joose

You'd be right if the Brompton world didn't have Leonard Rubin. The fact that it does means that, as opposed to the paper clip world, people care tremendously about improving the Brompton because the Brompton doesn't work well enough for most and is languishing at the hands of its creator while the rest of the industry can't/won't take up the torch due to the immature market and/or unfair exploitation of patent loopholes.

Your talking about one person here. While I can agree that there will be a number of owner's who have improved their bikes for their needs, it does not mean that for most owners it doesn't work well enough. It's an amazingly far fetched arguement!

Your second point on why the rest of the industry hasn't made a Brompton killer has flaws as well. Firstly, an immature market. Dahon have the resources to bring out many new/refined models each and every year. So why haven't they brought out a Brompton killer? The market is large enough to support all the models Dahon is selling, one more model wouldn't cause any problem. If as you say it's because of unfair exploitation of patent loopholes, why not design a bike a different way? If they need to be able to design a bike along the Brompton principles to achieve a bike that folds as well, then that renforces the idea Brompton got the original idea right all along, hence refinement of that idea and not reinvention.

Steve used to back me up on the fact that folding bikes are not all their cracked up to be (Brompton included), but now that he bought a Brompton I wonder if he drank the koolaid

Wouldn't you be more inclined to trust Steve's viewpoint as before he was coming more from your current one? It seems that he may be a little more open minded than yourself?? Perhaps it's you on the Koolaid??

DO need to develop their bike, because everyone else is catching up.

I'm not saying Brompton doesn't need to develop their bike, which they already DO. It seems that alot of people talking on this topic are confusing slower with none.

Brompton's speed - standstill
Speed of the rest of the market - quite fast
Brompton's effective direction of travel - backwards

A thousand companies have fallen into the same trap.

If you want to argue that a slower pace of innovation may be bad for Brompton, we can have an interesting conversation on whether thats true or not. But to simply keep saying that Brompton do no innovation is wrong and pointless.

What does Brompton have then? British racing green, and that's it.

Er, quality, parts that work (don't hear much about seatpost slipping on Bromptons etc), access to replacement parts, brand (it does mean something to people).

Consider Alex Moulton (the bike company). They came out with their signature AM range of bikes in 1983, protected under both functional and design patents. They continued to make evolutionary changes to these bikes, well, actually, right through to the present day. Knowing that when patents expired it would leave their business at the mercy of any lower cost producer that wanted to take up the design, the Moulton company introduced the revolutionary NS bike design right as the patent protection expired on the AM. Since that time they have made evolutionary changes to the NS. Also since the AM, they introduced the APB design through Pashley, and as the patent protection expired on that design, they introduced the TSR models.

So the small (much smaller than Brompton in number of units built) Moulton company has protected their business (and served cycling!) by introducing new, innovative and protected designs. This has forced any competitors into the less lucrative position of only being able to copying older generation Moulton models. This disincentive has wound up preserving the production of the AM exclusive to Moulton as well.

And who can afford one? No denying they are amazing bikes, but they are the real Morgan of the folding bike world here, not Brompton.


Now I'm not saying the Brompton is all things to all people (I myself have a Curve and want a Strida next), but some of the arguements here are simply daft! Arguement 1 - Brompton doesn't innovate. Wrong, it does just at a slower pace than you want. 2 - Brompton is only where it is today because of trademarks/patents etc. Half true, they protect their design as they are allowed to do. However, whats the rest of the manufacturers been doing for the last 30 years? I keep getting told there is a 'revolution' coming in folder design.. where is it? Brompton isn't pulling people into courts over other companies inventing new ways to fold. If your telling me that everybody is waiting for the Brompton trademark etc to end before they can produce something as versitile, then all your telling me is that Brompton got something important, very right, a long time ago. 3 - Brompton needs to reinvent its bike.. why? Again, if there was this amazing new fold etc that Brompton hadn't designed, where was the other companies in the last 30 years in bringing this to market?

