https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:06:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/

I see a surprisingly large number of Moulton's which I imagine are used as commuters. A full sized bike on BART is a real pain in the ass as I discovered the other day when I was on the early commute to San Francisco and the night shift going home commute on the way back with wheelbags with DT Swiss wheels in them. I had gone to Palo Alto the day before to get some 10 speed Record levers and Record Skeleton brakes and had an extra $50 in my wallet in case he had anything else, So when I met the ST Swiss man I accidentally included that extra $50 in his price. I'm hoping he mails it too me but we'll see just how honest out locals are. But he seemed to be entirely honest since he told me about the extra $50.

Except for the Cranks and the finishing touches the Merlin is now assembled.. Waiting for the delivery of the British Power Torque cups which should show up next Tuesday. This puts the final assembly within a couple of days and then I can reassemble the Eddy Merckx aluminum bike. Since I have a set of DT Swiss wheels with a 10 speed Shimano freehub, I guess it will be Dura Ace and probably 9 speed. The Cannondale gravel bike is Dura Ace 9 speed and it is a great group.

On 3/31/2022 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/

I'm curious whether anyone here ever rode a Moulton - either the
original or the modern version with truss triangles. I haven't, but I
remember riding with a guy who was on a modern Moulton. It seemed quite
bouncy to me, as if the suspension needed much more damping.

The original really did seem "original" and unique. Too bad Raleigh
killed it off.

The latter's disassembly seems cumbersome (much worse even than our
Fridays), but I gather that feature was thrown in as an afterthought.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/31/2022 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
>
> I'm curious whether anyone here ever rode a Moulton - either
> the original or the modern version with truss triangles. I
> haven't, but I remember riding with a guy who was on a
> modern Moulton. It seemed quite bouncy to me, as if the
> suspension needed much more damping.
>
> The original really did seem "original" and unique. Too bad
> Raleigh killed it off.
>
> The latter's disassembly seems cumbersome (much worse even
> than our Fridays), but I gather that feature was thrown in
> as an afterthought.
>

Yes, we have a Mark III. Hasn't been ridden in years but it
was our shop errand bike for a decade. Good errand bike.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> I'm curious whether anyone here ever rode a Moulton - either the
> original or the modern version with truss triangles.

I rode a modern one (cheapo version for only 3kEUR or so) once, but only
for a 10 min test ride including some cobblestone. At that time my mind
was already sold to buying a Brompton, and I just wanted to compare a
supposedly much more high-end take on a small-wheel bike with a real
folding bike. The Moulton, in case you do not know, is NOT suited for
folding, but can be disassembled (I would guess in perhaps 10 min, but I
do not know). The Brompton, in contrast, can be folded in 20 s.

The comparison was not much in favour of the Moulton, if at all. Sure,
you can throw 10 kEUR of money at it to get a Super Record on this Ugly
Duckling, but I could not care less. I do care a ton about the folding
capabilities (or lack thereof), and thus the deal was sealed:

I am now happily using my 6-speed Brompton (with rack, dynamo hub and
huge front bag) and managed even to pass some racing bikes on Germany's
highest pass (6 km at a good 9 %, with maximum grade of 16 %). It is a
capable small machine, longest day trip was 200 km horizontal with 3300
m vertical distance.

> It seemed quite bouncy to me, as if the suspension needed much more
> damping.

My Brompton (it has a rear suspension with a cylindrical rubber block)
was too soft for me as well. A nerdy website suggested employing a hose
clamp as adjustable solution. Works perfectly for less that 1 EUR. I do
not miss more damping.

Best regards

Axel

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
>
> I'm curious whether anyone here ever rode a Moulton - either the
> original or the modern version with truss triangles. I haven't, but I
> remember riding with a guy who was on a modern Moulton. It seemed quite
> bouncy to me, as if the suspension needed much more damping.
>
> The original really did seem "original" and unique. Too bad Raleigh
> killed it off.
>
> The latter's disassembly seems cumbersome (much worse even than our
> Fridays), but I gather that feature was thrown in as an afterthought.
>

See folks occasionally with one, possibly same one!

Unfortunately they seem rather left behind, in who would chose one. Be that
the commuter/roadie/Gravel rider etc.

