Folding Bikes - Brompton: get off your ass

I've taken the liberty of creating a thread on Brompton's slouching towards innovation from mulleady's post in a thread on Brompton aftermarket options. :)


Finally some constructive and realisitic feedback on Brompton. I totally agree with Raxel that it is third parties providing options that Brompton should and they aren't always about quality or folding compromises Innovation isn't always about what the sales are now but a vision 5 years down the line. Perhaps Brompton may deliver in 2009-10. If they don't the competition will eventually exceed them in the 16" class and eventually restrict sales to retro and British traditionalist niches. If Brompton responds accordingly. We still await their first true sub 10 and 9kg bikes and the market doesn't want silly premiums like the £440 for a fewe titanium parts with only modest weigh savings.

Why should Brompton innovate radically when demand for the current designs keeps them very busy? Wouldn't a new and much improved design have to be much more expensive not to cannibalize sales of the current models and render that tooling and employee training obsolete?

Regards
T

Why should Brompton innovate radically when demand for the current designs keeps them very busy? Wouldn't a new and much improved design have to be much more expensive not to cannibalize sales of the current models and render that tooling and employee training obsolete?

I think what it boils down to us that Andrew Ritchie just doesn't want to play ball. Capitalist tradition says that if demand is high then profits should be reinvested (retooling and retraining) to increase future profits; But Ritchie seems perfectly happy to just pay his workers, take his cut, and continue business as usual as the high demand lulls Brompton Co to sleep, slowly but surely eroding away their competitiveness.

Not that I'm saying their approach is entirely bad. Companies seeking aggressive growth always seem to inevitably turn on their customers with marketing and "the manufacture of desire" to trick them into buying what they don't want and don't need. It's a trade off.

It's a BICYCLE--isn't that the object, being on it?

I've seriously considered a Brompton and passed them over for Bike Friday. They do still have the advantage for the smallest fold, but Friday offers so many great options for the tikit. Brompton also uses a lot of single-source, quirky parts for the bikes and the prices are high enough (especially given USD exchange rates) that I just can't think it's worth it.

Finally some constructive and realisitic feedback on Brompton.

What are you talking about? Seems to me that there has been plenty of good conversation for years on Brompton.

Brompton's refusal to innovate has been a complaint of mine and several others for years. And yes, there is something to the argument that from the perspective of profit maximization -- thinking about this longitudinally -- one can expand/alter product lines too fast. But history provides numerous examples of companies where profits were good such that they rested on their laurels only to be surpassed by a hungrier and more innovative company. Moreover, I argue that small marginal changes would make their product better in some obvious ways. Failing to make them sooner rather than later simply increases the odds that an outside producer will gain advantage in the future.

While I am not familiar with the specifics, I also get the sense that Brompton's home market is somewhat protected by legislation.

I agree that it is Ritchie's company and he should be free to do whatever he wants. He appears to have a pretty good bottom line and business matters in general look pretty good for Brompton.

Why should Brompton innovate radically when demand for the current designs keeps them very busy?

In the mid-1970s the huge and successful Schwinn Bicycle Company hired a consultant to review their operations. When he asked them, "Who is your competition?", they answered, "Schwinn has no competition!"

Schwinn was sold in bankrupcy court in 1991.

And now shall I tell you the story of Sturmey-Archer?

tcs

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.

Brompton is still the best combination of

quite small and tidy when folded. MOST folders are still way bigger than a brommie when folded

rides great when not folded. MOST small folders ride like dog poo

shopping utility when half folded. MOST folders don't ride/fold/shop/unfold and ride
as easy as a brommie, where you keep the front bag upright the entire time and use
it as a tote/handle


Brommie wins in every regard. why need to change perfection ?

BTW, I've wondered: the Brompton brochure says, "...the Brompton has a full-sized frame, made mainly of high-tensile steel alloys for strength and stiffness."

In American technical talk, high-tensile steel is something like AISI 1020 (France: AFNOR CC 20 , Germany: DIN 1.0402 , Italy: UNI C 20, United Kingdom: B.S. 040 A 20 , B.S. 070 M 20). It's relatively easy to work, fairly inexpensive and, as steels go, not very strong.

Is this the material Brompton is talking about?

In the USA only very low spec bicycles use what we call high-tensile steel. Because the steel must be fabricated into useful shapes, and the labor to do so costs money, and there are many other fixed and variable cost factors in bicycle production, the final cost of the completed bicycle is not impacted very much by using more expensive steels (like "chromoly").

Because these more expensive steels are stronger, they can be drawn into thinner wall tubes, lightening the bicycle; or they can be drawn into larger diameter tube, stiffening the frame; or (typically) some combination. Because many of the same manufacturing processes can be used to work, join and finish both high-tensile steels and chromoly steels, the impact on the factory is minimal.

BTW, pretty broadly across the industry, bicycle frames that use relatively high cost, exotic steels are still significantly less expensive than titanium bicycle frames.

Best,
tcs

Brompton is still the best combination of

quite small and tidy when folded. MOST folders are still way bigger than a brommie when folded

rides great when not folded. MOST small folders ride like dog poo

shopping utility when half folded. MOST folders don't ride/fold/shop/unfold and ride
as easy as a brommie, where you keep the front bag upright the entire time and use
it as a tote/handle


Brommie wins in every regard. why need to change perfection ?

Hah! Comments like that will make people think you are a troll.

:troll:

But seriously, it has its plusses and minuses. And by no means is it the best combination of anything except in the minds of some individuals. In other words, it works for some people and fails for others.

I think what it boils down to us that Andrew Ritchie just doesn't want to play ball. Capitalist tradition says that if demand is high then profits should be reinvested (retooling and retraining) to increase future profits; But Ritchie seems perfectly happy to just pay his workers, take his cut, and continue business as usual as the high demand lulls Brompton Co to sleep, slowly but surely eroding away their competitiveness.

Brompton's refusal to innovate has been a complaint of mine and several others for years. And yes, there is something to the argument that from the perspective of profit maximization -- thinking about this longitudinally -- one can expand/alter product lines too fast. But history provides numerous examples of companies where profits were good such that they rested on their laurels only to be surpassed by a hungrier and more innovative company. Moreover, I argue that small marginal changes would make their product better in some obvious ways. Failing to make them sooner rather than later simply increases the odds that an outside producer will gain advantage in the future.

In the mid-1970s the huge and successful Schwinn Bicycle Company hired a consultant to review their operations. When he asked them, "Who is your competition?", they answered, "Schwinn has no competition!"

Schwinn was sold in bankrupcy court in 1991.

And now shall I tell you the story of Sturmey-Archer?

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

I could name many companies that stay small and continue to be succesfull, however I don't feel the need to become the other side of the coin.

One of the recent books I've read is all about companies that choose a different path than being small or expanding. I've attached the link at the customer reviews section.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591841496/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Why not try a different perspective? :rolleyes:

I see it like they try to be something like the Harley Davidson of bicycles. That's the evolution that you can expect.

I could name many companies that stay small and continue to be successful, however I don't feel the need to become the other side of the coin.

Everyone else is talking about innovation, and you're talking about size...uh, that's not the other side of the coin. It's more like same planet, different worlds.

Brompton started out building a couple bikes in a flat and now has a factory that turns out 25,000 a year, and claim they could double that. That doesn't sound like a business model of staying small to me.

I'm trying to come up with an example of a bicycle company that's renounced innovation yet been successful over the long term. Hmmm, Worksman? So I guess it's possible.

tcs

I see it like they try to be something like the Harley Davidson of bicycles.

What then would you say is the Brompton equivalent of the electronic fuel injection, throttle-by-wire, air/oil cooling, anti-lock brakes, redesigned frames, different wheel sizes, redesigned engines and transmissions, vibration reduction/isolation, emission reductions and improved thermal management that Harley has introduced in their traditionally styled motorcycles just the last five years?

tcs

Dahon's new bike -- the one that looks like a robin chick curled up in the eggshell -- will compete directly with Brompton. Its arrival on the scene should bring some changes from the drawing board into the Brompton production line.

Regards
T

I'm trying to come up with an example of a bicycle company that's renounced innovation yet been successful over the long term. Hmmm, Worksman? So I guess it's possible.

I don't believe Brompton have renounced innovation, simply that they work to a slower pace than others. This has the advantage in creating a balanced and well designed bike which works very well in the environment it's designed to fit.

