The Bridgestone is quite closely modelled on the 1960s machine,but in alloy,with some minor frame alterations

Moulton is unique in the history of cycling.Dr Alex Moulton’s suspended small wheeler kick started the small wheel revolution,made cycling fashionable in ‘60s Britain,and over 40 years later,the basic concept is still in production.

It’s the great survivor:built first by Dr Moulton after Raleigh refused to do a deal;then by Raleigh when they saw how successful it was;sidelined in the 1970s (Dr Moulton says after Raleigh’s corporate head was turned by the success of the high barred Chopper – see page 42); reinvented in the ‘80s as the space frame Moulton,built both in the tiny factory at Bradford on Avon,and in cheaper APB form by Pashley.And 20-odd years later, the space frame Moulton is still with us,with those small wheels and full suspension that have underpinned every single bike with the Moulton badge. Hop over to this web-site for more details.

There’s just one hurdle to owning one of these iconic bikes today.The space frame Moultons are built in tiny numbers by a small team of skilled craftsmen, and they cost a few thousand pounds apiece.There are plenty of wealthy enthusiasts around the world willing to pay that,and for those who can’t or won’t,Pashley offers the TSR range from £895, but that still leaves a gap between the two,and in any case some ‘Moultoneers’ still prefer the simplicity of the original ‘60s Fframe Moulton.

Enter Bridgestone of Japan, which has been building a replicais much more faithful than that.It looks like an exact replica of the original,with the advantage of modern componentry,but there are some key differences.The frame is of aluminium,not steel;the front suspension uses an external hinge rather than internal splines;the rear frame pivot is in a different place;the wheels are 17-inch (369mm) Moulton specials,not the original (349mm) 16s;and no ‘60s Moulton offered an 18-speed derailleur,let alone one made in Japan.Prices start at £975, and the quality looks spot-on.

For some,the thought of a 100% Japanese Moulton might still be too much to swallow,in which case there’s the Custom,and that’s what we test here.The standard Bridgestone bike is wheeled into an annexe of the little factory in Bradford on Avon and treated to upgraded components,plus a whole array of options.So the Custom Separable comes with a polished and lacquered frame,double chainring and adjustable dropbars with STI shifters.The front suspension medium – polymer only in the standard Bridgestone – has a steel spring added,and they claim reduced stiction as a result.Options fitted to the test bike included front rack,large rear rack,bags for both and MSK quick-release pedals.The basic Custom Separable costs £2,175,so even before you add any of these,it’s not cheap.

Just like the original Moulton Stowaway (plus many Moultons since),this one splits in half,though they do a rigid frame version as well.But it’s not intended to compete with modern small-wheeled folders.Instead,say Moulton,just like the ‘60s pioneer,this is a genuine alternative to a big-wheeled bike of the same spec,with the added advantage of a split-in-half frame.Are they right?

On the Road

If you’re particularly big or small,do take a test ride before buying,as there’s only one frame size,and at 5’ 6”,with arms to match,I felt quite stretched out.Thanks to a swivelling stem,there is some adjustment in the drop bars, at 97-100.5cm off the ground,but even with the Brooks saddle slid right forward,the bike still felt big.Still,that’s no problem for taller riders,and there’s also lots of saddle height adjustment,from 101cm to as low as you like.

Some bikes reveal their sporty character within the first few metres,and the Moulton is one of those.Even pedalling away from a dark,wet railway station,it had that get up and go feel that encourages you to push that bit harder and head for the horizon.It’s got fizz and zing,a bit like a Mini Cooper in fact – and that’s a real Mini Cooper,not the bloated pastiche made by BMW.

The Bridgestone is quite closely modelled on the 1960s machine,but in alloy,with some minor frame alterations

…it was great to slip into that 113-inch top gear, allowing 20mph cruising…

This efficient energy transfer comes from a stiff,strong frame that is uncompromised by the fact that it splits in half.Plus the Shimano bits Ultegra and Capreo are near the top of Shimano’s componentry pecking order,which shows in clean,precise gearchanging.The STI shifters will change down two,three or four cogs at a time,which is especially useful on steep hills,and also allow one to trim the big chainwheel.As the Custom is built to order,there’s a choice of ratios,and the test bike’s 928 tooth rear cogs came with 46 and 58-tooth chainwheels,giving 29-89 inches on the small chainwheel,and 40-112 on the big one.There’s also a monster 62-tooth chainwheel, which would deliver 119 inches.

Either way,there’s a cog for all occasions,and while the bottom 29inch isn’t a genuine granny gear,it climbed every hill we tried.There’s a whole folklore about climbing hills on Moultons,with some riders convinced that the front suspension will bob up and down,wasting valuable effort.If you stand on the pedals,pull on the bars and ride aggressively,it will,but sit back and pedal smoothly,and it won’t – simple. At the other end of the scale,it was great to slip into the 113-inch top, allowing (given athletic legs or a following wind) 20mph cruising.Like pedalling with seven league boots on.

