I have been avoiding opening my copy, but I guess I have to get to it.



As to the quote, it is not accurate. The time difference that was

cited in the article (at least in the draft I reviewed) was for a 3/4-

mile 6-8% hill climb. The time difference is seconds, not minutes. I

was faster on the MAP by about 15 seconds. That was for a single run

up the hill on the MAP, compared to my typical time on my NS. I kept

the MAP for a couple of weeks and made a point of timing myself up

that hill on every bike I rode (the hill is on the approach I almost

always take to my house). My times on the MAP varied from 3:35 to

3:55, on the NS the range was 3:47-4:30. The 3:47 time was

exceptional, typically I am at or over four minutes. The two bikes

weigh about the same.



On my ATB one day, weighing 46 lbs with the cargo I was hauling, my

time was 3:48. Corrected for weight this would be 3:32 if the ATB

weighed the same as the MAP.



Riding my Bacchetta Ti Aero I have times in the 3:45-4:15 range;

corrected for weight this is similar to the MAP times.



To my knowledge none of this more detailed information made it into

the review. Nevertheless, it is hard not to conclude *my* NS is slow.

My bike's flexitors and hydrolastic are at Moulton now for testing, at

their request. My bike is a 2004 frame, with softer flexitors than

what is currently supplied. As you know from my posts here, I've had

some trouble with the hydrolastic so I won't be surprised if it does

not perform as it should.



The most upsetting thing for me in all this is that Jan would not hold

the article while Moulton tests the suspension parts.



Bill Gobie