I'm struggling to think of any bike company that has renounced innovation? Another company that works at a slower pace of development would be Pashley and they have been around since 1926 (which is Englands longest established cycle manufacturer). Also alot of european/dutch bikes have been around for many many years.

What then would you say is the Brompton equivalent of the electronic fuel injection, throttle-by-wire, air/oil cooling, anti-lock brakes, redesigned frames, different wheel sizes, redesigned engines and transmissions, vibration reduction/isolation, emission reductions and improved thermal management that Harley has introduced in their traditionally styled motorcycles just the last five years?

What is innovation here? The human body isn't changing and that is the bike's engine. There has not really been that many major innovations since 1888, more tinkering around the edges. Bromptons are basically continuous refinement of a great idea/fold and to change them too radically would be to change what people love about them.

Dahon's new bike -- the one that looks like a robin chick curled up in the eggshell -- will compete directly with Brompton. Its arrival on the scene should bring some changes from the drawing board into the Brompton production line.

Regards
T

Andrew of Fudges Cycle Store in London posted on the Dahon.com forums a while back about his preview of the '09 models. Someone asked about the Curl- the Bromptonesque fold one- and he replied that it wasn't happening for this model year. "Dahon have not been happy with the protypes they have made so far which have been 16", 18" and 20" wheels and Josh Hon told me he was not sure it will ever happen as they would only want something to be better than the other brand not the same. So we will have to wait and see."

I like my Brompton just the way it is. Simple.

I like my Brompton just the way it is. Simple.
+1
sometimes some genius creates some work of art which is timeless.
The brompton is near to perfection for that niche for that its meant for. That is not to say, that it is THE BEST folding bike (doubt that there is such thing) nor that it is the folding bike that covers all needs. There is not much room to "improve the design much" and what would that mean? The design of the frame? Here the form definitely follows function and has an inherited beauty. Also it has become Iconic (stands as a symbol for London) so who would want to change that? To create, like timo888 said, a "new and much improved design" would mean to create a new bike altogether.

So then, what differentiates the brompton from other folders: the small, square-compact, firm holding and clean fold (while at the same time offering a full size wheel base and adult ride). Since this is the core that makes a brompton a brompton, better no compromises here.
Areas of critic and subject to possible careful changes are:

weight: always very important for a folder. Actually all brompton parts are already fairly light. If one wants to lighten the bike with components its going to be really expensive. Here new material like titan comes into play. Brompton was early (the first?) folder company using ti and I think brompton tries out a ti-steering stem at the moment. Still, here Dahon shows the way e.g. with Mu that one can go lighter also with components and frame material. I think the market would like to see frame material like titan. I would also like to see carbon. And I hope we see more of the direction like the new light wheel with butted spokes and such.



brakes: Brompton has a bad reputation for braking power, the reputation still sticking on it even though real braking power has been improved much with the dual pivot brakes. But of course the set-up is limited by physics (long reach callipers). Still it would do brompton no harm to use better (and hopefully as light) brake levers than the current ones. I also think it would do no harm if one could opt for cantilever brosses and Vs or Maguras without hassle or even disc.



adjustabilty of steering stem: would befriend some customers - with the drawbacks of adding weight or loosing stiffness and perhaps another folding step.



gearing: here, with existing market solutions, the core item "clean and compact fold" is in danger (widening the rear triangle) so to keep that, brompton has to invent their own hub - they started in this direction with the new wide sturmey archer hub. I would like to see more of this. The "yet to come" 20% smaller and 20% lighter Rohloff also would be a dream candidate to fit snugly into the triangle.



frontsuspension: ride can be hard on small wheels. I hope for a moulton-like front fork and would not be surprised if we see such in some not too far future


but a rose is a rose is a rose

I'm trying to come up with an example of a bicycle company that's renounced innovation yet been successful over the long term. Hmmm, Worksman? So I guess it's possible.


Perhaps Rivendell? They have been in existence for some time now (more so if you count the Bridgestone years) so I guess they are doing quite well. I have two Bridgestone frames that I really like and I have been thinking of getting a Rivendell but the cost is too prohibitive for me. Maybe I will get lucky sometime and snag a second hand one cheap.

Back to the topic at hand - I agree with Somnatash's points about the weight, brakes, and others, though for these reasons I don't like my Brompton the way it is. Perhaps it is the modder/tinkerer in me, but I have been replacing some components in my B just as some of you do. I cannot help but shake my head at some of the components that can be easily replaced at the factory but not done so, like the mushy brake levers, brake pads, and rack wheels. The brake levers were the first to go. When I took them out I realized why they were so crappy; they had no return springs. Replacing these with the Shimano R550 flat bar cantilever levers was easy and just cost $16. The brake pads were easily replaced with Salmon colored Kool Stops for $10. And the useless rack wheels were switched for inline skate wheels that I cannibalized off a pair of skates that my nephew outgrew. Brompton offers an EZ wheel upgrade for $12 a wheel, or $48 for the set. That's a ripoff in my book, it should have been standard in the first place. And I don't see the point of an expensive PentaClip when a normal seatpost-rail adapter can be had for $3.

Before this develops into a full blown rant, I would like to say that I really like my Brompton and since I had it my other bikes have not been seeing much use. I am actually enjoying replacing the components, but I couldn't help but feel bad for those who don't have the time or aptitude in modding the bike for a better and safer ride. Even more so since these improvements can easily be done during assembly of the bike.

I like my Brompton just the way it is. Simple.

Which is fine, but in the 20's, there were people who would say "I like my Bentley (Deusenberg, whatever) the way it is. Why change perfection". Those cars are still beautiful and wonderful today, but you'd be hard pressed to sell as many of them as they did in the 20's, never mind as many as Bentley sell now. If Brompton don't come up with new ideas, others will, and someone will eventually overtake them. The competition is a lot closer now than it was when the Brommie was designed.

Think of Morgan cars. At one time, a Morgan was up there with the best mid priced sports cars you can buy. Morgan just continued to make them that way. Today, you can still buy a Morgan +4, pretty much as it was back then, and some people do. Most people, however, in the market for an open top sports car, will pass it by, because other options are available which are more comfortable, faster, handle better, give better weather protection etc etc etc. If Brompton continue to develop as slowly as they have done so far, they are making a decision to be Morgan. They'll still sell bikes to people who love things as they have always been, and who want a handmade British product, but they'll lose out on most of what is a growing folding bike market, even at their relatively premium end, to others who've had even better ideas.

What bothers me is that Brompton started with a revolution; they completely redefined what folding bikes were all about. Since then, they've moved by tiny evolution. If I was them, I would be looking firstly for revolutions in the way aspects of folding bikes work, and also, for the next revolution in the whole concept. They clearly have, or had, people on board who are able to rethink a concept from the ground up. When you have those people, you should be constantly using them to rethink concepts, and leave others to do the detail finishing and perfecting work.

What bothers me is that Brompton started with a revolution; they completely redefined what folding bikes were all about. Since then, they've moved by tiny evolution. If I was them, I would be looking firstly for revolutions in the way aspects of folding bikes work, and also, for the next revolution in the whole concept. They clearly have, or had, people on board who are able to rethink a concept from the ground up. When you have those people, you should be constantly using them to rethink concepts, and leave others to do the detail finishing and perfecting work.

Your revolution idea's are somewhat vague if non-existant here Sammyboy. Are you talking about a whole new design? If so, why? Or otherwise we are talking about refinement of the existing design, which to my mind they are already doing.

All folding bikes are a compromise in some part of their design whether it be their fold or ride as you know. The Brompton still seems to me to be a fantastic, well designed, balanced product, compromise so careful innovation of that idea seems to be prudent.

Think of Morgan cars. At one time, a Morgan was up there with the best mid priced sports cars you can buy. Morgan just continued to make them that way. Today, you can still buy a Morgan +4, pretty much as it was back then, and some people do. Most people, however, in the market for an open top sports car, will pass it by, because other options are available which are more comfortable, faster, handle better, give better weather protection etc etc etc. If Brompton continue to develop as slowly as they have done so far, they are making a decision to be Morgan. They'll still sell bikes to people who love things as they have always been, and who want a handmade British product, but they'll lose out on most of what is a growing folding bike market, even at their relatively premium end, to others who've had even better ideas.

