??? Where is anything that says the original company gets actual money from "homage" manufacturers?

??? Your link doesn't indicate that homage manufactures actually mention the originator by name.

:foo:

You aren't making any sense.

This is wrong.

This is wrong.

Not bad for only a Litepro. 😉😉

The pix are looking better. 👍🏼

Let’s stop with the back and forth arguing which adds nothing to the thread. The thread was cleaned up some too. Thanks.

You are "begging the question" here.

• Clearly, people who buy Brompton "clones" see them as fine.
• It appears some people are not fine with "homage" watches.

That is, it seems the two situations seem to be similar.

Copy: like copying someone's homework and taking credit.
Clone: As above but you now know how to do the homework
Counterfeit: As above, but with skills
Homage: As above with added snobbish entitlement

Credit where credit is due: Brompton is (currently) thriving. The order books are full and they've met their aggressive sales increase goals, perhaps a few years late but with Brexit and COVID, still absolutely commendable. They are exporting a low-tech device (steel bicycles are basically 1890s~1920s technology) from what has to be one of the world's highest manufacturing cost locations - unbelievable! They've built a community of customers - outstanding branding effort! They have a vision of building a new factory that's actually a nice facility in which to work. :thumb:

Okay. They've been using the courts, rather than superiority of product, to battle competitors. :mad: Their 'innovation' of 4-speed derailleur gearing is a chuckle. :roflmao2: And I find some of their marketing absolutely eye-rolling. :wtf:

So what will the future hold?

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...df42c01910.png

I don’t wish Brompton goes broke. I have one myself and like it very much. But I decided to buy it after youtube video by Victor, not Brompto’s ads, commercials or communities. I didn’t even know it existed before watching that video But what I know from my life experience is companies who do not invent would eventually fade away. Future will tell I guess.

Quick update on the bike. Most of the screws needed to be torqued (loose crank arm). I replaced the folding pedals with Dahons. Replaced the chain ring with a Litepro 45t instead of the unbranded 47t with separate chain guard. Added reflectors to meet regulations.

The Sturmey Archer hub works well but I’m having trouble with the derailleur.

Here is the picture of how they applied the shipping fees. It works. They used 30 pages of stamps! Anybody collect Chinese stamps?


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...bcc1ced90.jpeg

Update: The Sturmey Archer hub is slipping between the 2nd and 3 rd gear. I took a look at a video and I’m trying to solve this. Up to now it looks like it s working. Same thing with the deraileur. I’ve ordered a kick stand, extented and wider caster wheel, replaced the saddle. The ride is actually good. More to follow. Here is a récent picture.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...168415b57c.jpg

I've read all of this, 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. My bad.

A useful urban folder
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...21b4998806.jpg

How did you order it from Canada, and how much did you pay total (bike + shipping + duty + sales tax)?

Brompton’s folding bike patent expired a long time ago (in 1999), though Brompton have been in court trying to prevent other makers from using their design claiming that their bicycle design is “copyrighted.” Their argument is that their design drawings were copyrighted when the bicycle was designed, and anyone using written plans similar to those made by Brompton are infringing on Brompton’s copyright.

It’s not likely that Brompton will prevail in the long run, and makers in Asia have been producing their own versions for a long time. I can find many Brompton-type bikes here in Japan which sell for much less than the real thing, and many of them are technologically superior. You can get a Brompton-type bike with disk brakes, conventional drivelines using off-the-shelf parts, etc. I dislike the idea of using a copyright in place of a patent to extend ownership of a design almost indefinitely; patents are not permanent as it could give corporations virtual monopolies on a wide range of products.

Hello, I ordered it from the Litepro web site. It was on sale with shipping included. The sale is still active I believe. It took about three weeks to arrive. The final price was about CA$850. The folding pedals need to be replaced since they are plastic and bend under load. I spent about $125 to improve the bike. Beer wasn’t included.

I find this odd.

If someone makes a 100% copy of a Porsche with just their name on it, it's unlikely Porsche won't win in court. Regardless of the technical considerations (eg. folding), the product has to be physically different enough that consumers can tell them apart.

For instance, compare the Brompton with Dahon's Curl. They're clearly different enough so that Dahon can sell them in Europe and North America:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5b0d41b974.png

Not really...
 

OK, so I am super, super late to the party (this discussion), but I feel I have to add my 2 cents. When it comes to watches, most of the time, the seller doesn't acknowledge the original designer. In fact, it would be detrimental to the sales of the "homage" to do so, being that the serious watch community is so militant about wanting to keep the purity of the hobby. Yes, to many, that is what it is though I suspect it's more about status than anything else. Look at me (my fancy expensive Rolex), I have "arrived".