Not surprisingly,the Moulton proved to be the fastest non-electric bike tested around our standard 10mile course,at 38 minutes.That put it a decisive nose ahead of the Brompton S2LX,at 41 minutes our previous fastest pedal-powered machine.We’ve never tested a conventional fast tourer,but we doubt it would exceed the Moulton’s average 15.7mph by very much. There is of course another side to all this get …suspension has always been part of the concept… combining the benefits of small wheels with big wheel comfort… up and go.Small wheels do take some acclimatisation,especially when allied with narrow drop bars. The Moulton has a flighty,quicksteering feel – it’s not unstable,but certainly needs more concentration than a big-wheeled bike.And the narrow,high pressure tyres (Bridgestone of course) which roll so freely aren’t well suited to loose surfaces riding off tarmac and straight onto a gravelly Sustrans track resulted in a lurid front wheel slide.Fortunately,good brakes are part of the package,Shimano side-pulls that are light, progressive and powerful.

Full suspension has always been part of the Moulton concept – the whole idea was to combine the benefits of small wheels (strength,acceleration,open frame) with big-wheel comfort.The Bridgestone’s suspension isn’t adjustable like that on Bradford-built Moultons, but the Custom does have that steel spring added to the front polymer.And the whole setup works superbly well,floating over manhole covers and speed humps,and giving you the confidence,despite those hard,narrow tyres,to ride straight over undulations.Not only that,but the single-tube suspension,with its scissor linkage,looks a far more elegant solution than the motorcycle-style front forks fitted to many bikes.The rear suspension consists of a non-adjustable lump of elastomer,which proved much too hard for my 10 stone.

Folding

The Moulton doesn’t fold like a Bike Friday,let alone one of the classic small-wheel folders,but then it was never intended as the sort of bike to slip onto a crowded commuter train.Instead,just like the original Moulton Stowaway,the split-in-half frame makes it easy to fit into the boot of the car (Bentley,in the case of some readers). Splitting the bike is a quick operation. Select top gear and split the three cables via the neat little threaded connectors,then unscrew the big allen bolt in the middle of the frame and gently lift the bike in half.After a couple of practice runs, we were doing this in 20 seconds,plus another 7 seconds to remove the saddle stem and quick-release pedals.The latter slip off after pushing down a spring-loaded collar,and very well they work too.The essential allen key is kept in in a slot underneath the rear rack,which is jolly handy…as long as no one nicks it while you’re around the corner sipping a cappuccino.

Anyway,the result is a bike of two halves. The front half measures 103.5cm long,26cm wide and 55.5cm tall (149 litres or 5.2 cu ft);the rear 101.5 x 53 x 43.5 (234 litres or 8.3 cu ft).Not something to have Brompton quaking in its boots,but still more adaptable than a conventional big-wheeler.We had the whole lot back together in 30 seconds,plus 12 for the saddle and pedals – no doubt more practice would bring a faster time.And once the allen bolt is tightened,the whole thing is as rigid as a solid frame.

Together again,the complete bike tipped our scales at 14.4kg with the racks in place but no bags – Moulton claim 12.1kg with the racks off,which sounds about right.Either way,the Bridgestone Moulton is a bit on the tubby side for such a sporty machine,though oddly it doesn’t feel heavy and slothful on the road – quite the reverse in fact.And according to our 10-mile time,it doesn’t perform that way either.

As on the more expensive Moultons,a small rear rack comes as standard,with a front rack and larger rear as extras,plus bags.Our test bike had the lot.They aren’t as capacious as conventional panniers,but big enough for a few days touring.Both bags slip on and off fairly quickly,thanks to velcro fastenings,so there’s no need to leave them outside the pub. They are waterproof,have external pockets and,best of all,little leather ‘Alex Moulton’ zip pulls.The rear bag does get muddy in wet weather though.

Conclusion

Some riders would never consider buying a Moulton;others would consider nothing else. The Bridgestone’s frame badge proclaims ‘The Spirit of Moulton,’ and it is just that.To all intents and purposes,this is the original Stowaway,but with modern components and superior performance.Forty years on,it’s become a fast,sporty tourer with a long pedigree,plus that elegant front suspension.It’s undeniably expensive in Custom form,and the standard Bridgestone (or Pashley’s TSR) looks better value.But the Moulton,wherever it’s made,is still a unique small-wheeler.

Specification

Bridgestone Moulton Custom Separable £2,175 . Weight 14.4kg (32lbs) . Gears 18-spd Shimano Capreo derailleur . Ratios 29″-113″ . Folded size (front) :L103.5cm W26cm H55.5cm (rear) : L101.5cm W53cm H43.5cm . Folded volume 383 litres (28 cu ft) Wheelbase 115cm . 10-mile circuit 38 mins . Manufacturer Bridgestone/Moulton UK Distributor Alex Moulton Ltd  tel 01225 865895 email mail@alexmoulton.co.uk

A to B 58 – Feb 07

With handlebars on the inside, the Space Invader produces a much neater package. The DownTube is wider and more cumbersome.

There was a time, not so long ago when you had to pay quite a lot for a light reliable practical folding bike. To be honest, little has changed, but the cheaper bikes have certainly improved. Some of the equipment may still be a bit dubious, but for £300 you can buy a Chinese bike that does quite a reasonable job. We’ve selected two from the recent crop of imports.The Space Invader is the latest incarnation of the Oyama Victor 1.0, first tested in A to B 44.The derailleur is less sophisticated, but the frame has been beefed up, and the bike costs a whacking 28% less, selling for just £249 in the UK. The DownTube is a relatively new concept, designed in 1996 by US bike shop owner,Yan Lyansky, produced in China, and sold direct to the public (via the ubiquitous eBay) to keep costs down.The result is a range of bikes priced from £249 to £299 ($299 to $329 in the USA). We’ve tested the fullsuspension IX FS, costing £299.