Again, this is an unfair comparison as the bike relies on the rider for its shape (to fit around the human form) so alot of 'upgrades' just don't apply to cycles (again, the human body hasn't changed, hence the fact that many bikes sold today were designed early last century and perform well). The Brompton could freeze its design today and still be relevant as long as the need for a small, neat fold is there and as we are getting more over crowded each day, I don't see that need going away.

I think the key message Brompton says, is that they will improve the design but only when they generally think its really is a good idea rather that innovation for innovations sake.

A Brompton with belt-drive and a robust SA8 that doesn't dive into neutral without warning is, I predict, the next major advance [edit: I gather from Yan's remark in another thread that this won't work because a belt drive would require elimination of the rear suspension -- the belt cannot be tensed when it goes slightly slack?]

The Brompton can be made to look like a fast bike, but at its core it is not designed to be one: far too much springiness in the front. The Brompton is a superb pootler and a very good multi-modal commute bike.

The multi-mode commute could clearly be improved with a clean belt drive. That's the next obvious incremental step for this use.

A superb pootler can serve as a decent tourer/trekker too, but the Brompton's narrow rear spacing limits the hub options; to get additional gearing you need to combine an IGH with two front chain-rings, or take out your grinder and file and use the Sturmey-Archer 8 -- but there's good reason to avoid the Sturmey 8 until the next version with the forward-freewheeling problem solved. The finickiness of the current iteration of the SA8 makes it a very bad choice for a folding bike. So, at least for the time-being, turning the Brompton into a better trekker would make it less suitable as a multi-modal commuter: derailer + two chainwheels. You have to choose between the two modes.

To address the rear spacing issue, Brompton could either make a radical change and widen the rear to 132mm, so it would support an Alfine or SRAM iMotion or Rohloff with a little cold-stretching. Or they could tweak the rear slightly in anticipation of the new-and-improved SA8. If I were running the show at Brompton, I'd choose the tweak, at least for the short-term.

Regards
T

Cars are also limited by the need to have seats and controls, and somewhere for the engine. A new sportscar still fits the same sort of form factor as a Morgan, but it's utterly different.

The reason for Brompton to start again and reinvent is because they, themselves have proven that a new design can suddenly dominate the market. They did it, and eventually, someone else will do it. If Brompton wait for that to happen, most of their market will be gone. As far as evolution, Brompton ARE doing it, but MUCH too slowly, and with no real innovation. Folding bikes are driven by innovative new features which work well despite/in combination with folding. What have Brompton done for us lately in that respect? The can't even get a decent multi speed transmission together.

At the moment, other manufacturers are gradually catching Brompton up. Soon, someone will be making a Bromptonalike (Dahon have a similar fold on the way, Merc is already out there). At that point, Brompton will be trading on quality alone. They COULD be trading on quality, and on some other improvements (a better luggage system, a working set of folding bars, effective, reliable folding pedals all spring to mind) which are as well designed from the ground up as their bike is, but they aren't.

Then, eventually, another revolution will come. Someone will think of a way to build a folder that either folds just as small and easily and Brompton and rides better, or folds even smaller. When that happens, what will be left for Brompton? Organisations should always aim to change and take the next step BEFORE the pain strikes.

Can you get smaller than a Brompton without patent infringement?

I could name many companies that stay small and continue to be succesfull, however I don't feel the need to become the other side of the coin.

One of the recent books I've read is all about companies that choose a different path than being small or expanding. I've attached the link at the customer reviews section.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591841496/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Why not try a different perspective? :rolleyes:

But your example is a poor one. The complaint has nothing to do with staying small. Instead it is about the failure to innovate. At least in my opinion, those two things are entirely different.

Consider Harley Davidson. After almost going out of business in the 70s and 80s, it restructured its company -- staying relatively small -- but developing a niche while continuing to innovate both the functionality and aethetics of its product. Its bikes rival others with regards to its reliability and options offered.

I've taken the liberty of creating a thread on Brompton's slouching towards innovation from mulleady's post in a thread on Brompton aftermarket options. :)

Why should Brompton innovate radically when demand for the current designs keeps them very busy? Wouldn't a new and much improved design have to be much more expensive not to cannibalize sales of the current models and render that tooling and employee training obsolete?

Regards
T

It is a matter of choice. The Brompton Company has innovate over the years-but not at the expense of the basic design or philosophy of it's mission. I have seen it for myself with my own bikes. My 2 Dahons are less than a decade old. But already they are treated as "obsolete" and might pose a problem in getting replacement folding mechanisms if the need arises. My Brompton poses no such problem. I can always upgrade or replace as much as I wish to.


Dahon's new bike -- the one that looks like a robin chick curled up in the eggshell -- will compete directly with Brompton. Its arrival on the scene should bring some changes from the drawing board into the Brompton production line.

Regards
T

I myself found the photo of the Curl a bit interesting-but that's all. I already have a nice Brompton. Why buy another clone of it? (see photo below)


I'm trying to come up with an example of a bicycle company that's renounced innovation yet been successful over the long term. Hmmm, Worksman? So I guess it's possible.

I don't believe Brompton have renounced innovation, simply that they work to a slower pace than others. This has the advantage in creating a balanced and well designed bike which works very well in the environment it's designed to fit.

I'm struggling to think of any bike company that has renounced innovation? Another company that works at a slower pace of development would be Pashley and they have been around since 1926 (which is Englands longest established cycle manufacturer). Also alot of european/dutch bikes have been around for many many years.

What then would you say is the Brompton equivalent of the electronic fuel injection, throttle-by-wire, air/oil cooling, anti-lock brakes, redesigned frames, different wheel sizes, redesigned engines and transmissions, vibration reduction/isolation, emission reductions and improved thermal management that Harley has introduced in their traditionally styled motorcycles just the last five years?


What is innovation here? The human body isn't changing and that is the bike's engine. There has not really been that many major innovations since 1888, more tinkering around the edges. Bromptons are basically continuous refinement of a great idea/fold and to change them too radically would be to change what people love about them.

No I think Brompton is a sleeping giant (next to Dahon) that is finally gearing up to the challenge. All you have to do is look at it's Web sites for a shift in innovation without becoming obsolete:

http://diverse.freepage.de/nixda/fahrrad/NewProductsAnnouncement2009.pdf (http://diverse.freepage.de/nixda/fahrrad/NewProductsAnnouncement2009.pdf)

Look at my father's old motorcycle circa 1955. It may not have all that fancy features the new classics offer now, but it still performed just as well in it's day. See it on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/world-of-folding-bicycles/289494502/in/set-72157594325178229/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/world-of-folding-bicycles/289494502/in/set-72157594325178229/)

It is a simple, neat little bike for a certain type of cyclist. No bike could fit all tastes and bodies. Folding bikes do come close.

Cars are also limited by the need to have seats and controls, and somewhere for the engine. A new sportscar still fits the same sort of form factor as a Morgan, but it's utterly different.

I partly see your point here in that we don't have model T's driving about as everyday transport as motor cars haved move on a great amount. However, my point is that model T versions of bikes are still on the road and being bought each year as there fundamentally is not that much that can be improved on them in comparison to cars.

The reason for Brompton to start again and reinvent is because they, themselves have proven that a new design can suddenly dominate the market. They did it, and eventually, someone else will do it. If Brompton wait for that to happen, most of their market will be gone. As far as evolution, Brompton ARE doing it, but MUCH too slowly, and with no real innovation. Folding bikes are driven by innovative new features which work well despite/in combination with folding. What have Brompton done for us lately in that respect? The can't even get a decent multi speed transmission together.

Innovation aside, reinvention would not be good for Brompton I think. Not only is the cost of doing so astronomical, but they can't service the demand they have now so hypothetically speaking, If Brompton invented a new design that would 'dominate' the market, how would they service that demand? To do so they would be forced to move production abroad to expand rapidly their production, which is something they don't want to do.

Coming back to the innovation side, are we really the right people to pass judgement on this? I would say the vast majority of Brompton owners (or other folder owners) never visit a forum like this and would consider the Brompton to work fantastically for their needs. I personally see one of the strengths of Brompton to be their slowly pace of innovation, for getting replacement parts etc which I know will be an issue on my Dahon in a few years time.

