the engineeringy challenged.", is a far too sweeping generalisation, which implies that you consider all Aluminium to be the same, having used the element's name without discriminating between the hundreds of available alloys and thousands (millions?) of uses to which various of those alloys are put?

From: gNick ([email protected]) on 19 July 2004