On the Road

Price is closely allied ton the folding bike market, so don’t expect either of these machines to be lightweights. Both have aluminium frames and wheels, but at this level frame material has little effect on weight.This might sound odd, but whereas the high-tec manufacturers will use clever computer design techniques to make frail alloys as thin as possible, the cheapie manufacturers tend to play safe by using a lot of it, particularly in the hinges. The Space Invader weighs 13kg (29lb), which isn’t too bad for a bike with a stand and full mudguards. But with front and rear suspension, the DownTube weighs a much more substantial 14.3kg (32lb). Only the very muscular would contemplate running for a train with either of these bikes under their arm, so if weight is an issue, read no further – you probably need to spend a bit more.

The Space Invader is equipped with Shimano’s cheapest derailleur, the SIS, now in 7-speed form, but still offering a disappointing 200% range (in other words, top gear is twice as high as “…neither bike is very quick, bottom). In this case, bottom gear is 32″ and but the Space Invader is certainly top gear 64″, which sounds pretty limiting. It the quicker of the two… is, but – in town, at least – the bike makes up for the limited gears with sharp steering and a lively, nifty character. It looks and feels fun to ride, until you find that your legs are spinning like mad and you’re still only doing 15mph. But it’s surprising how far and how fast you can go with a 64″ gear, and the change is pleasingly clunky and positive.

DownTube has chosen the Sunrace JuJu M90, which we’re not familiar with, but it looks slightly down-market, thanks to carbon fibre-effect paintwork on the mechanism. Strangely, the label (key parts are helpfully labelled) identifies the material as magnesium. Whatever it’s made of, it works well enough in a rather vague, woolly way, giving nine speeds from 28″ to 81″. Gears are the strongest element of the DownTube package.The JuJu is claimed to be the cheapest 9-speed folder in the world, which sounds unlikely, but seems to be true – you certainly get a lot of gears for the money.The tie-up with Sunrace means the company will also be selling a Sturmey Archer 8-speed version from early 2007.

On paper, the DownTube promises considerable advantages – a wider gear range (289% against 200%), more gears (nine against seven) and that full suspension. But where money is tight, less really can mean more, and in this case, although everyone fought over the DownTube initially, most defected to the Space Invader after a few rides. It just feels more lively.This might have something to do with the lighter weight, but it’s probably more about tyres. Both bikes use Kenda, which are almost universal on cheap Chinese-made machines, but the Space Invader rides on sprightly 32-406mm tyres, while the DownTube, rather oddly, comes with a 40-406mm on the front, and a slightly knobbly 47-406mm on the rear. All the tyres are rated at 65psi, but the Space Invader’s 32mm tyres seem to roll much better. Our new test hill (hopefully calibrated to match the old one) confirmed that neither bike is very quick, but the Space Invader is certainly the quicker of the two, recording a speed of 12.8mph, while the odd mixture of wider tyres on the DownTube held it back to 10.2mph. For comparison, a good 20-inch bike should hit 15-16mph, and a good 16-inch bike, 14-15mph. Incidentally, we hear a whisper that Dahon is unhappy about our claim (A to B 55), that the 16-inch Brompton S2L-X rolled marginally better than its 20inch MuSL.Ten years ago, 20inch bikes had a real advantage, but apart from smoothing out the bumps, the differential seems to have narrowed quite considerably today.

These 20-inch bikes are much slower than the Mu or the Brompton, but again In terms of numbers, the crude SIS there’s a marked difference between the must be one of the most successful derailleurs ever produced two. Riding our new 10 mile commuter circuit (again, we hope it’s “…The Space Invader recorded comparable), the Space Invader recorded a creditable time of 45 minutes… the a creditable time of 45 minutes, despite DownTube a lethargic 491/2…” being unable to capitalise on a strong tailwind on the outward leg. Riding back into a headwind, the little 7-speed gradually overhauled a twenty-eight-zillion gear MTB.

With more gears, the Downtube should have done better downwind, but it proved slower throughout, recording a lethargic time of 49 minutes 30 seconds. On one long uphill drag, the bike came perilously close to being passed by a jogger…

Handling is neither dangerous nor exciting on either bike, which is probably all you need to know. Both feel solid and dependable, but there’s a little play in the Space Invader stem hinge, and the pivot bush is a bit frail, so the movement can only get worse. Both have a 109cm wheelbase, which is typical for this sort of folding bike, and long enough to avoid choppiness and instability.The steering bearings were rather tight on the Downtube, which caused some low speed problems.This is easily adjusted, but it’s annoying to have to do this with a new machine. Both bikes needed their gears and brakes set up – not a problem with the Space Invader, which will usually be bought through a dealer, but DownTube bikes are sold on eBay in the UK, so a man will turn up with a box and you’ll have to make it work yourself. Once properly adjusted, the V-brakes on both machines worked well, although with a pronounced squeal from the front of the DownTube.

Kerb Hopping

This is where the DownTube comes into its own.The bike has fairly rigid rear suspension, but the front forks (borrowed from the junior MTB world) offer 50mm of travel without noticeable damping.This makes for great entertainment – pogo-ing at the traffic lights, plonking up and down kerbs, or pelting along fire trails, but the lack of control is less useful if you’re riding hard, when energy is wasted bouncing the bike. And in seriously rough conditions, those horrible tyres are too smooth for useful traction, the derailleur is only 7cm from the ground, and the heavy, cumbersome frame awkward to manoeuvre. Needless to say, the willowy Space Invader neither looks nor feels like an off-road machine, but then it doesn’t pretend to be.

