New 3sixty bikes (Affordable Brompton Clone)
 

I heard that the 3Sixty bikes will add more lineup this year,

-Small frame with M-bar (last year's model, based on TW brompton, 1 inch headset, no pusher mount nut)
-Small frame with S-bar (same frame as last year's version, new bent stem for S-type handlebar)
-Large frame (new model, roughly the same dimension as UK brompton, 1 1/8" headset, pusher mount nut for external shifting)
-Full titanium version (~15lbs)

So basically the new large frame version will be almost the same as the UK Brompton.
I don't know the price but I am pretty sure it will be less than 1/2 of UK brompton :D

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4e978786fc.jpg
New S-type model (with short frame, 1 inch headset)

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...82ce22ad0c.jpg
New full titanium model

And here's my build with custom 3d printed tensioner (with integrated pusher mount)
It weighs 8.3kg now with heavy aluminium seatpost, riser handlebar and stock brakes.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...232ba52af1.jpghttps://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e34a3369a3.jpg

Nice, hope they sell well. Too bad all these clones don't use the opportunity to make the bike better. An integrated headset and a regular derailleur hanger would have been easy changes. I will keep my old Brompton since this is no improvement in design.

One of the clones (GROO M3T) uses aluminium frame, rear hinge with sealed bearing, integrated headset, height adjustable handlepost with quick release (a la Dahon). I think it costs around $400 with 3 speed IGH.
The handlepost folds the other way though (exposing the chain)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e05471c19e.png

I don't believe these are licensed. They may not be improvements over the existing Brompton design, but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimately produced.. They're just not at all affiliated with Brompton in the UK.

It would be cool to see if they start improving the design (apart from materials usage e.g Titanium and Aluminum). For now, though, it's just clones.

Great post. How many years has this bike model been on the market / on the road?

Brompton patent expired more than 10 years ago. They are all legitimately produced and marketed bikes with full warranty.

20

Not at all familiar with patent law, I take it?

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for Brompton to pay royalties on the use of the 45º folding handlepost during the active period of Dahon's patent on that design.

IP is more than just patents. Brompton tried to sue Dahon when they introduced their Curl Brompton clone in Europe based on IP (and not patents) and lost the case, as far as I know because the court came to the conclusion that the Curl was different enough from the original. As none of the other Asian clones are offered outside Asia there might be reasons for that. One being that those plagiatory bikes do not fulfill western safety standards and have not been successfully or at all tested to the norms mandatory for selling in western countries. Second may be that in the early 2000s companies like Merc that did try to distribute their Brompton clones in Europe got sued by courts due to violation of IP (and obviously not because of patents as those were already gone by then). The bikes had to be destroyed and they were explicitely banned from distributing those bikes in Europe.

Even in China, where IP infringement of western brands is notorious and seemed impossible to stop things may be about to change: Land Rover just won a case against Landwind, selling a clone of one of their car designs: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/ca...er-Evoque.html

With that happening climate may be changing for copycats in China. Brompton is trying to be more present and sell more in Asian markets and thus they may sooner or later have to address the issue locally - which they did not do until know, possibly because of risk, limited ressources and only a small chance of winning the case due to the general attitude in China towards such things and even less of being able to enforce a possible outcome towards the ever changing amount of clone producers. Instead they focussed on developing their bike further to beat the competition qualitywise. The future may however show a different approach.

Just because there are no patents involved or Brompton did not go to court does not mean that what the plagiators do would be legal.

You know, people have complained in other threads about topics constantly being rehashed and beaten to death like a dead horse, and here we are discussing the same patent crap about Brompton OVER and OVER AGAIN. Who cares if this isn't a Brompton approved clone? Enjoy it for what it is, decide if it interests you, and if not,...move on.

Brompton patent discussion = :deadhorse:

Bromptons are expensive hence why I don't have one but they are fully certified and tested for a long life with decent components. These don't look strong or built to last, the basic crimped dropouts on the forks and other parts look pretty poor. It's no bargain to pay half as much for a bike that lasts only a couple of years and puts your safety at risk.