Though in fairness reviews on road do say how comfortable it is due to the
suspension, though was a few years back when roadies had thinner higher
pressures so guess the gap maybe has closed.

Fun looking beasty either way!

Roger Merriman

On 3/31/2022 1:35 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> I'm curious whether anyone here ever rode a Moulton - either the
>> original or the modern version with truss triangles.
>
> I rode a modern one (cheapo version for only 3kEUR or so) once, but only
> for a 10 min test ride including some cobblestone. At that time my mind
> was already sold to buying a Brompton, and I just wanted to compare a
> supposedly much more high-end take on a small-wheel bike with a real
> folding bike. The Moulton, in case you do not know, is NOT suited for
> folding, but can be disassembled (I would guess in perhaps 10 min, but I
> do not know). The Brompton, in contrast, can be folded in 20 s.
>
> The comparison was not much in favour of the Moulton, if at all. Sure,
> you can throw 10 kEUR of money at it to get a Super Record on this Ugly
> Duckling, but I could not care less. I do care a ton about the folding
> capabilities (or lack thereof), and thus the deal was sealed:
>
> I am now happily using my 6-speed Brompton (with rack, dynamo hub and
> huge front bag) and managed even to pass some racing bikes on Germany's
> highest pass (6 km at a good 9 %, with maximum grade of 16 %). It is a
> capable small machine, longest day trip was 200 km horizontal with 3300
> m vertical distance.
>
>> It seemed quite bouncy to me, as if the suspension needed much more
>> damping.
>
> My Brompton (it has a rear suspension with a cylindrical rubber block)
> was too soft for me as well. A nerdy website suggested employing a hose
> clamp as adjustable solution. Works perfectly for less that 1 EUR. I do
> not miss more damping.

We have Bikes Friday, but I've test ridden and test folded the Brompton.
I admit, I'm quite jealous of the rapid fold and the compact folded size!

But choosing a folding bike is a more complicated exercise than choosing
an ordinary bike. On top of the usual "light, durable, cheap - pick two"
principle, you have the compromises between folding well and riding
well. Also, in my view light weight is more critical in a folder, since
you'll almost certainly be lugging the bike from time to time.

As I've said, our lives here have changed, along with our uses for the
Fridays. At the very least, I'm contemplating changing my Friday from
drop bars to flat (or flattish) bars to achieve a slightly more compact
folded package. But I'll admit, the Brompton is tempting me!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/31/2022 5:44 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:06:41 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> Article said "The purchase of the 1,000m2 freehold premises". Used Google to find a conversion link and it is 10,764 square feet. Huge for a house of course. But for manufacturing or even offices, its small. But maybe for a small tiny company making little tiny bikes, its enough space. Seems like they bought the original factory for publicity or sentimental reasons. Not for business purposes.
>

Alex Moulton was born to an estate and made a good pile of
money as a very creative engineer, notably working out the
very forward design Austin Mini front end (which is not
unusual now but certainly was at the time).

After Raleigh turned down his Mk I bicycle design Mr Moulton
set up a workshop on his estate and built them
himself[1][2]. US sales were through Huffy (of the Huffman
family, not the later iteration). He was moderately
successful at that, and made innovative designs in later
models[3] for many years.

[1]Not 'built' personally. He hired brazers machinists etc
but supervised in person
[2]Similar story: Origin of Lamborghini autos
[3] example: http://www.yellowjersey.org/lbam.html

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/31/2022 8:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 5:44 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:06:41 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> Article said "The purchase of the 1,000m2 freehold premises".  Used
>> Google to find a conversion link and it is 10,764 square feet.  Huge
>> for a house of course.  But for manufacturing or even offices, its
>> small.  But maybe for a small tiny company making little tiny bikes,
>> its enough space.  Seems like they bought the original factory for
>> publicity or sentimental reasons.  Not for business purposes.
>>
>
> Alex Moulton was born to an estate and made a good pile of money as a
> very creative engineer, notably working out the very forward design
> Austin Mini front end (which is not unusual now but certainly was at the
> time).
>
> After Raleigh turned down his Mk I bicycle design Mr Moulton set up a
> workshop on his estate and built them himself[1][2]. US sales were
> through Huffy (of the Huffman family, not the later iteration). He was
> moderately successful at that, and made innovative designs in later
> models[3] for many years.
>
> [1]Not 'built' personally. He hired brazers machinists etc but
> supervised in person
> [2]Similar story: Origin of Lamborghini autos
> [3] example: http://www.yellowjersey.org/lbam.html

I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it solve
the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?