At the moment, other manufacturers are gradually catching Brompton up. Soon, someone will be making a Bromptonalike (Dahon have a similar fold on the way, Merc is already out there). At that point, Brompton will be trading on quality alone. They COULD be trading on quality, and on some other improvements (a better luggage system, a working set of folding bars, effective, reliable folding pedals all spring to mind) which are as well designed from the ground up as their bike is, but they aren't.

In catching Brompton up, are they simply proving that Brompton has a fantastic design all along? Dahon could do with catching up on the quality side, never mind the fold! Talking of innovations, how come Dahon's still mostly fold like the 70's bike? My Curve certainly hasn't moved on much (regarding it's fold) since then. Even with the add ons with the Dahon, innovations that brought us the Thudbuster, have been replaced by much older designs/ideas such as Big Apples (Balloon tyres). So innovation here has said a older, cheaper design can work just as well.

The Merc by the way is simply piracy to my mind and buying them will suck profits out of the bike industry so no one develops new innovations.

Then, eventually, another revolution will come. Someone will think of a way to build a folder that either folds just as small and easily and Brompton and rides better, or folds even smaller. When that happens, what will be left for Brompton? Organisations should always aim to change and take the next step BEFORE the pain strikes.

Normally I would be inclined to agree with you here but not so sure this will happen for quite a while. To fold smaller than a Brompton (which packs down to its wheel size) would mean that the wheels would have to be smaller. This of course can be done, A Bike, Carry Me have shown that but the ride is worst/different. If the Dahon Curl comes out??? Will it improve on the Bromptons design? Or will it defeat it on price? This is probably a bigger danger to Brompton than design.

Ps, I think the next big thing in folders will be belt drives.

+1
sometimes some genius creates some work of art which is timeless.
The brompton is near to perfection for that niche for that its meant for. That is not to say, that it is THE BEST folding bike (doubt that there is such thing) nor that it is the folding bike that covers all needs. There is not much room to "improve the design much" and what would that mean? The design of the frame? Here the form definitely follows function and has an inherited beauty. Also it has become Iconic (stands as a symbol for London) so who would want to change that? To create, like timo888 said, a "new and much improved design" would mean to create a new bike altogether.

So then, what differentiates the brompton from other folders: the small, square-compact, firm holding and clean fold (while at the same time offering a full size wheel base and adult ride). Since this is the core that makes a brompton a brompton, better no compromises here.
Areas of critic and subject to possible careful changes are:

weight: always very important for a folder. Actually all brompton parts are already fairly light. If one wants to lighten the bike with components its going to be really expensive. Here new material like titan comes into play. Brompton was early (the first?) folder company using ti and I think brompton tries out a ti-steering stem at the moment. Still, here Dahon shows the way e.g. with Mu that one can go lighter also with components and frame material. I think the market would like to see frame material like titan. I would also like to see carbon. And I hope we see more of the direction like the new light wheel with butted spokes and such.



brakes: Brompton has a bad reputation for braking power, the reputation still sticking on it even though real braking power has been improved much with the dual pivot brakes. But of course the set-up is limited by physics (long reach callipers). Still it would do brompton no harm to use better (and hopefully as light) brake levers than the current ones. I also think it would do no harm if one could opt for cantilever brosses and Vs or Maguras without hassle or even disc.



adjustabilty of steering stem: would befriend some customers - with the drawbacks of adding weight or loosing stiffness and perhaps another folding step.



gearing: here, with existing market solutions, the core item "clean and compact fold" is in danger (widening the rear triangle) so to keep that, brompton has to invent their own hub - they started in this direction with the new wide sturmey archer hub. I would like to see more of this. The "yet to come" 20% smaller and 20% lighter Rohloff also would be a dream candidate to fit snugly into the triangle.



frontsuspension: ride can be hard on small wheels. I hope for a moulton-like front fork and would not be surprised if we see such in some not too far future


but a rose is a rose is a rose

Quick comments:

Widening the rear triangle X will widen the fold less than X. The non-drive size of the hub is not at the extreme -- I recall that it is the pedal and by quite a bit on the scale of hub sizes -- such that at most the fold would increase by .5 * X. Moreover I recall that a little manuevering on the drive side could mitigate the remainder. I find it hard to believe that anyone would kick and scream if the rear dropouts were widened 1 cm such that some wide range hubs could fit. If you want to completely nuts, widen it 1.5 cm!

The brake issue is just ridiculous in my opinion. V-brakes are cheaper, more powerful, and don't affect the fold from the examples I have seen.

I concur with your opinion on the adjustable stem. I think that there are other possibilities -- have an option for a custom stem for instance -- that might take care of the weight and flex issues you discuss. I understand that from a production standpoint, offering options does cost the firm money. So it might be the case that the only viable option is to either offer an adjustable stem or a fixed height stem.

Certainly most of those using one in the UK (according to some local LBS) are buying Brompton's because of their reputation, fold size, British-ness and classic design. Innovation couldn't be further from their mind or less inportant. Chatting to some owners they confirmed this. And that to me was also the appeal. I desperately wanted to buy one, but having ridden one, all the positives were immediately went out of the window as I thought it was an absolute dog to ride.

I do still want one (Ti) and for the four points listed above. But the moment I get on my Birdy I know why I bought it instead.

Normally I would be inclined to agree with you here but not so sure this will happen for quite a while. To fold smaller than a Brompton (which packs down to its wheel size) would mean that the wheels would have to be smaller. This of course can be done, A Bike, Carry Me have shown that but the ride is worst/different. If the Dahon Curl comes out??? Will it improve on the Bromptons design? Or will it defeat it on price? This is probably a bigger danger to Brompton than design.

Ps, I think the next big thing in folders will be belt drives.

I'm sure you're not sure. I'm also sure that the rest of the folding bike market was not expecting Brompton to arrive when it did. It might be ten years away, or it might be tomorrow, but a better folding bike will come. The Brompton doesn't fold down to it's wheel size, and a bike which did would be a Brompton killer. Folding wheels are another possible avenue - I don't know how, but I'm not a genius innovative industrial designer. Let's not forget, also, that a bike which folded as small as a Brompton, but was a considerably better ride (better geometry, a sensible drivetrain, better luggage carrying) could nick a lot of Brompton market share very quickly.

As far as whoever said people aren't buying Brompton for innovation, you're wrong. They might not think they are, but when they're buying it for small fold etc, they're buying for an innovation that took Brompton far ahead of the market. Bikes the the IF mode, the Curl and others prove that the market is gradually catching up. When those people stop buying Bromptons, it won't be because they want a more innovative bike, it'll simply be because someone else is building a better folder. That company, however, will be doing so because of innovation. We can pretend it won't happen all we like, but it's happened to every established product in every other market there is, practically. How many leading products of 30 years ago still lead their markets now? Very few. It's in the nature of mankind to invent. It's also in the nature of people to take a view which was, I believe, first stated in Victorian times "Everything that can be invented, already has been".

I don't have much stake in this; I don't own a Brompton, and I'm not likely to. I just think it's sad to see a business rest on its laurels like this. In my experience of how companies fortunes go, it's the first step to demise.

Originally Posted by joose I could name many companies that stay small and continue to be succesfull, however I don't feel the need to become the other side of the coin.

One of the recent books I've read is all about companies that choose a different path than being small or expanding. I've attached the link at the customer reviews section.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

Why not try a different perspective?

But your example is a poor one. The complaint has nothing to do with staying small. Instead it is about the failure to innovate. At least in my opinion, those two things are entirely different.

Consider Harley Davidson. After almost going out of business in the 70s and 80s, it restructured its company -- staying relatively small -- but developing a niche while continuing to innovate both the functionality and aethetics of its product. Its bikes rival others with regards to its reliability and options offered.

"But your example is a poor one. The complaint has nothing to do with staying small. Instead it is about the failure to innovate. At least in my opinion, those two things are entirely different." I agree, looking back at this sentance I realise I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say. My feeling was from some earlier posts that Brompton was either going to have to innovate fast or end up a niche bike maker. This was something that could happen but I believe that Brompton's focus on engineering and quality will allow it to remain a significant part of the folding bike industry, rather then niche like say Moulton.

The next two paragraphs are from Wikipedia about Harley Davidson:

The bikes were expensive and inferior in performance, handling, and quality to Japanese motorcycles. Sales declined, quality plummeted, and the company almost went bankrupt.[30] The "Harley-Davidson" name was mocked as "Hardly Ableson", "Hardly Driveable," and "Hogly Ferguson",[31][32] and the nickname "Hog" became pejorative.