Fit and Equipment

The DownTube should fit more or less anyone.The saddle extends from a low 79cm to a very high 108cm, and the bars from 97cm to 106cm, but you’re unlikely to use the extremes. Adjustable bars are probably more trouble than they’re worth on cheap machines.There’s quite a weight penalty, and in this case the crude clamp left a rusty stain and scored the alloy stem, which both looks unsightly and weakens a critical area. In any event, the bike comes with bar-ends, which effectively do much the same thing The as height-adjustable handlebars, JuJu has a vague and woolly accommodating a number of gear change, but offers a good range for the price riding styles.

In the equipment department, the bar-ends are about all you get.The DownTube has no pump, mudguards, stand, rack (the mountings are there though) or bell (now a legal requirement on new bikes in the UK).The Space Invader has practical, effective alloy mudguards, a bell and a stand.The handlebar stem is steel, and non-adjustable (which is probably a blessing), giving a fixed height of 105cm.This is a little on the high side, but great for riding in town.The saddle goes as low as you like, or up to 100cm, which will be too low for the really tall.

Folding

The Space Invader wins easily here.The fixed height bars fold neatly to the left, ending up between the wheels, the hinges are simple (the frame has a liftable safety pin) and fairly easy on the fingers, and the bike comes together quickly and neatly. Folding pedals are the near universal ‘Next’ pattern, which are strangely unbranded, save for the helpful legend ‘do not trap fingers’ in English and Chinese. As these are sold in pairs, and the Chinese like symmetry, the bike has two, but folding the right one will only slow you up, because it makes no difference to the folded package.Width is an admirable 37cm (narrower than most Dahons), height is a reasonable 64cm (less if you remove the saddle stem) and length is around 85cm.The folded package doesn’t lock together, but the volume of 210 litres (7.1 cu ft) is excellent. Not quite the smallest in class, but close to it.

By contrast, everything goes wrong with the DownTube.The bars fold to the right, ending up outside the package, and the height adjuster has to be fiddled with to get the bar-ends parallel with the wheels.The chunky frame hinge and less substantial bar hinge have spring-loaded safety catches as well as clamps, which is a nice touch, but the very wide front forks fold round and clank against the rear wheel.This results in one of the widest folding bikes we’ve ever measured, at 50cm. Both height and length are above average too, at 66cm and 88cm respectively, producing a package of 290 litres (10 cubic feet). As nothing locks in place, the bike constantly threatens to unfold in a heap and the bar ends prod you in the privates. This unwieldy 14kg lump must be carried very carefully. If you’re looking for something that will fold once in a while, either of these bikes will suffice, but only the Space Invader can really claim to be train friendly.The DownTube is not the sort of thing your fellow commuters will be happy about.

Conclusion

If you get the feeling we prefer the Space Invader, you’re right, but only because we look at everything from a sensible, practical point of view. It’s cheaper, lighter, faster, and makes you feel cheerful, without giving you a wet bottom in damp weather.The gearing is a bit on the low side, but it all works well enough. At this price, there’s lots of competition these days, but not many of them could be considered practical commuter machines. Best of the bunch are the badge-engineered ‘old model’ Dahons, such as the Philips Boardwalk and Ridgeback Impulse.The Space Invader competes well with these. The DownTube is an interesting paradox. It’s cheap, and offers lots of gears for the price, but it’s let down by weight, the indifferent fold and slothful performance. On the other hand, if you want suspension on a folding bike, it’s less than a third of the price of the equivalent Birdy, and with some good quality (ie free-rolling) knobbly tyres, it could make a neat little train-able mild off-road machine.We’d be interested to try the 8-speed Sturmey Archer version too, but not with these tyres.

Specification

DownTube IX FS £299 . Weight 14.3kg (32lbs) . Gears JuJu M90 9-spd derailleur Ratios 28″-81″ . Wheelbase 109cm . Manufacturer DownTube tel +1 (215) 245 4032 mail yan@downtube.com

Oyama Space Invader £249 . Weight 13kg (29lbs) . Gears Shimano SIS 7-spd derailleur Ratios 32″-64″ . Wheelbase 109cm . Manufacturer Oyama . UK Distributor Mission Cycles tel 01622 815615  mail info@missioncycles.co.uk

A to B 57 – Dec 2006

Sinclair A-Bike versus Mobiky Genius
FIRST PUBLISHED 2006

For decades, engineers have poured time, effort and money (usually other people’s) into designing a better folding bike. The Brompton broke radically new ground in the early 1990s by combining excellent rideability with a compact package, and this combination has remained the gold standard ever since. Just for the record, a Brompton can be ridden more than 50 miles in a day, and fold as small as three cubic feet, or 90 litres for Euro-people. It weighs 9.7 – 12.5kg, according to model.

Unbeatable? Well, yes and no. The Brompton is relatively heavy, and – as these micro-folder manufacturers are quick to point out – we don’t all need to ride 50 miles in a day. Most commuter rides are a couple of miles,and some even less. Surely,a lighter, simpler, more compact machine would suit many users?

Quite by chance, two have arrived at once: the Mobiky Genius is designed in France and manufactured in the Far East. From London (but manufactured in Malaysia) we have an advance sample of Sir Clive Sinclair’s long awaited A-bike.