I recently learned the Capreo cassette (with 9 tooth small cog) used on
our Bikes Friday is out of production. I did buy a spare cassette a
while back, just in case that ever happened; but I'm wondering what the
alternatives will ever be.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In article <t25hn6$af0$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

....

>Alex Moulton was born to an estate and made a good pile of
>money as a very creative engineer, notably working out the
>very forward design Austin Mini front end (which is not
>unusual now but certainly was at the time).
>
>After Raleigh turned down his Mk I bicycle design Mr Moulton
>set up a workshop on his estate and built them
>himself[1][2]. US sales were through Huffy (of the Huffman
>family, not the later iteration). He was moderately
>successful at that, and made innovative designs in later
>models[3] for many years.
>
>[1]Not 'built' personally. He hired brazers machinists etc
>but supervised in person
>[2]Similar story: Origin of Lamborghini autos
>[3] example: http://www.yellowjersey.org/lbam.html

The later Jack Lauterwasser (Olympic cyclist in the 1928 Amsterdam
Olympics)[1] worked for Alex Moulton. Jack lived locally in the
village of Bratton[2], not far from Moulton's Bradford-on-Avon[3]
workshop.

In his retirement Jack built a lot of wheels for local cyclists. He
was the man to go to. I've still got a pair of his wheels that were
donated to me by a friend who was upgrading to these modern cassette
based systems. They're Mavic 501 hubs built up with Mavic OpenPro
rims and DB double-butted spokes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lauterwasser

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratton,_Wiltshire

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford-on-Avon
--
Dennis Davis <dennisdavis@fastmail.fm>

On 3/31/2022 9:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 8:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 5:44 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:06:41 AM UTC-5, AMuzi
>>> wrote:
>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/moulton-bradford-upon-avon/
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>
>>> Article said "The purchase of the 1,000m2 freehold
>>> premises". Used Google to find a conversion link and it
>>> is 10,764 square feet. Huge for a house of course.Â
>>> But for manufacturing or even offices, its small. But
>>> maybe for a small tiny company making little tiny bikes,
>>> its enough space. Seems like they bought the original
>>> factory for publicity or sentimental reasons. Not for
>>> business purposes.
>>>
>>
>> Alex Moulton was born to an estate and made a good pile of
>> money as a very creative engineer, notably working out the
>> very forward design Austin Mini front end (which is not
>> unusual now but certainly was at the time).
>>
>> After Raleigh turned down his Mk I bicycle design Mr
>> Moulton set up a workshop on his estate and built them
>> himself[1][2]. US sales were through Huffy (of the Huffman
>> family, not the later iteration). He was moderately
>> successful at that, and made innovative designs in later
>> models[3] for many years.
>>
>> [1]Not 'built' personally. He hired brazers machinists etc
>> but supervised in person
>> [2]Similar story: Origin of Lamborghini autos
>> [3] example: http://www.yellowjersey.org/lbam.html
>
> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How
> did it solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with
> small wheels?
>
> I recently learned the Capreo cassette (with 9 tooth small
> cog) used on our Bikes Friday is out of production. I did
> buy a spare cassette a while back, just in case that ever
> happened; but I'm wondering what the alternatives will ever be.
>
>

Yes that's right. Larger than normal front, smaller rear.
In the 1960s with an AW it was 56x13=98". Suntour produced a
high gear set for Winner Sevens with 11-12-13 for Moulton,
(as did others as I recall but can't remember who).

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> As I've said, our lives here have changed, along with our uses for the
> Fridays. At the very least, I'm contemplating changing my Friday from
> drop bars to flat (or flattish) bars to achieve a slightly more
> compact folded package. But I'll admit, the Brompton is tempting me!

What I noticed is that the "entry hurdle" to start a ride is much lower:
I do not put on "proper cycling clothes" as I do on my randonneur, I do
not frown upon rides shorter that 30 km etc. This is led to MORE
cycling, both in km and number of rides, which is a good thing.