So far Brompton are expensive but their quality is high so I don't see a Harley 'fall from grace' just yet.

Rather than trying to match the Japanese, the new management deliberately exploited the "retro" appeal of the machines, building motorcycles that deliberately adopted the look and feel of their earlier machines and the subsequent customizations of owners of that era. Many components such as brakes, forks, shocks, carburetors, electrics and wheels were outsourced from foreign manufacturers and quality increased, technical improvements were made, and buyers slowly returned. To remain profitable Harley continues to increase the amount of overseas-made parts it uses, while being careful not to harm its valuable "American Made" image.

On my way home today I went past the local Harley Shop which had huge posters in the window with 'lifestyle' images. I think you would have to agree that if Harley's engineering skills matched their marketing skills you would have the most amazing bike! But thats ok, I have no problem with Harley trading off a image. However, their 'innovation' has been mainly been from catching up with their competitors rather than leading the pack and then marketing their heritage strongly, going so far as to alter the engineering to retain its distinctive sound, not the best engineering practice. Currently, Brompton USP is it's fold and its ride relative to its fold, which many people believe to be the best compromise. It's style comes from its engineering, not a marketing choice.

So, with no offence meant, your example is also poor, Brompton is no Harley, no poor quality engineering to put it out/nearly of business. So perhaps you meant Harley as a cautionally tale? ;)

I'm sure you're not sure. I'm also sure that the rest of the folding bike market was not expecting Brompton to arrive when it did. It might be ten years away, or it might be tomorrow, but a better folding bike will come. The Brompton doesn't fold down to it's wheel size, and a bike which did would be a Brompton killer. Folding wheels are another possible avenue - I don't know how, but I'm not a genius innovative industrial designer. Let's not forget, also, that a bike which folded as small as a Brompton, but was a considerably better ride (better geometry, a sensible drivetrain, better luggage carrying) could nick a lot of Brompton market share very quickly.

If it's tomorrow, then Brompton would have a problem, but then again so would everybody else. If it's 10 years away, even by Brompton's slower rate of innovation than you prefer, it may in fact be Brompton who develop the Brompton 'killer'. Also, like Harley (as this example has already been given to me) Brompton could continue to be very succesfull trading off their image/heritage without needing a smaller fold/better ride. Many products do this, Aga, Smeg etc etc.

As far as whoever said people aren't buying Brompton for innovation, you're wrong. They might not think they are, but when they're buying it for small fold etc, they're buying for an innovation that took Brompton far ahead of the market. Bikes the the IF mode, the Curl and others prove that the market is gradually catching up. When those people stop buying Bromptons, it won't be because they want a more innovative bike, it'll simply be because someone else is building a better folder. That company, however, will be doing so because of innovation. We can pretend it won't happen all we like, but it's happened to every established product in every other market there is, practically. How many leading products of 30 years ago still lead their markets now? Very few. It's in the nature of mankind to invent. It's also in the nature of people to take a view which was, I believe, first stated in Victorian times "Everything that can be invented, already has been".

I never said that people don't buy Brompton's for their current level of innovation. I said that people buy them as 'would consider the Brompton to work fantastically for their needs.' i.e. That the original innovation (and continued refinement) meets their needs almost perfectly. My point was that people don't buy them for smaller innovations they could have, say carbon forks, disc brakes, 21 gears etc. The product works very well for them already. Alot of innovations that could be made for them that just wouldn't mean much to the standard buyer.

The IF mode is certainly an interesting design and I look forward to them coming to market. My understanding though is that they are designed for buyers who want a 'normal' bike in looks and ride. Their size etc and therefore usage will not displace Brompton. In fact, Mark Saunders goes on to say that he considers Bromptons to be the perfect compromise.

The Curl is not here yet so it can be the perfect bike until then.. It may perform well and be a serious contender to the Brompton, but will it as revolutional in comparison to the Brompton as the Brompton was when it first came out? No. Why? The folder market is becoming mature and in a more mature market there are generally less surprises in raw design when the fundermentals don't change, i.e. the human body and the environment that humans and bikes find themselves in.

I don't have much stake in this; I don't own a Brompton, and I'm not likely to. I just think it's sad to see a business rest on its laurels like this. In my experience of how companies fortunes go, it's the first step to demise.

Are they really resting on their laurels here? Or do they make a consious effort to have slower development to accertain whether the latest innovation is just a fad, or a significant improvement? Because it's a world of difference.

I take it my other points were ok then? ;)

Finally, from Brompton theirselves:

Those familiar with our bicycles and our history will know that we approach our research, design and development activities in an unhurried manner: elegant design solutions rarely come quickly when the conflicting requirements of compactness and light weight have to be balanced, and we insist on testing any product thoroughly before making it available to the public. In short, our approach might be described as “cautious but constant innovation”, distinct from the marketing- and trend-led approach favoured by some bicycle companies.

The upside of our approach is that Brompton possesses a deep reservoir of loyalty and trust among consumers and dealers alike, built up over years of restrained product-launches (i.e. only when the products were ready to be used by demanding consumers, not before), a focus on improving the functional (rather than superficial) aspects of our products, and ensuring that every improvement on our bikes is capable of being retrofitted on older Bromptons (i.e. we do not build in obsolescence).

It's not just their design that makes Brompton what it is.

So far Brompton are expensive but their quality is high so I don't see a Harley 'fall from grace' just yet...........

The Brompton is expensive and though the overall quality is good, at its price point one expects better components. Brompton does not really need to innovate, it only has to improve what it has. Better brake levers, shifters, cable noodling, brakes, rack wheels are off-the-shelf technology that can be easily adapted to the B. Even constructing/redesigning the main frame with different lighter material or structure (i.e double butting) is certainly doable, heck they don't even have to change the form of the frame.

Originally Posted by joose I could name many companies that stay small and continue to be succesfull, however I don't feel the need to become the other side of the coin.

One of the recent books I've read is all about companies that choose a different path than being small or expanding. I've attached the link at the customer reviews section.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

Why not try a different perspective?

But your example is a poor one. The complaint has nothing to do with staying small. Instead it is about the failure to innovate. At least in my opinion, those two things are entirely different.

Consider Harley Davidson. After almost going out of business in the 70s and 80s, it restructured its company -- staying relatively small -- but developing a niche while continuing to innovate both the functionality and aethetics of its product. Its bikes rival others with regards to its reliability and options offered.

"But your example is a poor one. The complaint has nothing to do with staying small. Instead it is about the failure to innovate. At least in my opinion, those two things are entirely different." I agree, looking back at this sentance I realise I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say. My feeling was from some earlier posts that Brompton was either going to have to innovate fast or end up a niche bike maker. This was something that could happen but I believe that Brompton's focus on engineering and quality will allow it to remain a significant part of the folding bike industry, rather then niche like say Moulton.

The next two paragraphs are from Wikipedia about Harley Davidson:

The bikes were expensive and inferior in performance, handling, and quality to Japanese motorcycles. Sales declined, quality plummeted, and the company almost went bankrupt.[30] The "Harley-Davidson" name was mocked as "Hardly Ableson", "Hardly Driveable," and "Hogly Ferguson",[31][32] and the nickname "Hog" became pejorative.

So far Brompton are expensive but their quality is high so I don't see a Harley 'fall from grace' just yet.

Rather than trying to match the Japanese, the new management deliberately exploited the "retro" appeal of the machines, building motorcycles that deliberately adopted the look and feel of their earlier machines and the subsequent customizations of owners of that era. Many components such as brakes, forks, shocks, carburetors, electrics and wheels were outsourced from foreign manufacturers and quality increased, technical improvements were made, and buyers slowly returned. To remain profitable Harley continues to increase the amount of overseas-made parts it uses, while being careful not to harm its valuable "American Made" image.

On my way home today I went past the local Harley Shop which had huge posters in the window with 'lifestyle' images. I think you would have to agree that if Harley's engineering skills matched their marketing skills you would have the most amazing bike! But thats ok, I have no problem with Harley trading off a image. However, their 'innovation' has been mainly been from catching up with their competitors rather than leading the pack and then marketing their heritage strongly, going so far as to alter the engineering to retain its distinctive sound, not the best engineering practice. Currently, Brompton USP is it's fold and its ride relative to its fold, which many people believe to be the best compromise. It's style comes from its engineering, not a marketing choice.