Sammyboy

I completely disagree about Moulton being Morgan. Moulton make arguably the most advanced bikes in the world. Morgan make arguably the least advanced cars.

Ok. Brompton doesn't innovate. It has improved the quality of its parts, but there's no innovation in that. You are absolutely right, they DID innovate, they made perhaps the biggest ever advance in folding bike technology, but it won't last for ever. There've been lots of other advances since then, Strida for instance. There will be a better fold - before Brompton, people thought the Raleigh 20 fold was the ultimate. It's taking a long time because it, like the Brompton, will be a work of genius. You're quite right, maybe Brompton already has the next generation designed, and if so, they're doing a smart thing by keeping it on the drawing board until their patent expires or the Brompton killer finally arrives. Nevertheless, if you're a good enough industrial designer to create the Brompton, you could also be creating other smaller innovations which would keep your bike further ahead.

The point made previously about "see how many of us here want Raleigh 20s" has no real validity. Go out in London and tell me how many 20s you see. There are thousands rusting in sheds, but what you see on the road is Bromptons and Dahons, despite the cost. People like new things. There will be a revolution coming, just because that's how the world works.

mulleady

There is no way the folding bike market is mature. It is in both the growth stage in global sales and innovation at the moment. Just look at Dahon's sales growth of over 30% as just one example. Brompton have similar figures which could be even higher if they expanded their productive capacity and distribution channels.

I would like to put my criticism of Brompton into perspective and reply to a number of what I call OTT statements made in the process regarding Brompton as a company and its founder Andrew Ritchie:

1) Brompton is not going backwards as some people claim, merely slowly forwards. Brompton bikes have improved in ride quality and options over the last 5 years. The point at which they start going backwards relative to the competition in their class still remains as a probability in the future made on choices over the next 5 years within the company.
2) The Brompton is not a high performance folder and doesn't require high performance parts. The market for ultra-expensive versions such as the Ultimate Folding Bike (UFB) based on the Brompton fold is a very limited market for hobbyists with very high incomes. The Brompton is designed for ergonomics, efficient folding, riding geometry and long-term durability. On those counts it still excels, hence its current sales and excess demand at this moment in time. None of the anti-Brompton brigade can deny this fact. They would probably never buy one anyway.
3) Those who claim the Brompton is a poor or very limited folder have generally not ridden the bike for very long and jump on the bandwagon. Even when they have it is simply the fact it is not the folder for their riding style and riding requirements and they generalise off the back of this.
4) Some comments on Brompton as a company eventually heading towards bankruptcy like Schwinn are very misfounded. Brompton is a well established niche brand and also has a strong British following and a cult following overseas. Good for them! Some people don't like this, what is the problem? The worst that would ever happen to the company is a slowdown from their current heights and either a reduction in profits or a future takeover by a larger and more expansive company.
5) There is nothing wrong with Brompton being conservative. There is also nothing wrong with Andrew Ritchie (who comes across as a modest gentleman) owning a private limited company that is probably based on social capitalism and traditional values. A far cry from the over-lending and now under-lending extreme capitalist models of global banking and the current financial crisis worldwide and many other corrupt corporations.
6) As I've said before Brompton was a folding bike ahead of its time in the 1980's and the early 90's and is now a bike of its time. To call it old-fashioned and outdated when it still remains one of the class-leaders in its segment shows how many of its most extreme critics are missing the point.

Having defended Brompton on the above and pointed out that many observations of Brompton are either OTT or misfounded, there still remains the issue of how the market is currently moving as a whole. I own a Brompton and it is a great bike and sits alongside my Dahon Mu SL for its specific purposes. What some of us want to see are more realistic lightweight designs and to see Brompton's product development management and engineers stop ignoring the market demands for improved shifters and hub geared options. Titanium parts with ludicrous premiums and modest weight savings is not the way forward. The new wide spaced hub is not enough, it is far too conservative and ignores what the market wants. This includes many loyal Brompton followers as well as prospective customers who will be faced with far more compelling choices in the ulta-compact 16" (or close) class over the next 5 years.

bykerouac

+1.