Design

The A-bike has a double reduction chain drive. The primary chain is conventional, but the secondary uses a micro-pitch chain. Note the quality bearings and the rather frail casing.

The tiny drive sprocket in the rear wheel. Note the reflector and rather awkward valve.

Both of these machines look like stylish, sophisticated urban transport tools, and for some people, that’s more than enough, whether they work or not. The A-bike, in particular, is cheap (£199) and sufficiently compact to be artfully posed as a loft-living object d’art. As a folded package it’s as neat and homogeneous as a folded Brompton. Unfolded, it’s rather less successful, appearing somewhat spindly and frail. It also looks like a bike without any wheels, because where you expect to see wheels, there are two six- inch rubber diskettes. Yup, those are your wheels.

The Genius is rather less satisfactory folded.The bits don’t come together so neatly, and it produces a big untidy package, but unfold it and you’ve got a relatively normal bicycle with a 97cm wheelbase, sitting on (relatively) conventional 12½” wheels.

Both bikes get around the small- wheel gearing problem with double reduction drives to spin the tiny wheels at a reasonable rate. The Genius uses a 3-speed hub and conventional chain and sprockets, which look rather over-engineered in this application. It’s hard to understand why they bothered, because a 54- tooth chain ring and 13-tooth sprocket would have achieved the same thing for a lot less weight and cost, without increasing the size of the folded bike (although it would have needed a chain tensioner when folded).

The first chainset gives a reduction of 2.36:1 and the second 1.75:1. With 12½” tyres (more like 12″ in reality), and the Sturmey Archer hub, the gears come out at 37″,50″ and 66″ – a bit on the low side, but more or less conventional. Anyone wanting higher gears can simply change the final 16-tooth sprocket for something smaller.

The A-bike is altogether more sophisticated. The primary reduction is by conventional chain (oddly 1/8″ width rather than the narrower 3/32″), but the secondary reduction uses a dinky micro-pitch chain, making the drive lighter and more compact. The result of all this technology is a whacking 6.8:1 gear reduction, and a single 41-inch gear. This is painfully low, but a necessary compromise. Sprocket sizes are 14-tooth and 8-tooth on the primary drive, and 35-tooth and 9-tooth on the secondary. An A-bike ridden predominantly on the flat could certainly pull a higher gear, but space is tight, so there’s little or nothing that can be done to change the ratio. The wheels, layshaft and bottom bracket use ball bearings throughout, but the bearings are a fairly loose push-fit in plastic housings which twist under load. Time will tell whether this light, simple system survives.

A-bike and Genius on the Road

Cornering on the A-Bike has to be a measured affair. Unless you sit well forward there’s little weight on the tyre.

Riding the A-Bike one handed can be tricky.

The Genius is a pleasant surprise. The concertina folding design opens out into a long, low and rather comfortable bike. The 12½” tyres work surprisingly well, despite a lowly pressure rating of 35psi. These tyres are still rare,but there’s no doubt this size has a future. The Genius’ Cheng Shin tyres are a chunky 2¼” wide, giving a supple ride with reasonable rolling resistance. We managed a roll-down speed of 11.6mph on our test hill, which is the sort of result we might have expected from a 16-inch bike a decade or so ago.

The gears feel ‘grown up’, despite the lowish range, and well up to a modest commute. We rode our 10-mile commuter test course in 45 minutes, which is only a few minutes off the ‘big folder’ pace. The frame is wonderfully rigid, thanks to some seriously over-engineered bits and pieces and ball bearings, no less, in the frame joints. There has to be a penalty, and in this case it’s a bike weighing 14.1kg – one of the heaviest folders we’ve ever tried. No, you wouldn’t want to carry it far, but under duress we would be willing to ride the Genius for 15 or 20 miles.

So much for 12½” tyres! The A bike has 6-inch tyre s,and it’s hard to understand why designer Alex Kalogroulis chose this size over say, 8-inch. Slightly larger wheels would have added very little to weight and folded size, but improved the ride quality no end.

Well, it’s clearly not going to be well placed in the Tour de France, but is the A-bike up to a daily commute? To find out, we did quite a bit of fettling to get the thing rolling properly. To be fair, our bike is a pre-production prototype, but it arrived with a number of high-friction faults; rubbing brakes (of which more later), a tight, dry chain and squidgy tyres. The tyres are rated at 90psi, and you need every pound in the rear, if not the front. Connecting a track pump nozzle to the constricted Schrader valves is difficult, but when you do, 90psi comes up in three full strokes. Very useful, but if you pause for a microsecond in disconnecting the pump, most of it comes out again. Incidentally, these tiny tyres have conventional tubes, so the puncture repair procedure should be familiar.

Wheel removal is easy at the front, but at the back you can get in quite a tangle with the brake band and chain. Adjusting the secondary chain means removing the front wheel, reaching in, removing eight allen screws and rotating the bearing housings. As there are only three tension options, you may find – as we did – that the choice is between overtight causing too much friction, or over-loose, allowing the chain to jump under load. Even getting at the (non-adjustable) primary chain and freewheel means splitting the chain case, which essentially involves dismantling the whole bike. Clearly chain adjustment is a long-winded and tedious job.

