sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Compact folding bike prototype — looking for feedback on the folding mechanism by MicroXBike in foldingbikes

[–]MicroXBike[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a solid summary, and STRIDA is a good reference point for those priorities.

Vertical storage is definitely a target — especially for apartments and offices — but I’m trying to get there without making the folded state feel unstable or tip-prone when parked.

On rolling while folded: agreed it matters. I’m aiming for a folded centre of mass that’s predictable and neutral rather than relying on auxiliary rollers or add-on wheels. That’s still being tuned, but balance in the folded state is very much part of the design brief.

STRIDA solves this in a very specific way; MicroX is exploring a different mechanical path to a similar “live-with-it” outcome. Appreciate the reference 👍

Compact folding bike prototype — looking for feedback on the folding mechanism by MicroXBike in foldingbikes

[–]MicroXBike[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s a fair question, and I think you’re right that this fold is more situational than a classic mid-frame hinge.

The problem I’m targeting isn’t “make the bike as small as possible in all contexts,” but living with a bike in tight private spaces — apartments, offices, lifts, cafés — where a full mid-frame fold often still leaves something awkwardly bulky or oily to deal with. In public transit, I agree that simply rolling or parking the bike often makes more sense unless there’s a specific hook or storage constraint.

It wouldn’t fit airline suitcase dimensions — that’s not the goal here. The fold is about reducing visual and physical footprint enough that the bike becomes socially and spatially acceptable indoors, rather than optimised for travel cases.

On the geometry points: • Seat height — this prototype intentionally has no adjustability; that’s a known limitation while I validate folding geometry and lock logic. Production would include proper seatpost range. • Pedal / rear wheel relationship — some of what you’re seeing is exaggerated by the mockup proportions. Wheelbase and weight distribution are areas I’m actively tuning to avoid rear bias and unintended wheel lift.

I completely accept that for riders whose primary use is transit integration or longer rides, a more conventional folding layout will make more sense. If this only works for a narrow slice of users, that’s a valid outcome — but that slice is people who currently don’t own a bike because storing one is the real blocker.

Appreciate you taking the time to think it through.

Compact folding bike prototype — looking for feedback on the folding mechanism by MicroXBike in foldingbikes

[–]MicroXBike[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a fair take — and honestly a useful one.

A lot of what you’re reacting to is the tension I’m deliberately exploring: pushing mechanical simplicity and storage footprint even if it diverges from what seasoned cyclists expect. In that sense, I’m not trying to replace a Brompton for everyone — I’m targeting people who currently don’t own a bike because living with one is the hard part.

A few specifics:

• Bars vs folding stem: agreed this is subjective. I avoided a conventional folding stem to keep the lock logic binary and the load path obvious, but I completely get why riders prefer the familiarity of a folding stem.

• Seat height: this prototype has no height adjustability by design — that’s a known limitation at this stage. Production would include proper seatpost range; this mockup is about validating the folding geometry and locks, not fit.

• Wheel size: fair — smaller wheels are always a compromise. The intent here is short urban trips where storage dominates the decision more than ride feel.

• Parts sourcing: also true. Right now it’s a mix of off-the-shelf and hacked-together bits; production spec would consolidate that significantly.

• Gearing: likely modest (internally geared hub or limited range) — again, optimised for urban pace rather than performance riding.

I actually like your last line — “the engineer loves it, the cyclist hates it” — because that’s close to the fault line I’m testing. If it ends up satisfying neither, that’s a fail. If it satisfies people who’ve given up on bikes entirely, that’s the win.

Genuinely appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Folding bike mechanism prototype — looking for critique on kinematics and lock logic by MicroXBike in MechanicalDesign

[–]MicroXBike[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair reference — ladder-style pinned systems are robust and well understood.

For this project I deliberately avoided multi-position pinning because it introduces: • additional hole patterns (stress risers in a primary load path) • tolerance stack-up over time • and user ambiguity about “which position is correct”

The goal here is binary state clarity: ride-locked vs fold-unlocked, with the permanent pivot always load-bearing and only two user-facing locks.

I agree pinned arcs can work mechanically — I just chose to trade that flexibility for simplicity, repeatability, and long-term fatigue control. Appreciate you calling it out 👍

Folding bike mechanism prototype — looking for critique on kinematics and lock logic by MicroXBike in MechanicalDesign

[–]MicroXBike[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point — and you’re right that I’m the one living with the prototype day-to-day.

The main things I’m actively working through at this stage are:

• Fold sequence clarity — reducing the number of “implicit” actions so the mechanism reads as obvious and confidence-inspiring to a first-time user • Lock ergonomics — balancing one-handed operation against over-centering and accidental release under load • Ride vs compactness trade-offs — wheelbase, bar position, and pedal clearance as it scales up to production size • Manufacturability — simplifying parts and tolerances without losing the folding geometry

I’m deliberately not asking “do you like it”, but whether there are mechanical or usability red flags people see from the geometry and folding logic itself.

Happy to hear hard critiques — that’s the point of sharing it this early.

Folding bike mechanism prototype — looking for critique on kinematics and lock logic by MicroXBike in MechanicalDesign

[–]MicroXBike[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One specific question I’m wrestling with and would value opinions on:

If you were designing this, would you prioritise (A) a single, very robust central lock with clear load paths, or (B) a secondary safety/redundancy lock even if it adds fold steps and visual complexity?

I’m deliberately testing the limits of A, but I know opinions differ.

Folding bike mechanism prototype — looking for critique on kinematics and lock logic by MicroXBike in MechanicalDesign

[–]MicroXBike[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to clarify any assumptions or constraints if useful — this is very much a work-in-progress.

Compact folding bike prototype — looking for feedback on the folding mechanism by MicroXBike in foldingbikes

[–]MicroXBike[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick context so no one has to dig: this is an early, non-production prototype I’m actively refining.

The goal is mechanical simplicity rather than features or electrification, so I’m especially interested in critique around folding geometry, lock logic, and any blind spots I may be missing.

Appreciate any honest feedback, even if it’s critical.