Joose, you keep insisting that most Brompton owners are satisfied with a vanilla Brompton and do not see the need for imrpovement. Tell me, do you like the brake system and shifters on your Brompton?

EvilV

These two features could easily be improved. Frankly, I think these and a wider gearing range are all that Brompton should do.

I acknowledge the detailed and thoughtful post of Mr Mulleady above - he knows about business too. However, the focus on weight for Brompton is I think misplaced. If the whole bike were made of titanium it might be easy to carry, but those who could afford it, could probably afford a servant to carry it for them. Making radical alterations to the bike to make it lighter might ruin what it is a splendid, hand brazed steel frame of an ingenious design that provides excellent ride and foldability and fits very different sized people. Even Mulleady can ride one.

Sammyboy

Let me make myself clear:

Brompton now: class leading folding bike. Not outdated.

Should have: better brakes, proper multi speed hub

Could have: many other innovations, by which I mean really new folding bike ideas, not more expensive conponents

Will eventually need: another big innovation to stay ahead

I'm not anti Brompton. I simply admire their bikes, regret their lack of willingness in multi speed hubs, question their long term strategy

timo888 

https://www.ecovelo.info/2008/09/17/b...ide-range-hub/

Does this new 6-speed hub suffer from the forward-freewheeling problem, a problem that has supposedly been solved in the new version of the SA8 that will be made available to distributors for sale after their stock of older hubs has been sold?


See also: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/sturmey-archer.html where the forward-freewheeling problem is attributed to cable misadjustment.

Regards
T

somnatash

On the hubs:

One often heard criticism on brompton is: "they use too much proprietary parts". Some think it would be better to broaden the triangle to accommodate current "of the shelf" 8Spd hubs. Some say like: if brompton keeps using proprietary parts, it will survive only in case the folder market stays small but become obsolete in case the folder market grows.

I don't agree. All current standard 8-14 spd IG-hubs (except SA-XRF8 or soon XRK8) are designed for non folding big wheelers and hence are a bad compromise on small wheeled folders. Brompton refuses to adapt their bike to current bad "of the shelf" standards (bad in respect to the necessities of fold - the hubs not only being too wide for a slim fold but also too large in diameter = stress on the spokes and not adapted to small wheels in respect to gear progression).

When the folder market grows (which I believe), more customers and more hub producing companies will soon realize the benefits of narrow OLN dimensions to achieve the important goal of a small fold. Folder specific IG-hubs with OLN about brompton size or smaller will become the folding bike standard. The bromptons from now and from yesterday will be upgradable (not so easy the broad triangled of some other brands). Brompton will have proved again their commitment to sustainability and their ability to think long term.

And they use their growing power to influence hub building factory. I agree: to develop the BWR (new wide 302% range hub) is not enough but for the time being its a step into the right direction. Imho a far better step than to broaden the triangle. And it seems a very logical step to me, when one considers the conditions of the brompton bike and the principles of brompton co:

• The bike has/needs a chain tensioner for folding - so its very logical to doubleuse that as a dérailleur since one can so with almost no weight added and without another part to brake.

• weight and reliability/robustness: the BWH with 940g is a fairly light hub and we all know that 3 spds can be made very reliable and robust.

I heard they are now developing a one hand shifter. If I compare the range of the BWR = 302% and the weight = 940g to my own modification with a delicate SA-XRF8 =305% and 1480g - uuh well.

Sammyboy

I've got lots of 3 speed SA hubs, none of them gives me forward freewheeling problems unless they're maladjusted. Typically, once adjusted, they stay adjusted.

timo888 

One has to weigh such positive anecdotal evidence against the negative anecdotal evidence of SA8 owners who do have problems with the hub, even after repeated adjustment, against the possibility that folding the bike may cause the cable to go out of adjustment, against Brandt's detailed explanation of the underlying cause of and solution for the problem, and against the remark on the Sheldon Brown website that the problem has been solved by SunRace, though Sheldon appears to have disagreed with Brandt on the cause.