Best regards

Axel

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it
> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?

By using sufficiently large chain rings. (-:

If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard cassette,
maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See here for
specifications:

https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html

By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the millimeter
identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is, there is no
equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends conflict
with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.

Best regards

Axel

On 4/1/2022 7:13 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> As I've said, our lives here have changed, along with our uses for the
>> Fridays. At the very least, I'm contemplating changing my Friday from
>> drop bars to flat (or flattish) bars to achieve a slightly more
>> compact folded package. But I'll admit, the Brompton is tempting me!
>
> What I noticed is that the "entry hurdle" to start a ride is much lower:
> I do not put on "proper cycling clothes" as I do on my randonneur, I do
> not frown upon rides shorter that 30 km etc. This is led to MORE
> cycling, both in km and number of rides, which is a good thing.
>
> Best regards
>
> Axel
>
+1

De-reification can mean more cycling more often (if maybe
fewer miles). Works for me!

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 5:13:52 PM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > As I've said, our lives here have changed, along with our uses for the
> > Fridays. At the very least, I'm contemplating changing my Friday from
> > drop bars to flat (or flattish) bars to achieve a slightly more
> > compact folded package. But I'll admit, the Brompton is tempting me!
> What I noticed is that the "entry hurdle" to start a ride is much lower:
> I do not put on "proper cycling clothes" as I do on my randonneur, I do
> not frown upon rides shorter that 30 km etc. This is led to MORE
> cycling, both in km and number of rides, which is a good thing.

AFAIK we have zero Bromptons around here. I got my first demonstration of the folding
and my only test ride in Helsinki, Finland. I saw a guy with his Brmopton in a park and
asked him about it. He was happy and proud to demonstrate it to me.

He said he used to drive into the city, but the quick folding bike allowed him to take the
train in, then ride the bike the final bit to work. In his words: "This bike changed my life!"

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> writes:

> He said he used to drive into the city, but the quick folding bike
> allowed him to take the train in, then ride the bike the final bit to
> work. In his words: "This bike changed my life!"

+1

And since it can be used in "shopping cart mode", see

http://www.bromptonyc.com/2012/11/grocery-shopping-with-brompton.html

(I have done this a couple of times, to the great amusement of
especially children), the hurdle for quick errands including some shops
is also lowered. As it is for "partial commutes", not in the sense of
the Finn in your story, but rather on days with fair weather in the
morning ("Just Ride") and foul weather in the evening (trains,
underground, trams, busses without limits on rush hour time usage and
without need for buying a bike ticket).

When I bought the Brompton and told, still somewhat sceptical, the
dealer that "my other bike is a randonneur" he predicted "you will be
using the Brompton most of the time". He was right: 7700 km in the last
17 months, 6100 km with the Brompton. The bulk of the 1600 km on the
randonneur was a vacation in Switzerland with 33000 m of climbing, some
rougher gravel involved. When I noticed this fact and thought about the
reason for not doing this with the Brompton, I found that it was only
related to the grades involved, e.g.

https://www.quaeldich.de/paesse/kamm/profile/suedwestauffahrt-vom-rossriet/

Then I thought: "Nothing that could not be fixed by smaller gears" (the
randonneur still offers 3 smaller ones) and I am already planning for a
smaller chainring (I do not feel an urgent need to pedal above 40 km/h),
which means I could and would sell the randonneur!

Best regards

Axel

Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it
>> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?
>
> By using sufficiently large chain rings. (-:
>
> If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard cassette,
> maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See here for
> specifications:
>
> https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html
>
> By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the millimeter
> identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is, there is no
> equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends conflict
> with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.
>
> Best regards
>
> Axel
>

Seems to be road standard chain rings ie 39/53 which admittedly is bigger
than the more common? Compacts and the like!

Quoted as. 22.5-98 which is slightly lower than normal, my gravel bike is
26-118in as comparison.

Roger Merriman

"russellseaton1@yahoo.com" <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> writes:

> You are NOT riding randonneur rides then.

I do at least one 200 k every year, usually with 3000 m vertical
climbing. I did a 300 k once and do not plan to repeat this.