So, with no offence meant, your example is also poor, Brompton is no Harley, no poor quality engineering to put it out/nearly of business. So perhaps you meant Harley as a cautionally tale? ;)

Hah! This is just a friendly discussion. No worries about offending anyone as long as the intent is good.

No, it just shows that aggressively improving a product is important for a firm's survival. Not that Brompton is like Harley Davidson. Although I guess one could talk about HD resting on their laurels beginning (approximately ... my memory on the topic is fading) in the mid 60s before getting their butts kicked the mid/late 70s and onwards for many years.

I have been out of the motorcycling world for quite some time. But the product that Harley Davidson sells is more than just transportation, no? What innovation is with respect to that product -- for instance, the engine itself has certain constraints -- is a long discussion in of itself.

More generally, the whole discussion is obviously quite speculative. If the folder market remains small, I am sure that Brompton can continue to plod along for quite some time. If you think that it is going to grow, then the incentive to enter the market increases the larger the margin for improvement over present designs. Mind you, I don't think that anyone has established that Brompton makes a bike of high quality relative to its competitors in the first place.

Just to put things in perspective, I think that the Brompton is a fine bike. It can fulfill certain tasks for a subset of people quite well. However, I also think that they could make it much better with relatively little effort and that how to make it better has been around for years.

Hah! This is just a friendly discussion. No worries about offending anyone as long as the intent is good.

All my discussion is of the friendly type :thumb:

More generally, the whole discussion is obviously quite speculative. If the folder market remains small, I am sure that Brompton can continue to plod along for quite some time. If you think that it is going to grow, then the incentive to enter the market increases the larger the margin for improvement over present designs. Mind you, I don't think that anyone has established that Brompton makes a bike of high quality relative to its competitors in the first place.

I do think the folding market is going to continue to grow and although Brompton is likely to lose market share (as they are not able to expand that fast), I can't but see them increase sales (as with all folder makers). As they have limited resources, I think some of the reasons of the rate of their innovation/implementation of those improvements come's down to having to make decisions on where to go next? Expansion/Organical growth? Reinvention/Refinement? Decisions, decisions lol

Just to put things in perspective, I think that the Brompton is a fine bike. It can fulfill certain tasks for a subset of people quite well. However, I also think that they could make it much better with relatively little effort and that how to make it better has been around for years.

Perhaps your right here, reminds me alot about the iphone and lack of MMS and cut & paste.

It's easy to underestimate how hard low volume production in a higher wage country can be. Working for a manufacturer with similar volume but completely different product I think it's pretty unlikely Brompton are resting on their laurels. Most small British manufactures that where not interested in pushing forward their products went bust years ago. From what I have seen they are pretty conservative but do move forward and generally in the right direction. When your production lines are heavily optimised and very efficient even small changes to products production methods can be very expensive and take a long time to pay off.

Joose - thank you for repeating Brompton's ethos - as an owner of a number of Dahons, I can still see the charm and the desirability of the Brompton very clearly. There are a number of Brompton competitors out there and no-one has come up with a "better" or "cleaner" fold than the Brompton. That is its big selling point - along with reliability and "obsolescence proof" (which is what the fold gives it). The Dahons are updated year upon year and whilst I think they're great, will I still be finding parts for them in 15/20 years? I don't know.

Sammy's analogy to high class motor cars works for me too. With a Brompton you are paying large sums of money for something that you know is manufactured in the UK to a high standard. You pay a premium. Yeah you could go out and get a modern fangled car that could go quicker, cost half as much and would have airbags and aircon and anti lock brakes, but will people still be driving them in 10 years time?

Brompton make quality products and especially in cycling where it is not all about getting from A to B in the quickest time (even more applicable in the folding bike market), the slow, but steady evolution of a company with an intrinsically solid base product is laudible. Look at other companies - Brooks - their saddles are basically the same, Carradice - still using the same materials.

If you asked an Merc rider - would you swap your Merc right now for a Brompton, I don't reckon too many would hold onto their clones...

Don't make the mistake of equating "Made in UK" with quality. As anywhere else, the basic person doing assembly work in th Brompton factory is the same sort of person that would be doing this sort of work in Taiwan - not highly schooled, just pulled off the street so to speak, given enough training to do one repetitive assembly job.

Where quality comes in is in the quality program - inspection and testing - during and after production. The quality program is where the Brommie factory might differ from the China factory. I have seen many examples where there is no quality program implemented in Chinese factories I visited - even some essential testing may be skipped. Does it basically work? If yes, then box it and send it. It may even be reduced to does it look like the original? If yes then send it. We'll worry about returns later.

Aside from this, aluminium frame welding is done by robots - and is often more reliable than hand-brazing as in the Brommie case.

I never said that people don't buy Brompton's for their current level of innovation. I said that people buy them as 'would consider the Brompton to work fantastically for their needs.' i.e. That the original innovation (and continued refinement) meets their needs almost perfectly. My point was that people don't buy them for smaller innovations they could have, say carbon forks, disc brakes, 21 gears etc. The product works very well for them already. Alot of innovations that could be made for them that just wouldn't mean much to the standard buyer.

I'm sorry, but to me this is completely ridiculous.

You don't get guys like Leonard Rubin investing what must be hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve a product which they don't manufacture unless there is a significant portion of the standard buyers which find the bike falls fantastically short of their needs. That is to say, for every Leonard Rubin or person building an aluminum/titanium Mercton there must be hundreds who have at least considered it and thousands who are quietly experiencing dissatisfaction.

I believe this is the observation that kicked off the conversation: if Brompton Co were making the most of their bikes then there wouldn't be so many third parties trying to do it for them.


The IF mode is certainly an interesting design and I look forward to them coming to market. My understanding though is that they are designed for buyers who want a 'normal' bike in looks and ride. Their size etc and therefore usage will not displace Brompton. In fact, Mark Saunders goes on to say that he considers Bromptons to be the perfect compromise.

Though he would never jeopardize his product saying it, I have a sneaking suspicion that the IF Mode is Mark Sanders' secret compromise with the realities of marketing. That is: I don't think he actually believes a "normal" riding bike with "normal" wheels is actually a better bike for typical riding, even apart from folding considerations.

However, the fact that the IF Mode and other innovative bikes differentiate themselves from the rest of the folder market by trying to cater to a different segment is beside the point. The point (and area where Brompton is falling behind) is the methods employed: the monostayed wheels and swiveling hinges which squeeze out the space between the frame on the IF Mode, the cable operated latches which give the tikit such a quick and easy fold, the simple use of aluminum which allow so many other folders to best the Brompton on weight (despite the market appeal of carbon and titanium, the lightest parts available are still often aluminum), etc.

Up until now the immaturity of the market has kept most manufacturers from leveraging these advantages/innovations to compete with Brompton head on, but the writing is on the wall. For example, how long before we see an IF Birdy?


The Curl is not here yet so it can be the perfect bike until then.. It may perform well and be a serious contender to the Brompton, but will it as revolutional in comparison to the Brompton as the Brompton was when it first came out? No. Why? The folder market is becoming mature and in a more mature market there are generally less surprises in raw design when the fundermentals don't change, i.e. the human body and the environment that humans and bikes find themselves in.

On the contrary, IMO the folding bike market is only just beginning to take the first steps towards maturity.

The fundamentals don't really come into play because even Brompton has only begun to scratch the surface at addressing them. When it comes down to it the human body and the environment that bikes find themselves in dictate that a folding bicycle should be no heavier than a good winter coat, no bigger than an umbrella, no more cumbersome to operate than an umbrella, and as good of a vehicle as an automobile. However, these unchanging fundamentals are obviously so far off on the horizon that their constant nature is completely overshadowed by present development and innovation.


Are they really resting on their laurels here? Or do they make a consious effort to have slower development to accertain whether the latest innovation is just a fad, or a significant improvement? Because it's a world of difference.

Sitting back in order to ascertain whether the innovation of others is worthwhile is, for a company whose bread and butter is an essentially unchanged 30 year old product, resting on their laurels. The difference between a fad and a significant improvement is development. For example, if it turns out that the tikit's cable operated latches don't provide a significant improvement at present that doesn't mean that it's just a fad to be ignored; it means that it may take another 10 years to reach its potential or, equivalently, that it may have already reached its potential 10 years ago if Brompton hadn't been resting on their laurels (while Bike Friday was perfecting their packing bikes).