I thought the whole point of that frame design was the need for steel or possibly titanium so the flexing of that downtube doesn't cause premature fatigue. To just keep the same frame design but move to aluminium unless overly compensated for with a much thicker possibly non-butted tube seems less than ideal. As you change materials the frame design should change quite a lot. While I was at a recycling centre sometime ago I saw a basic generic folding bike where the chainstays had sheared off and twisted and a huge number of deep scratches to the underside of the frame downtube. I didn't know how old it was but it looked like a pretty horrific failure possibly injury causing. The bike was folded but I think that was purely to make it easy to dispose of as the hinge itself looked fine. It was clearly aluminium too due to lack of corrosion on the frame itself even though other parts were corroded. It wasn't a brand I recognised and the wheels weren't attached and some other components had been removed. What was obvious about it was the complete lack of strengthening in its design and it looked exactly like the sort of frame that would fail. I don't know the date of the bike as that was made difficult by the lack of components but if I was guessing somewhere between 2006-2012. The stem was still attached and was a basic quill stem, non-folding.

Bicycle certification has improved over the years and frame tests have become much better and stricter. There is better indication now of weight limits and more requirements for manuals to give detailed information regarding of normal use and expected lifespan. Even in China many Chinese avoid Chinese branded goods due to safety concerns and prefer western brands even if the products themselves are manufactured in China because they believe they will meet proper safety standards and won't have dangerous cost-cutting. Even in Taiwan which is the source of probably the best bike components in the world nowadays there is a large low end sector where they assemble mainland Chinese parts to put a 'made in Taiwan' sticker on them or small factories that produce low end product that sells on Taiwan's great quality reputation despite being poor quality. The risk is pretty much eliminated by buying properly certified products that have been legally imported commercially into Europe or US and not a personal import.

Well - possibly the connection of those two topics is caused because they are connected. It is a question of personal attitude abd morale if you mind IP or not. But - as Bonzo said earlier - those clones may also be of different (and possibly lower) quality (as threads in this very forum with experiences with clone Bromptons show). So as long as people claim: It looks a like Brompton and this proves it is as good as Brompton but it only costs a fraction - so this British suckers are ripping you off, neglecting the fact that copying is cheaper than inventing, avoiding quality standards is cheaper and similar looks do not automatically mean similar quality these topics will pop up again and again. Indepedently of patents or not.

Being more expensive do not automatically mean having better quality. They are all from FACTORY ASSEMBLED 2018 UK bromptons.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8306e7edf0.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ae88cb818c.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...87a454f14a.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...92850a7107.jpg

They didn't lose the case - it was thrown out at first hearing for being meritless. Brompton was ordered to pay Dahon's legal fees - ouch!

So you've called on Brompton to get legal and pay Dahon for the IP theft of the patented 45º folding handlepost?

Fascinating. What exactly about a bike with a big 3SIXTY decal, 3SIXTY hangtags, 3SIXTY owners manual and 3SIXTY warranty purchased from a 3SIXTY dealer would make an uninitiated buyer think they were buying a Brompton?

I'm not in Brompton's shoes and do neither know much about the handlepost topic you are mentioning. As far as I know (which may be wrong) this was no intentional theft but a parallel development of something David Hon had patented either shortly before or maybe even shortly later (if you look at the timeline when which bike was invented publically) and he tolerated it for the sake of making folding bikes more popular and common (afaik the official statement by Mr Hon) but maybe also because he was not totally sure his patent would survive a court call or if the matter was crystal clear (just speculation).

Patent IP theft doesn't depend on intent. If Dr. Hon's work was later, as you further speculate, then Mr. Ritchie could present notarized, witnessed evidence his work came prior - which, in ~30 years, he has been unable to do.

In the very same way that a cheaper price or a similar look does not mean equal quality. There is a connection between price and quality if you go below a certain price level but there is not necessarily one on higher price levels. Still there are a number of factors apart from build quality that explain a higher price of a British made Brompton.

Black Ti fork from 2018 looks like CHPT3. The issue shown in the picture looks like the root cause would have been an overtightened stem nut. The question would be who overtightened it. Brompton is not free from failures but if they occur they usually handle them very generously (like the bottom bracket one lately). And if I remember correctly something was changed regarding the ti-forks not too long ago. So my questions would be:

1. was the stem nut overtightened by the factory or did someone fiddle around with it later?
2. did you place a warranty claim with Brompton and what was their reaction and handling of the issue?

One of the reasons why Bromptons are more expensive is that they actually have warranty, spare parts and customer support...

He did not do so - which is not the same as if he was unable to do so. Mr Hon did not care so why would Andrew Richie? Both were interested in making folders more popular. At the time the issue occured (early to mid 80ies) they did not really compete with each other. If Mr Hon had filed a claim (which would have been the first step if he considered that Brompton was violatin his patent) Andrew Richie would probably have defended himself (or changed the design) and both of us do not know what would have been the outcome of a possible trial.