> As you probably know, or should know, a randonneur series is 200k,
> 300k, 400k, and 600k rides done in the same year you sign up for a
> 1200k grand ride. 200+300+400+600=1500k. About equal to your 1600k.

Yes, and? I know all this. I was writing about "randonneur" in the bike
sense, not in the rider sense. On re-reading my post, I think my
formulation made this clear.

Axel

On 4/2/2022 5:45 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "russellseaton1@yahoo.com" <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> You are NOT riding randonneur rides then.
>
> I do at least one 200 k every year, usually with 3000 m vertical
> climbing. I did a 300 k once and do not plan to repeat this.

I understand! I did one double century, 200 miles, and said "That's
done. I don't have to repeat it."

I'll admit, there's a part of me that still dreams of doing such a thing
again. But I've been able to beat that part of me into submission.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 2:45:14 PM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "russell...@yahoo.com" <ritzann...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You are NOT riding randonneur rides then.
> I do at least one 200 k every year, usually with 3000 m vertical
> climbing. I did a 300 k once and do not plan to repeat this.
> > As you probably know, or should know, a randonneur series is 200k,
> > 300k, 400k, and 600k rides done in the same year you sign up for a
> > 1200k grand ride. 200+300+400+600=1500k. About equal to your 1600k.
> Yes, and? I know all this. I was writing about "randonneur" in the bike
> sense, not in the rider sense. On re-reading my post, I think my
> formulation made this clear.

Axel, We do not respond to the people like Russell who probably doesn't ride much himself.

On 4/2/2022 9:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it
>>> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?
>>
>> By using sufficiently large chain rings. (-:
>>
>> If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard cassette,
>> maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See here for
>> specifications:
>>
>> https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html
>>
>> By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the millimeter
>> identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is, there is no
>> equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends conflict
>> with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Axel
>>
>
> Seems to be road standard chain rings ie 39/53 which admittedly is bigger
> than the more common? Compacts and the like!
>
> Quoted as. 22.5-98 which is slightly lower than normal, my gravel bike is
> 26-118in as comparison.

IMO, almost no non-competitive riders get significant benefit from a
gear higher than 100 gear inches. Some have disagreed in long
discussions we've had here, but their arguments seemed no better than
"Well, I used the high gear for a bit yesterday." Using it doesn't prove
benefit.

But having said that: Moultons have 17" wheels, right? A chainring large
enough to duplicate the gearing of a "big wheel" bike would need to be
huge - roughly 27/17 or 1.6 times as large. So instead of (say) a 50
tooth, you'd need an 80 tooth. Those are far from common and possibly
inconvenient for packing the folded bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/2/2022 7:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/2/2022 9:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train.
>>>> How did it
>>>> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small
>>>> wheels?
>>>
>>> By using sufficiently large chain rings. (-:
>>>
>>> If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard
>>> cassette,
>>> maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See
>>> here for
>>> specifications:
>>>
>>> https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html
>>>
>>> By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the
>>> millimeter
>>> identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is,
>>> there is no
>>> equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends
>>> conflict
>>> with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>
>> Seems to be road standard chain rings ie 39/53 which
>> admittedly is bigger
>> than the more common? Compacts and the like!
>>
>> Quoted as. 22.5-98 which is slightly lower than normal, my
>> gravel bike is
>> 26-118in as comparison.
>
> IMO, almost no non-competitive riders get significant
> benefit from a gear higher than 100 gear inches. Some have
> disagreed in long discussions we've had here, but their
> arguments seemed no better than "Well, I used the high gear
> for a bit yesterday." Using it doesn't prove benefit.
>
> But having said that: Moultons have 17" wheels, right? A
> chainring large enough to duplicate the gearing of a "big
> wheel" bike would need to be huge - roughly 27/17 or 1.6
> times as large. So instead of (say) a 50 tooth, you'd need
> an 80 tooth. Those are far from common and possibly
> inconvenient for packing the folded bike.
>
>