Also, some of the innovation which Brompton has neglected, such as aluminum technology, are clearly not fads.



Those familiar with our bicycles and our history will know that we approach our research, design and development activities in an unhurried manner: elegant design solutions rarely come quickly when the conflicting requirements of compactness and light weight have to be balanced, and we insist on testing any product thoroughly before making it available to the public. In short, our approach might be described as “cautious but constant innovation”, distinct from the marketing- and trend-led approach favoured by some bicycle companies.

The upside of our approach is that Brompton possesses a deep reservoir of loyalty and trust among consumers and dealers alike, built up over years of restrained product-launches (i.e. only when the products were ready to be used by demanding consumers, not before), a focus on improving the functional (rather than superficial) aspects of our products, and ensuring that every improvement on our bikes is capable of being retrofitted on older Bromptons (i.e. we do not build in obsolescence).

This doesn't make sense because many of the original design choices which have not been improved by Brompton Co do not seem to have been the product of careful research, design, development, and testing as much as the product of coincidental circumstances and haphazard choices. In the absence of research, design, development, and testing, what was once a good default because it was standard has now become a poor default as standards have changed.

For example, is there any question that, if Brompton had to start over again today, they wouldn't be making frames compatible with the latest internal hubs? Did Andrew Ritchie, on a shoestring budget, do all the same careful research, design, development, and testing on the use of the original gear hubs that is now supposedly discounting the use of newer hubs? I think not. The 110mm rear dropout and the limited gear choices that come along with it are, as d_D said, the result of low volume production in a higher wage country, not a rigorous research, design, development, and testing program for the end product as Brompton would have you believe.

Not that obsolescence should be "built in" or used as an excuse to force customers into coughing up more dough, but the fact that Brompton refuses to allow their older products to become obsolete relative to their newer products ultimately will not prevent obsolescence as much as it will simply make their entire product line eventually obsolete (newest models included). This is true even in the face of unchanging fundamentals because, like I said, we're still not even close to reaching them (and I've seen Ritchie himself admit it by noting that the Brompton should ideally be smaller and lighter).

I think most of the complaints are from people who never put thousands of miles on a Brompton but would love to own one! LOL!

I know this for fact because I was one myself. I rode thousands of miles on Dahon Piccolo because I could not afford a Brompton and use to say how my bike was every bit as good. Then I purchased a used Dahon Presto in mint condition and said the same thing but deep inside, there was always a desire to own a Brompton.

Finally, I pulled the trigger and purchased a Brompton two weeks ago. There's no comparison. The Brompton is just better bicycle. It's not faster than my Dahon Piccolo but FAR more comfortable. I don't think people realize how important comfort is on a 16' inch wheel folder. My first 16 mile trip on the Brompton left no body part in pain! Incredible!

My Piccolo/Presto are painful to ride in comparison. I had to buy the Dahon suspension seat, however, I find my Brompton more comfortable than either my Dahon with the suspension! No doubt about it, there is a penalty to paid for suspension and that is in acceleration, however, overall speed and commute time between the Dahon Presto and Brompton is minimal.

A lot of people complain the Brompton is too heavy, however it's the suspension that slows overall speed and not the weight. My Piccolo was just as heavy as my Brompton but it was faster due to the lack of a frame suspension. Regardless, it doesn't matter because both bikes travel at about the same top speed.

While I was at the LBS and there was the option of buying a Dahon Curve SL. The Curve SL is a faster bike with more gears and it was tempting on passing this bike because it has better components. However, I purchased the Brompton for the following reasons.

1. BLING -- The Curve SL has a poor dull gray color that just does nothing for me. My Brompton is Cornflower Blue and is the most beautiful bike I own. Pics are coming but I want to get more miles before creating a new thread. The color is just outstanding, only my Bianchi Milano (which I sold) was just as beautiful. When you have a bike with a lot of Bling, it just improves the ride. It gives you a feeling of pride that I can't explain and people all around know you spent a lot of money.

From the Brompton site:

"The steel frames are sent to our painters where each frame is phosphate pre-treated prior to being given a robust polyester powder coat finish"

Boy does this show! There's nothing that compares to a steal painted frame with an incredible finish.

2. I owned Four Dahons --- I passed on the Curve SL because I've owned four Dahons in the past. The Curve was a very nice bike, but it still felt a little harder to ride than the Brompton but that was expected. I still have my Dahon Vitesse 5 speed and while that bike is faster then my Brompton, it's less comfortable. When I get on the Brompton, I'm not looking to go faster than 15 mph so I'm not disappointed. I do know that I'm riding one of the most comfortable folding bikes in production. I don't know why people complain about the front of the Brompton being a hard? I guess they haven't ridden a Dahon! LOL!

3. Made in England --- Come on folks. When was the last time you purchased ANYTHING made in England! LOL! I think it's very special to buy something that's not made in China and I feel that way about Bike Friday. I was very close to buying a Swift folder years ago when it was made in New York City but since they move it offshore, all the bikes look the same with that hard aluminum blue. The pride of buying a bike made in your hometown is lost. While the Brompton is not made in my hometown, it still feels special not being made in a third world country.

As for those who think Brompton is about to go bankrupt, please think again. The Brompton outsells the Tikit by a wide margin and the Birdy has very poor support which is why you hardly see them. Only Dahon sells more and the Curve SL hasn't been a huge hit. I purchased my Brompton at NYCEWheels which used to focus on electric bikes. However, if you go there, it's more like a Brompton shop! The E-Bikes don't sell and have been removed because the Bromptons fly out the door!

When word gets around about a good product, people will buy even if it costs a premium. I can still sell the bike tomorrow and get close to 1K for the bike! A guy walked in the LBS the same time I was buying mine and he looked too broke to afford a department store bike. Seriously. He spent five minutes, took a look at my Brompton and purchased one right then an there. I've never seen that happen with an expensive bike in my life. Go figure.

Don't make the mistake of equating "Made in UK" with quality. As anywhere else, the basic person doing assembly work in th Brompton factory is the same sort of person that would be doing this sort of work in Taiwan - not highly schooled, just pulled off the street so to speak, given enough training to do one repetitive assembly job.

While this is true for lots of areas in any industry, your being a little offensive here in how you put your point across. I think where you have a product/service you take pride in, whether you are not 'highly' schooled, pulled off the 'street' or not, I think the training you will gain will come through into a quality product/service. Myself, I have a Marketing and Business Degree, I also have almost zero mecanical applitude and would be crap at doing any of the labour jobs at Brompton. It comes across to me (whether it was meant to or not) that you have no respect for the people who helped make your bikes, where ever they come from.

By the way this is from the Brompton website:

"We do not have an assembly line: every bike is hand-built to order by one of our bike builders, meaning that they take real responsibility for the work they do; this increases accountability (deficient work is returned to the assembler responsible to put right) and enhances job satisfaction."

So your wrong in your assumptions here.

Where quality comes in is in the quality program - inspection and testing - during and after production. The quality program is where the Brommie factory might differ from the China factory. I have seen many examples where there is no quality program implemented in Chinese factories I visited - even some essential testing may be skipped. Does it basically work? If yes, then box it and send it. It may even be reduced to does it look like the original? If yes then send it. We'll worry about returns later.

While I'm sure Brompton does have an excellent quality program, I'm also sure that if a worker was producing defect after defect they wouldn't be in that job for long.

Aside from this, aluminium frame welding is done by robots - and is often more reliable than hand-brazing as in the Brommie case.

Also, some of the innovation which Brompton has neglected, such as aluminum technology, are clearly not fads.

While this may be the case, my understanding is that Brompton don't use aluminium as it's physical properties don't allow it to be the same size as steel for strength and therefore would affect the fold?

I believe this is the observation that kicked off the conversation: if Brompton Co were making the most of their bikes then there wouldn't be so many third parties trying to do it for them.

This is not always the case. When you have a popular modal in anything, third party's will manufactor new solutions for them. See ipods for example. There are hundreds of docks etc for them and everybody benefits.