Unlike the Genius, the A-bike is a seriously lightweight machine, weighing just 5.7kg, exactly as claimed. To achieve this headline figure, they’ve used some clever materials in clever ways, but the bottom line is a rather wobbly frame. There’s an 85kg weight limit, but even those safely below this will feel the frame flex as they climb aboard. Press on the pedals and the bottom bracket twists and squirms. You get used to this, but the flexy frame and stictiony headset bearings tend to result in a wobbly ride at first. With a 74cm wheelbase, and the saddle over the back wheel, the only safe riding position is to sit right on the nose, leaning well forward. Relax and you’ll be off the back before you’ve realised what’s happening.

Once under way and up to cruising speed, the ride is quite good if you avoid potholes and rough, broken surfaces. The official line from the manufacturers is that cyclists instinctively avoid potholes anyway. This is true, but if you are faced with a kerb, a pothole and two white vans passing at 60mph, you’ll probably go for the pothole. That’s unpleasant on a conventional bike, and survivable on a 16-inch folder, but with 6-inch wheels, it isn’t an option. Consequently, you have to watch the road with particular care and keep escape routes in mind.

If you can find a decent surface, the 6-inch wheels do surprisingly well, although the bike stopped some way short on our test hill, despite all the fiddling to make it roll better. You don’t notice too much on the road though. A bigger problem is friction in the crude plastic headset bushes. Small wheels need to make rapid changes of direction, and friction in the steering doesn’t help. After a few miles, the grumbles became aches and pains caused by the peculiar geometry of the triangular frame. With a maximum saddle height of 92cm, a high bottom bracket, and 140mm cranks, you’d need the legs of a leprechaun to find a comfortable straight-leg riding position.

Ah yes, the saddle. The problem here is that it’s shaped for folding rather than riding, with a big cut out at the back and a rather high and solid nose. If you have a bottom this shape, you’ll be a medical curiosity, and we couldn’t find anyone willing to sit on it for very long. The need to sit well forward tends to put you on the nose of the saddle, throwing a lot of weight onto the handlebars, straining the lower arms and putting a bit of a kink in the neck. If you suffer on a normal bike, you are unlikely to be comfortable on this one.

So how far did we ride? Showing true grit and determination, we completed our 10-mile commuter run in a slow, but by no means disastrous 66 minutes – an average of 9mph. With a 40″ gear, it’s hardly surprising that the A-bike managed to climb all the modest (sub 10%) hills on our circuit, but despite all the wobbles, it was surprisingly easy to ride out of the saddle. This brought the bonus of blessed relief from riding in the saddle. Record-breaking runs aside, we think the practical range for a nicely run-in example with well-inflated tyres, would be about two miles. Top speed? If you need to ask, sir, you’re buying the wrong bike. Cruising speed is in the 8-10mph zone (making our 9mph, 10-mile ride quite good going), but with some super cadence and great concentration, we managed to accelerate the A-bike to 15mph on the flat.This takes nerves of steel, a good surface and strong legs. The rear tyre gets quite warm after a few miles, which shows where much of your effort is going. But to be fair, small tyres show the heat more than big ones.

Cornering on the Sinclair has to be a measured affair. Unless you sit well forward there’s little weight on the front tyre 66 minutes – an average of 9mph. With a 40″ gear, it’s hardly surprising that the A-bike managed to climb all the modest (sub 10%) hills on our circuit, but despite all the wobbles, it was surprisingly easy to ride out of the saddle. This brought the bonus of blessed relief from riding in the saddle. Record-breaking runs aside, we think the practical range for a nicely run-in example with well-inflated tyres, would be about two miles. Top speed? If you need to ask, sir, you’re buying the wrong bike. Cruising speed is in the 8-10mph zone (making our 9mph, 10-mile ride quite good going), but with some super cadence and great concentration, we managed to accelerate the A-bike to 15mph on the flat. This takes nerves of steel, a good surface and strong legs. The rear tyre gets quite warm after a few miles, which shows where much of your effort is going.But to be fair, small tyres show the heat more than big ones.

Equipment

The Genius front disk brake.

Brakes on micro-bikes tend to be poor, and this pair are very typical. The Genius has a classic Chinese combination of band brake at the rear and cable operated disc at the front. They are appalling. The rear band brake has a convoluted cable run and can just about manage 0.3G going forward, which is enough to lock the wheel in dry conditions. In reverse (holding the bike on a hill, for example) the braking force more or less evaporates, and in the wet (reproduced this hot, dry summer with a watering can), the force is about halved. None of this would matter too much if the stylish front disc brake was any good, but it’s a wonderful example of style over substance. To stop the brake binding you need to slacken the adjuster until the pads hardly bite. Testing the brakes thus with our handy G-meter the bike ran off the end of the car park, depositing the tester in a patch of nettles. Reset with binding brakes, we managed a pathetic best stop of 0.25G, which is positively dangerous for a front brake. The only good news is that things don’t get much worse in the wet, so once you’ve acclimatised, there should be no nasty surprises in store.

The band brakes on the A-Bike are delightfully minimalist, but efficiency is marginal, especially in the wet.