I've also had several bikes with SA8 hubs that kept falling into neutral despite repeated adjustments by the shop tech.

Regards
T

joose

I completely disagree about Moulton being Morgan. Moulton make arguably the most advanced bikes in the world. Morgan make arguably the least advanced cars.

I agree with that. My point was, with all the advancements that Moultan have made, they have turned themselves into a expensive niche product. This is where I make the link that they are closer to Morgan than Brompton.

mulleady - All really good points and the closest to how I feel.

Joose, you keep insisting that most Brompton owners are satisfied with a vanilla Brompton and do not see the need for imrpovement. Tell me, do you like the brake system and shifters on your Brompton?

Thats not what I've been saying at all. I've said (when against the arguements that say most of Brompton owners are disatisified with it) that the majority of Brompton owners are very happy with their bike. My Brompton? If you read more carefully the previous posts you will find I own a Dahon Curve D3 and that the next bike I want is the Strida 5.

These two features could easily be improved. Frankly, I think these and a wider gearing range are all that Brompton should do.

I acknowledge the detailed and thoughtful post of Mr Mulleady above - he knows about business too. However, the focus on weight for Brompton is I think misplaced. If the whole bike were made of titanium it might be easy to carry, but those who could afford it, could probably afford a servant to carry it for them. Making radical alterations to the bike to make it lighter might ruin what it is; a splendid, hand brazed steel frame of an ingenious design that provides excellent ride and foldability and fits very different sized people. Even Mulleady can ride one.

I agree

Let me make myself clear:

Brompton now: class leading folding bike. Not outdated.

Should have: better brakes, proper multi speed hub

Could have: many other innovations, by which I mean really new folding bike ideas, not more expensive conponents

Will eventually need: another big innovation to stay ahead

I'm not anti Brompton. I simply admire their bikes, regret their lack of willingness in multi speed hubs, question their long term strategy

All reasoned, fair points. We would enjoy a pint or two discussing these areas in the pub I think

I only got involved in this dicussion when some of the more OTT remarks were being said. Frankly I'm surprised makeinu didn't roll out a stupid graph proving Leonard Rubin was the most average Brompton owner in the world and therefore (based on this) the level of dissatisfied of Brompton owners when piled flat would reach the moon or some nonsense? I've seen the ones that prove when going over a pothole, the Carry Me is the best bike in the world, just waiting for the graph that proves, yes pigs can fly and their fond of doing loop de loop

timo888 

That is a happy and not implausible scenario. An unhappy and plausible scenario is that Dahon will use its even greater clout to establish a de facto standard for narrow rear-hub spacing that is slightly incompatible with the Brompton.

I'd like to see a narrow NuVinci.

Regards
T

makeinu

My referral to one person (Leonard Rubin) was meant to be a poetic and succinct way of pointing out the difference between Brompton users and paper clip users on the whole. As I mentioned before I don't think you get a person like Leonard Rubin rising from the crowd unless you also have a large number of dissatisfied users; point being there are reasons to believe that paper clips satisfy the needs of their users much more effectively than Bromptons.

As far as the maturity of the market, I'm not denying that Dahon has the resources to bring a Brompton killer to market. However, it's not hard to understand why they haven't. Being the folding bike leader in terms of sales Dahon has certainly proven that they know how to attract customers; So it wouldn't seem to make much business sense for them to try to pick off Brompton's anemic customer base. Dahon bikes serve and are intended to serve a different need, so there's little reason to expect them to make a Brompton killer unless they can also make it dovetail with their own design goals (which are different from Brompton's).

Certainly and I'm eager to read Steve's current perspective...but I still can't picture myself wanting a bigger folder unless it's cheap enough to lock outside.