For example, is there any question that, if Brompton had to start over again today, they wouldn't be making frames compatible with the latest internal hubs? Did Andrew Ritchie, on a shoestring budget, do all the same careful research, design, development, and testing on the use of the original gear hubs that is now supposedly discounting the use of newer hubs? I think not. The 110mm rear dropout and the limited gear choices that come along with it are, as d_D said, the result of low volume production in a higher wage country, not a rigorous research, design, development, and testing program for the end product as Brompton would have you believe.

But this is hindsight, not a question on whether Brompton continues to innovate which is the topic.

Not that obsolescence should be "built in" or used as an excuse to force customers into coughing up more dough, but the fact that Brompton refuses to allow their older products to become obsolete relative to their newer products ultimately will not prevent obsolescence as much as it will simply make their entire product line eventually obsolete (newest models included). This is true even in the face of unchanging fundamentals because, like I said, we're still not even close to reaching them (and I've seen Ritchie himself admit it by noting that the Brompton should ideally be smaller and lighter).

This is a fair point and is something Brompton may want to address, i.e. when to have a cut off point in supporting older models. Maybe something like 15 years down the line? Who knows, I wouldn't want to really choose that line in the sand. By the way, your never going to get a bike as small and as easy to use as a umbrella that when unfolded offers the same kind of useful ride as the Brompton (or any larger wheeled folder). The Carry Me, may eventually do it, but to do so it's wheels will have to remain smaller, thus affecting the ride. If we have folding wheels in the future to achieve this, this will affect how easy the bike is to unfold, it certainly will be more cumbersome to operate than my umbrella. They have totally different jobs to do and how much more stuff does a bike need to operate??

3. Made in England --- Come on folks. When was the last time you purchased ANYTHING made in England! LOL! I think it's very special to buy something that's not made in China and I feel that way about Bike Friday. I was very close to buying a Swift folder years ago when it was made in New York City but since they move it offshore, all the bikes look the same with that hard aluminum blue. The pride of buying a bike made in your hometown is lost. While the Brompton is not made in my hometown, it still feels special not being made in a third world country.

This does affect my feelings towards Brompton and I'm quite willing to admit it. However, its not because its a UK bike and I'm from the UK. Its because I like the fact Brompton treat their staff well, produce a quality, much loved product. They make a profit, but don't scabble for every last £1 and produce their bikes abroad to make their profits higher. There is a sense of decency about the company, with a more traditional ethos of treating their staff right and their customers right. I buy into that and wish there was more companies like them.

I'm sorry, but to me this is completely ridiculous.

You don't get guys like Leonard Rubin investing what must be hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve a product which they don't manufacture unless there is a significant portion of the standard buyers which find the bike falls fantastically short of their needs.

Yes you do! You always get exceptions to the general rule who want to do something special/different to the rest of us. Custom projects, little cars tuned to out perform supercars etc. Do you really think Brompton bikes are failing fantastically short of a significant portion of owners needs??

That is to say, for every Leonard Rubin or person building an aluminum/titanium Mercton there must be hundreds who have at least considered it and thousands who are quietly experiencing dissatisfaction.

Your right here, hundreds of owners may feel that way, but what percentage of owners is that? 0.1%, 1%, 5%? Do you develop your product for them or do you develop your product to the vast majority of owners needs/desires?

Don't make the mistake of equating "Made in UK" with quality. As anywhere else, the basic person doing assembly work in th Brompton factory is the same sort of person that would be doing this sort of work in Taiwan - not highly schooled, just pulled off the street so to speak, given enough training to do one repetitive assembly job.

Where quality comes in is in the quality program - inspection and testing - during and after production. The quality program is where the Brommie factory might differ from the China factory. I have seen many examples where there is no quality program implemented in Chinese factories I visited - even some essential testing may be skipped. Does it basically work? If yes, then box it and send it. It may even be reduced to does it look like the original? If yes then send it. We'll worry about returns later.

Aside from this, aluminium frame welding is done by robots - and is often more reliable than hand-brazing as in the Brommie case.


Jur, you're not placing enough weight on the differences in working conditions and standards when you make the workers in all parts of the world basically fungible.

A company that is loyal to its employees, shares its wealth with them, treats them decently, and permits them to attain the status of craftsman so they take great pride in their workproduct, is likely to get from its employees work of higher quality than companies which treat their employees as expendable drones. There may be no difference in intelligence or basic aptitude, but a workman's pride is a necessary ingredient for quality.

As you say, much of what leaves factories in China (I'm thinking of mainland China more than Taiwan -- Sheldon Brown noted that Sturmey-Archer Taiwan exceeded the quality of SA UK) is of very very low quality. Why should we expect Chinese bikes to be any better than Chinese baby formula poisoned with melamine, or Chinese toothpaste laced with diethylene glycol?

Specifically with respect to aluminum and the Brompton ... though I realize you were making a point about quality of mechanized versus human welding, I wanted to note that the aluminum Merc and its successor models are rated for lower rider weight than the Brompton because they've kept the tube size basically the same as the Brompton's. To attain the same strength as steel, the aluminum tubes would have to be of thicker gauge and/or wider in diameter; moreover, aluminum is weakened by welding significantly more than steel is. The steel Brompton is a more versatile bike in western markets where the average rider weight is much higher than it is in the orient. A person weighing 180 pounds could load a Brompton up with gear and tour with it.

Regards
T

I think most of the complaints are from people who never put thousands of miles on a Brompton but would love to own one! LOL!..........

Actually, no. You will see that there are quite a number of Brompton owners who have replaced a component or so for a better version, be it a saddle, brake pads, levers, rack wheels, etc, little things that Brompton could have easily done in the first place. Once you have had your B for a while you will want to improve the ride. Congratulations by the way on your new bike, that Cornflower Blue color is one of my favorites.

To attain the same strength as steel, the aluminum tubes would have to be of thicker gauge and/or wider in diameter; moreover, aluminum is weakened by welding significantly more than steel is. The steel Brompton is a more versatile bike in western markets where the average rider weight is much higher than it is in the orient. A person weighing 180 pounds could load a Brompton up with gear and tour with it.

Regards
T

Maybe you haven't seen my Merc tour pictures. I weigh 175 pounds.

http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/7088/mercongosforthpathvq2.jpg



Of course, your general point about the difference between aluminium and steel tubes of the same size is correct. I'm just saying that we shouldn't underestimate the original Merc frame. The new ones are different and not constructed the same way. The original ones did not come with a weight limit specified as far as I know. Mine has done 3500 miles now.


http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2864416&postcount=4

Perhaps Rivendell? They have been in existence for some time now (more so if you count the Bridgestone years) so I guess they are doing quite well.

Or perhaps not. GP said Rivendell turned a profit 2 out of their first 15 years. Seeking a solution to this business failure, Rivendell has continually created new products.

Best,
tcs

PS - Bridgestone in the USA went belly up and left the market.

PS - Bridgestone in the USA went belly up and left the market.

That's old news, especially to BOB members :lol: Still, it's a wonder Rivendell is still afloat with that sales record. Rivendell creating new products?? I think Grant the retro grouch would be surprised with that statement.

Can you get smaller than a Brompton without patent infringement?

I've read this comment on several threads, and I'm puzzled.

Mr. Ritchie's U.S.A. Brompton patent, 4,182,522 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,182,522.PN.&OS=PN/4,182,522&RS=PN/4,182,522), dates from May 6, 1977. Back then, patents lasted for 17 years. As I understand it, the patent protection on the basic Brompton design expired fourteen and a half years ago.

Just what Brompton patent that is still in force and protecting the design is everyone talking about?

Thanks,
tcs

Consider Harley Davidson. After almost going out of business in the 70s and 80s, it restructured its company -- staying relatively small -- but developing a niche while continuing to innovate both the functionality and aethetics of its product. Its bikes rival others with regards to its reliability and options offered.

what are you smoking ? Harleys are least reliable and have poor handling, low horsepower to weight ratio, and are way overpriced. Don't compare Harley to anything else. all Harley is, is image. that's it. the bikes are crap. Harley fools a lot of people out of their money to sell 'an image' and fine, go with that, but reliability ? pffffft. crappy air cooled engines with low horsepower and non-innovation. puhleeze. innovation to Harley is designing a bike that doesn't leak all it's oil in one week. That is the biggest advance they have made in the past 20 years. that and bearings that don't break down under 5000 miles.