The bike world is somewhat more forgiving and mentioning that a Brompton look alike is in fact a clone or copy is more widely accepted. That said, the term "homage" isn't out of place in this too except that sounds wieird since many in this community are not to used to it. Saying that a bike is based on the Brompton's design is actually a good thing unless you're a hardcore fanboy of the brand and find it offensive.

We also know that outside the EU, there is nothing Brompton can do about these clones since the patents expired a while ago. Like it or not, anyone who creates a Brompton clone doesn't have to pay the company any royalties or other so called "licensing fees". That's business folks. Live goes on.

Please DO NOT QUOTE ME IN THIS THREAD. I do not wish to be a part of the discussion.

The problems I had with the derailleur, were caused by a broken part named the dog leg. I replaced it with a better one. The shifter was indexed which was just to complicated for the two gear. I use a Shimano friction shifter and all is good now, I have six speeds. The three speed StrumeybArcher hub complements the bikes well for urban use with few hills.

Brompton's pre-2017 derailleur shifter doesn't work with the Litepro clone?

What Shimano friction shifter did you use?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...052985e4e4.png

This one

https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/produ...-TZ500-LN.html

You seem to have missed post no. 28.

Brompton, with their frivolous "3D Copyright" claim, has now had their derriere handed back to them twice in EU court.

You gotta love how the Brompton fanboys seek out pictures that make it look like the Brompton folds smaller than the Dahon Curl. :roflmao2:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ad1a5bd3e9.png

Based on the precedent of Brompton's EU Court loses, I think the European market is wide open as well.

Don't use Brompton's copyrighted/trademarked name, logos, font, marketing literature, etc. Sell 16" trifolds.

"The best defense against copying is innovation.” Will Butler-Adams

EU Courts ruled that the Brompton bicycle is a functional design, not sculpture or artwork. There is no '3D Copyright' for functional designs. One gets a patent (the intellectual property protection that applies to functional designs) for this.

Brompton's patents have expired.

Customers can tell the products apart by the copyrighted/trademarked name (decals & labels), the font & the logos, all of which should tie the product to the company's reputation and product support.

Its true that Brompton almost didn't innovate since the original design of Andrew Ritchie which was a real braking thru innovation since decades later its still the smallest folding bike on the market (yes Dahon Curl is maybe slightly smaller, but the difference is marginal and the Curl designed is derived from the Andrew Ritchie design).

The T-line is for me no design innovation, just a material upgrade and the 4s derailleur is just ridiculous.

But the Asian clones are also no innovations, they even copy the drawbacks of the Brompton (the bigger wheelbase is not an innovation and not needed to make a more stable bike, other folding bikes with the same wheelbase as the Brompton are more stable).

And Litepro is probably the worse, they only copy other manufacturers products (not only Brompton) selling cheap low quality copies, they do not innovate at all.

Nor Brompton nor the copycat brands made folding bike design progress (excepted for the much lower weight with the T-line but the organized shortage commercial strategy is a shame).

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6883cd53ee.jpg

The Curl D9 is an interesting design. In another time, I would have considered it.
This is Dahon's version of the Brompton and Dahon somehow managed to give it a "Hunchback of Notre Dame" look to it.
Disk Brakes, good deal.
But what's with that derailleur?!
Guess you need extra things sticking out to grab onto random obstacles and objects.

Overall, looks like Dahon added more innovation into one or 2 years of the Curl than Brompton has in 50 years.

The extension of the derailleur is meant to maintain the chain tensionned when the rear triangle is folded.

This type of tensionner was used on the Birdy 1 and Birdy 2 and wasn't reliable, reason why a new tensionner concept located around the crankset chainring was implemented on the Birdy 3.

I wonder if the Curl has a rear shock. Apparently the Curl has jettisoned the front luggage block to get a narrower fold. To me that is unfortunate, but it does have a narrower fold. I like the rear derailleur. I like the design of the rear rack and taking the second pair of easy wheels off of the main frame. Not shown in the photo, the front fork is one sided, again I assume it to be for narrowing the fold.

I am all for the clones. Bring in the clones. I am skeptical of copies if they have nothing more to offer than price, though that is not a bad thing. While searching for 20-inch trifolds, I saw this. While I would not buy the whole bike, if I could buy the rear wheel with cassette, derailleur and shifter, I might do that and put it on my B