By contrast, the A-bike’s little band brakes work quite well. Both suffered from binding bands initially, but once properly set, worked well. Best stop from the front is a passable 0.45G, and from the back, 0.3G, which is just enough to lock the wheel. As with the rear band on the Genius, the effectiveness is more or less halved in the wet. The open design means that water is more likely to get in, but on the other hand it’s more likely to dry out too. Shielded band brakes can stay moist and unpredictable for days. The A-bike gets a very cautious thumbs up in the braking department, but neither bike would be up to the cut and thrust of city traffic on a damp February morning. Both bikes have mudguards, but they’re too short to keep you dry, especially the vestigial ‘dodo wings’ on the Sinclair. And we all know what happened to the dodo. The Sinclair does at least have enclosed chains, but there’s a big gap underneath and the chains share the enclosure with the rear tyre, so it’s guaranteed to fill with salt and grit in the wet. Carry-bags are standard accessories with both bikes. The A-bike pops into a neat shoulder bag, with a smaller compartment for carrying tiny luggage, which looks useful. The Genius bag is huge, but with no shoulder strap you’re supposed to lift the 14.1kg bike with two straps on the top of a tall bag. Smaller folk will find this impossible.

Folding

Both bikes score very highly here. The A-bike looks tricky, but it’s a logical process and if you get stuck there’s an excellent manual written by someone whose first language appears to be English. You start by pressing a button on the ‘crosspiece’, which hinges upwards, bringing the wheels together, where they clip neatly in place. Then the handlebars rotates through 180 degrees, leaving the bars facing backwards ,and you whip off a pair of quick releases and press four buttons (easier than it sounds) allowing the frame tubes to telescope downwards. As the tubes drop,the saddle stem automatically folds down and clips into place. Apart from the folding pedals and hinging down the handlebars, neither of which are essential, that’s about it.

The difference in folded size is quite striking.

For the novice, the operation takes about 20 seconds, but we saw an experienced member of the A-bike crew fold the bike in seven seconds. Unfolding will be a little slower because of the need to tighten the two frame quick-releases (the saddle height should not need adjustment). Incidentally, if you forget, the bike is still rideable, which may turn out to be a problem in practice, but then it may not. It all depends how stupid the Great British Public turn out to be.

We made the folded size a little more than the manufacturers’ claim: 67cm tall, 33cm deep and 17cm wide, but that still gives an incredible folded volume of 37.6 litres or 1.33 cubic feet. Sinclair claims that the folded A-bike is a third the size of the Brompton, and that’s more or less true. And carrying that 5.7kg (12 1 / 2 lb) package will be easy over modest distances.

If anything, the Genius is even easier to fold. The scissor-style frame is held in either the up or down position by a single metal rod resting on the rear frame. When you’re riding, this takes your weight. Lift the bike by its central carry-handle and the rod prevents the frame closing up until it’s pushed towards the chunky saddle stem. With the rod out of engagement, a lift on the handle brings the frame and wheels together. Finally, a quick-release lowers the saddle,and you lift a pair of buttons like trumpet valves to fold the bars down. Time is broadly similar to the A-bike,but at 14.1kg (31lb) the resulting lump is very nearly three times the weight.

Once folded, the Genius can be wheeled around in collapsed form, which is useful at a busy station for example – but sooner or later you will have to lift it, and many people would be unable to lift this bike into a car boot.

Conclusion

The micro folder is an intriguing concept. There are many occasions where a Brompton or Dahon is too darn big for the job, and these clever designs promise to fill the gap between micro-scooter and grown-up folding bike.

Do they succeed? Not very well. Despite their undoubted attributes, both these bikes come unstuck for different reasons. The Genius can tackle longish rides and modest hills almost like a ‘proper’ folder, but when folded it’s significantly bigger, heavier and clumsier than a Brompton. You could forgive this if it was half the price, but at £499 it’s well into Brompton territory.

The £199 A-bike is a bit more realistic, but the performance is closer to the microscooter end of the market. On paper, the A-bike seems to fill that scooter/bike gap very well, but the practical range of a mile or two is not a great deal more than a lighter, cheaper and more compact micro-scooter can achieve. If your trip to the tube station is right on that limit, you may well disagree – the Sinclair certainly does have an application, but we think it might be rather narrowly defined.

Would we buy either bike? No. The Genius is too heavy and with the A-bike it comes down to safety. We do sometimes ride a micro-scooter to our local station. It won’t even look at potholes or rough surfaces, but it nips along the pavement reasonably well, jumps over obstacles and folds to nothing on the train. The A-bike has to share the road with 40-tonners, mad phone-wielding reps, killer potholes and all the other unpleasantnesses of modern travel. We’re comfortable with 4-inch wheels on the pavement, but very nervous about 6-inch wheels on the road. The A-bike is oddly reminiscent of the C5 – a superb idea, quite well executed, but impractical in the real world.

Update: The A-Bike City (£299.99) with 8-inch wheels was introduced in 2010, but we don’t expect this to significantly improve the overall performance.

Folding Bike Specifications

A to B 55 – August 2006

Why would anyone want to pay much, much more for a lightweight folding bike? We get asked this quite often by big burly types.There are two primary markets,the obvious one being smaller people looking for something light and easy to hoik up into a car boot for leisure rides.The other is much more interesting stuff,and goes right to the heart of what we’re about and what we believe,because a lightweight folding bike takes the user into a new world of seamless, effortless integrated transport. Once you’ve ridden one of these bikes on city streets,hopping on and off, and vaulting onto trams and trains, you will be hooked. In the leisure market, a kilogramme here or there is of little consequence, but if your folding bike is your primary means of transport, you too will be prepared to pay big money to make it as light and convenient as possible. These are the lightest bikes around,if we omit custom Bike Fridays and esoteric folders like the Sinclair A-bike.We’ve tested both the S2L-X and Mu before in slightly different form.The Mu replaces the lightweight Helios SL we tried in August 2004 ( A to B43 ), we had a brief go on the Brompton S2L-X in April 2005 ( A to B47 ) and have since built our own super-lightweight derivative ( A to B49 ). Here we test them together for the first time. Is there are a clear best buy?