1- So what?
2- It's not hard to see the revolution: tikit, IF Mode, Mu SL, Carryme, etc. These are all bikes which offer incredible improvements over what was available 30 years ago. Of course the other half of the truth is that although much of the same innovation could be applied directly to the Brompton it hasn't been because...
3- In the last 30 years the other companies have been prudently designing bikes for different audiences. As an owner of a Curve and a Brompton, you should understand more than anyone that these companies try to serve different needs. The market's undeveloped enough that there's little sense in anyone trying to steal Brompton Co's lunch. For example, I don't see Brompton concerning themselves with making a better packing bike than Bike Friday, so why would we expect Bike Friday to direct their efforts at making a Brompton killer? That's not to say we shouldn't expect to see it eventually (and we are starting to see it with the tikit), but it seems to be in every manufacturer's business interest to make improving on their competitors (as opposed to simply improving bikes for their own segment) the last priority.

joose

My referral to one person (Leonard Rubin) was meant to be a poetic and succinct way of pointing out the difference between Brompton users and paper clip users on the whole.

Wrong. You mentioned Leonard Rubin way before I mentioned paper clips. Lets not attempt change the facts please

'to try to pick off Brompton's anemic customer base'

These type of comments are self defeating for you as they show your dislike of Brompton, over any rational arguement you may put forward. Simply put, I don't trust your opinions on this as its clear you simply don't like them.

As an owner of a Curve and a Brompton, you should understand more than anyone that these companies try to serve different needs.

As stated before to another poster, I don't own a Brompton. R.E.A.D posts more carefully.

By the way, using you as a Leonard Rubin (I have nothing agaisnt this person) example. You are the one person on this topic who thinks most Brompton owners are unhappy because Leonard spends alot of his own time improving the Brompton. Using that as a basis, i.e. one person believing something meaning the majority believe it, I would assume that the majority of posters on this topic agree with you.

Right?

Why is it then, not one single other person has agreed with that statement? Could it be that this has no rational place in any arguement???

makeinu

Good Lord. There are many many many examples of extensive Brompton mods and Brompton moders and there are also many examples of Brompton owners and potential Brompton owners explicitly expressing that the bike is not what it's cracked up to be. I previously mentioned that I believe these facts are all related and from that point forward I've been using Leonard Rubin as an icon to represent the entire collection of them. Since you obviously take objection to this manner of speaking let's just drop it.

That being said, you are right, perhaps I shouldn't be commenting in this thread because I don't personally like the Brompton. It's too expensive to ever lock outside and it's too big/heavy to always take inside and I don't believe any amount of innovation will ever change that. What it seems nearly ideal for is packed rush hour suburban commuter trains with luggage facilities, but that fails to impress me personally because packed rush hour suburban commuter trains can be easily avoided by simply living closer to where you work. So perhaps the hypothetical question of what I'd want in a bike to meet needs I don't have or intend to ever have is moot.

joose

There are many many many examples of extensive Brompton mods and Brompton moders and there are also many examples of Brompton owners and potential Brompton owners explicitly expressing that the bike is not what it's cracked up to be.

Now this is fair. It's just when you say the majority of owners I can't believe it.

I've been using Leonard Rubin as an icon to represent the entire collection of them.


I accept that thn, but it wasn't clear to me before that you were doing that.

Since you obviously take objection to this manner of speaking let's just drop it.

You know, we would never have this problem speaking face to face. You never get the full aspect of communication through words on the screen. Sammyboy had the same problems understanding my viewpoints earlier as I wasn't as clear as I thought I was being.

That being said, you are right, perhaps I shouldn't be commenting in this thread because I don't personally like the Brompton. It's too expensive to ever lock outside and it's too big/heavy to always take inside and I don't believe any amount of innovation will ever change that. What it seems nearly ideal for is packed rush hour suburban commuter trains with luggage facilities, but that fails to impress me personally because packed rush hour suburban commuter trains can be easily avoided by simply living closer to where you work. So perhaps the hypothetical question of what I'd want in a bike to meet needs I don't have or intend to ever have is moot.

These are fair(ish) points espcially as they relate to you personally. I take it you rent when you say this? 'simply living closer to where you work'. I own my house, many do in the UK and moving closer is rarely a simple matter!

