berlinonaut

I have a Moulton TSR and I love it, the more after having adapted it for my needs. I am running a Rohloff and a SP-hub-dynamo and it is a really solid, tremendously fast and comfy bike. Too expensive? Maybe. But not if you look at the amount of manual work that has gone into it (plus the design and luxury factor for the upper range moultons). These things are handbuilt in small numbers (which takes really long) in the uk which has a little bit of a price tag. The TSR-series as the basic model is basically about the frame - most of the factory-fitted standard-components are very cheap and do not fit the price. But the frame is the best ride I ever had - as soon as the suspension is properly adjusted. If not you'll end up with a bouncy ride.

Other than that the TSR is as many British products: Full of style, gorgeous to look at but with some downsides from a practical point of view. The frame is too small and too short for an average sized European, the luggage carriers need special bags (rear) or are not too practical (front). The paintwork gets easily chipped (at least with the TSR). The frame is relatively heavy. But it is a great piece of engineering as well as design.

When they were developed they were radically different and ahead of anything else. The spaceframe of the 80ies as well as the original Moulton in the sixties. Today the world has moved on and in most aspects other bikes have grown to the same level (or even beyond). So there is no NEED to buy a Moulton. But it is a piece of art and is still going strong. Possibly no one would buy a Moulton solely because he or she needs a bike, may it be for commute or for travel. It clearly is a luxury item, even the "cheap" TSR.

It (mine) could not compete with a decent racer, but on a day to day basis it is very universal, blazingly fast and at the same time very comfy. I really love riding it. Possibly because I am not in the Lycra section but cycling for transport.

Is it overengeneered? I would not say so. With today's possibilities the construction would possibly be different but it is still going strong. And when they were designed they were clearly not overengineered but really clever, brilliant and innovative. I am glad that they exist.

The whole bike ist build around the idea of small-high-pressure-tires plus suspension. And this is still a good idea. Tires have evolved and especially the wider ones have become better. Consequence: I am running 40/406 tires on mine but at a pressure of 6.5 bars. Clearly not what Alex Moulton had intended and clearly more than is comfortable on a unsuspended bike. But with the Moulton I get the lower rolling resistance of the wider tire plus the comfy ride through the suspension.
Would I pay 20k for a top notch Doube-Pylon even I could afford it? Possibly not.

BTW: I own a couple of Bromptons and they are my daily drivers, but after buying my first one I needed some time to get used to it. The Moulton spaceframe was something I wanted and had hoped for years to be able to ride one one day. After I bought a used one it was a bit of a disappointment at first (as the components were a little bit on the cheap side and, like very many Moultons out there, the suspension was totally out of adjustment). Now, having understood how it works, done proper adjustment and having customized it to my needs it it totally brilliant.

One last question: I which sense do you think the Moulton would be overengineered? Just because other bikes ride, too? Would then a Mercedes be overengineered as well or a Porsche (in comparison to a cheap Dacia)? Or would a Morgan Roadster be overengineered (as it is an old construction, built by hand and expensive)? The other question would be: Is a designer jeans overengieered as it costs a fortune and is still not better (if not worse) than a ordinary levis?