Many Moulton models used ultra small rear sprockets which
help. For the Mark III, 56x13 with an AW gearbox is 98
inches. Oh, and Moultons do not fold, although later models
(the AM-7 & after) are take-apart.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/2/2022 8:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/2/2022 9:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it
>>>> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?
>>>
>>> By using sufficiently large chain rings.   (-:
>>>
>>> If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard cassette,
>>> maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See here for
>>> specifications:
>>>
>>>    https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html
>>>
>>> By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the millimeter
>>> identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is, there is no
>>> equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends conflict
>>> with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>
>> Seems to be road standard chain rings ie 39/53 which admittedly is bigger
>> than the more common? Compacts and the like!
>>
>> Quoted as. 22.5-98 which is slightly lower than normal, my gravel bike is
>> 26-118in as comparison.
>
> IMO, almost no non-competitive riders get significant benefit from a
> gear higher than 100 gear inches. Some have disagreed in long
> discussions we've had here, but their arguments seemed no better than
> "Well, I used the high gear for a bit yesterday." Using it doesn't prove
> benefit.
>
> But having said that: Moultons have 17" wheels, right? A chainring large
> enough to duplicate the gearing of a "big wheel" bike would need to be
> huge - roughly 27/17 or 1.6 times as large. So instead of (say) a 50
> tooth, you'd need an 80 tooth. Those are far from common and possibly
> inconvenient for packing the folded bike.

OK, I finally found specs.
https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models/SPEED.html

This model has 20" wheels, 12 cogs from 10 to 30 teeth, and chainrings
53 & 39 or 58 & 44 teeth. Top gear either 99 inches or 108 inches.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> IMO, almost no non-competitive riders get significant benefit from a
> gear higher than 100 gear inches. Some have disagreed in long
> discussions we've had here, but their arguments seemed no better than
> "Well, I used the high gear for a bit yesterday." Using it doesn't
> prove benefit.

+1

My Brompton currently has 88 gear inches. Most of my cycling in the
Alps was done with 94 gear inches. On the low end, the Brompton has 29
versus 21 on the randonneur (bike, with a nod to Roger ...).

The key difference between having some (let's say 7.5, to average things
out) gear inches at the high end versus at the low end is that having
them at the low end is an "enabling feature" for climbs like Buitonnaz
in the Swiss Alps with its 20.1 % over almost 3 km:

http://www.salite.ch/007176.asp?Mappa=

Been there, done that. (-:

So if presented with a binary choice ("get up there or not") versus a
gradual choice ("you will be slightly faster") an "un-racer" like me
will happily choose the former. For racers I readily admit that the
difference might also be binary ("get dropped or not").

Best regards

Axel

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/2/2022 9:57 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious what the Moulton uses for its drive train. How did it
>>>> solve the problem of sufficiently high gears with small wheels?
>>>
>>> By using sufficiently large chain rings. (-:
>>>
>>> If remember correctly, my test bike had a pretty standard cassette,
>>> maybe 11-34, but considerably larger chain rings. See here for
>>> specifications:
>>>
>>> https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models.html
>>>
>>> By the way, the position on my Brompton is almost to the millimeter
>>> identical with the randonneur. On the tops, that is, there is no
>>> equivalent for the hoods position: Any longer barends conflict
>>> with the fold, so I have only short Ergons.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>
>> Seems to be road standard chain rings ie 39/53 which admittedly is bigger
>> than the more common? Compacts and the like!
>>
>> Quoted as. 22.5-98 which is slightly lower than normal, my gravel bike is
>> 26-118in as comparison.
>
> IMO, almost no non-competitive riders get significant benefit from a
> gear higher than 100 gear inches. Some have disagreed in long
> discussions we've had here, but their arguments seemed no better than
> "Well, I used the high gear for a bit yesterday." Using it doesn't prove
> benefit.

I certainly use the 32-34 more than the 48-11! And being heavy and a old
MTB gaining speed, isn’t a problem down hills! Nor am I particularly
bothered generally just roll down!
>
> But having said that: Moultons have 17" wheels, right? A chainring large
> enough to duplicate the gearing of a "big wheel" bike would need to be
> huge - roughly 27/17 or 1.6 times as large. So instead of (say) a 50
> tooth, you'd need an 80 tooth. Those are far from common and possibly
> inconvenient for packing the folded bike.
>
>
Roger Merriman