Sammyboy

I wasn't making any comment about the SA8. My experience of the AW runs to double figures - I've never had one I couldn't get shifting with ease, and when I was a kid, and everyone had them, I didn't hear about this. I HAVE experience the forward freewheeling, and it was easily fixed by following the instructions on Sheldon's site. My experience of the SA8 runs to precisely one, and I've found it easy to get set up, and largely non-problematic. That said, enough people here who I would absolutely trust to set up an AW say they have had an SA8 that they can't get shifting smoothly for me to believe it's an issue. Based on my own personal experience, I'd happily have an SA8 in a Brommie, or any other small wheel bike, but I can appreciate the hesitancy. Brompton probably has a machine shop though, or could easily make good contacts with one. They could easily get 10,000 65t chainrings machined up for not too much money, and then the Nexus 8 would be feasible.

bykerouac

Actually I discerned that from your posts, I just wanted you to put it in definite writing. Perhaps if you owned or have ridden a Brompton extensively you will find out why Brompton owners have a tiny bit of dissatisfaction with the bike's brakes and other components considering the amount of money that they paid for the bike. I do not know why you keep arguing in circles defending Brompton's "perfect" (for you) innovative/improvement policies, and supposedly "perfect' bike when it seems that Brompton cannot even convince you to buy their product

Again as a Brompton owner, I think the bike is great, certainly one of my favorite bikes, but it can be improved a lot with minimal tweaking before it leaves the factory.

Perhaps if you try one you would know why.

timo888 

https://www.newfoldingbikes.com/2009-...folding-bikes/

LittlePixel

C'mon people. Semantics. Yawn.

timo888 

Anybody here know enough about UK trademark and intellectual property law to say whether someone in the UK could blithely sell, free from infringement claims, a suite of aftermarket parts? Replacement main tube, replacement rear triangle, replacement handlebar post, etc etc? It's a contentious legal area here in the States.

Regards
T

Raxel

Some comments:

1. Made in UK does NOT guarantee its quality. Nowadays most carbon fiber frames are made in mainland china. You won't think that Cervelo S3 that costs 3000GBP for frame alone is poor in quality just because it is made in china.

2. Dahon does introduce literally tons of innovations to folding bike industry.
To name a few: integrated headset, double-lock joints, adjustable handlepost, adjustable stem, suspension hub, low spoked wheelset, niobium rims, dual drive hubs, thudbuster seatpost, MKS detachable pedals, air suspension, ga linkage front fork and so on.... I cannot list them all.


However I cannot see any improvements of '09 bromtons from 10-years-old bromptons. Replacing some parts with titanium ones is hardly an improvement at all - If you get a classic steel 3-speeder and replace its frame with a titanium one, you'll get a slightly lighter Titanium 3-speeder. However I'd rather get a modern aluminium road bike with better wheels, better drivetrain, better components at much cheaper price.

timo888 

If Brompton were to increase in size dramatically in order to take a bigger slice of the pie, their prices would not drop significantly unless they sent manufacturing to mainland China as Dahon is doing.

Being manufactured in the UK may not guarantee quality, just as being manufactured in mainland China is no guarantee that the goods will be a POS.

Regards
T

Rollfast

Schwinn's folly is widely recognized as having been ignoring the mountain bike and lightweight sporting categories too long and if you look into it Waterfords are Paramounts as I understand it and there are still Schwinns in the business (but not under their own name of course). Another factor that plays heavily in many businesses is that family interests were probably diverging in addition to a lack of innovative actions. Look at the San Francisco Chronicle (they eventually sold KRON-TV too) and other papers run by family concerns. It's a fact that family owned car dealerships have trouble passing on to a second generation successfully. Harry and Jack Warner split leaving only one Warner Brother until he died and Warner Communications was created.

You could tell me the stories of AMC and RCA also and I'd understand.

timo888 

Brompton is following the single malt Scotch Whisky business model.

Regards
T