How would ETRO 507 wheels be not standard components? ETRO 507 IS a standard... Just because you probably do not get them in the supermarket around the corner? Then there is a problem: If you consider everything that is not identical to all the other bikes around to be "non standard" (and thus a downside) but on the other hand want a bike that massively differs from all the other bikes around in terms that it should i.e. be lighter and have bigger wheels and still fold very compact but at the same time is identical to all the other bikes around you end up in a catch 22...

While I agree with the argument in principle there is are huge differences between the two cases: When the Brompton was initially created in the 70ies there were basically just three types of folders around: The Bickerton (which gave the inspiration to the Brompton), the Moulton (which wasn't a "real" folder) and the armada of cheap folding bikes that set on the Moulton hype of the 60ies as knockoffs but totally lacked build quality and ergonomics. Totally different story today - there are hundreds of folders around and far more knowledge about the topic. Andrew Richie had a total lack of money when he built the first Bromptons and that continued up into the 90ies. This led to some compromises which Peter with the massive funding does not suffer from. I.e. the Brompton MK1 used existing castings from a french manufacturer and had to build the bike around them (and had to stop building frames when the manufacturer stopped offering these hinges). Peter invested in CNC and built what he thinks he needs. Today we have computers, simulations, automated welding and high quality components - all of which was either not available or not used in the earlier days of the Brompton.
If you look at the issues that the earlier Brompons had you'll end up with things like:
- breaking frames on the MK1 that had to be rewelded
- non mature custom components on the early bikes like the chain tensioner that got enhanced over time
- lower end components on earlier bikes like the brakes or the lights that got replaced with better components as they became availiable
- breaking main frames on the MK2 bikes that were either caused by inconstistent quality of the manual brazing or a single series of tubes below the specified quality (which was only discovered as suddenly some frames started to break on the hinge) - depending on whome you ask
- rear frames rusting through, mainly caused by a small hole that was necessary for temperature regulation during the brazing/welding
- braking handle bars, caused by the miserable idea to get them delivered from Neobike, the Asian licence taker of Brompton that took shortcuts all along the way (and led to the Brompton clones that we see in Asia today).

That was pretty much it. When looking at the Helix we see that these kind of issues probably can be avoided today by using modern technoligy, automated welding, CAD and computer simulations, building the stuff in house instead of outsourcing and higher quality components on the market. All of which Peter does, making use of the massive funding he got and the technology available today. The basic concept of the Brompton stands for more than 40 years now and the basic model for more than 30 years (starting with the MK2 in 1987).

So I'd assume it can be possible that the Helix could be a bike w/o major issues or quality flaws right from the start, especially with someone as quality fanatic as Peter seems to be. Clearly this is not guaranteed and bad surprises may be happening. But chances are way better today than they were when the Brompton was invented.

On the other hand it seems natural and to be expected that there will be some maturing over the following years, based on real world experiences, real world usage, user feedback and technology moving forward. But in the same way that many Bromptons of the late 80ies still are in full service today this could easily be possible with the Helix, too.