Fun to Ride

Lightweight bikes are undeniably fun to ride,but the widely held belief that they offer higher speed and nippier acceleration is mostly myth. If a bike weighs 12kg and the rider 70kg, reducing the weight of the bike by 2kg will shave little more than 2% off the gross weight,so performance will be broadly the same.But these bikes certainly feel faster than their more portly cousins.Why? No doubt there’s a psychological effect here: these lightweight machines feel sharper,and presumably that sportier feel encourages more spirited riding.

..in the world of Brompton oneupmanship, this bike has it all… but a passerby would never know…

Both are derived from standard models in production for decades, but the S2L-X and SL couldn’t be more different.The Brompton is neat and understated,the only obviously sporty feature being the low,straight ‘S’ type handlebars.But in the world of Brompton oneupmanship, this bike has it all:titanium seat pillar,rear frame,front forks and mudguard stays,Schwalbe Stelvio tyres,Jagwire cables,and a few other rarefied bits,although a passerby would never know.Concessions? It’s a normal Brompton in every respect, with full wet weather gear,front luggage carrier and everything else (except standard lights), but the S2L-X has only two gears,and they’re quite close ratios.You can fit wider ratios if you want ( A to B52 ),or choose from any of Brompton’s gear options (1,3 or 6 gears), but the single-speed is a bit limiting,and the others add weight,so the 2-speed is probably the best compromise.Like all Brompton variants,it has 16-inch tyres,which at 349mm, are almost 17-inch,and noticeably bigger than the 305mm ‘16-inch’ tyres common on Far Eastern bikes. The Mu SL looks pretty conventional too.Like the Brompton it has Stelvio tyres,but these are the next size up – 406mm or 20-inch.The bike has eight derailleur gears, but where Dahons are usually well equipped,the downside of the lightweight variant is a somewhat stripped down feel.The SL has no stand and no mudguards,which presumably won’t matter if it never rains again. More important,if you are hoping to do practical things with it, there’s no system for carrying luggage.

On the Road

Considering how different they are,the two bikes feel remarkably similar on the road.Both are rigid (the Brompton through those lower bars and the Dahon through a sturdier frame,stem and hinges),and both feel lithe and sporty.In traffic the Brompton’s 2-speed is slicker and easier than Dahon’s SRAM derailleur, but with a choice of only 56″ and 74″ gears,the Brompton can lag behind on hills.The Dahon has eight well-chosen ratios,from 31″ to 89″,which sounds like a clear advantage,but both these bikes respond well to standing out of the saddle on hills,so the lower gears are not as essential as they might sound. Presumably the bigger-wheeled Dahon rolls further and faster? As we were testing identical tyres,we went to some trouble to set the tyre pressures the same (60psi front and the maximum of 85psi rear) and test in identical conditions,but to our surprise the Brompton coasted slightly better,hitting 15mph against 14.7mph. The answer, presumably,is in the riding position.The ‘S’

…don’t go assuming that bigger wheels are better… Clearly they aren’t…

type bars are quite low,whereas those on the Mu give a more comfortable upright position. This increases the wind resistance enough to overshadow the slight bonus of the bigger wheels.Strange but true. Put these factors together and there’s another surprise.On our 10-mile commuter run the little Brompton was marginally faster,at 40 minutes against 41 minutes.It’s quite a flat circuit,so hills don’t really enter the equation,and at 15mph we aren’t riding particularly fast.Obviously hills and/or speed would tend to benefit the bigger bike,but don’t go assuming that bigger wheels are necessarily better.Clearly they aren’t. Although both these bikes are fun to ride and both nip along very efficiently, neither is particularly comfortable.The Dahon’s bigger wheels give a less choppy,more relaxed ride, but the handlebar grips stop the blood flowing to your fingers after a few miles.The Brompton counters with rear suspension, but we didn’t like the low‘S’ type handlebars which put far too much weight on your arms.

Folding

All right,we won’t keep you in suspense any longer…The Dahon is the lighter of the two,but at 9.5kg (21lb), it’s noticeably heavier than the 2004 Helios SL. On the other hand,it’s noticeably tougher too.The Helios was fitted with Rolf wheels which were said to be quite problematic, and it was certainly weaker around the hinge,stem and frame than the Mu,which feels a lovely solid machine.The Brompton weighs 9.7kg,exactly the same as the early production example we tried in April 2005. With folding, the honours definitely go the other way, as one might expect. We usually quote a folded size of 85 litres or 3 cubic feet for the Brompton. This is certainly achievable for smaller people, but if you prefer the saddle back and/or up,or you’ve fiddled with the handlebars or

…folding the Dahon is much simpler, and in this bulkier guise, any idiot should be able to master it…

brake levers,the folded size will grow. Set up for a typical rider of 5’ 9″,our test bike occupied 97 litres,or 3.4 cubic feet. Fit a taller seat pillar and the volume can exceed 106 litres (3.7 cubic feet). But against almost every other folder on the market,it’s unbeatable,and the folded package clips together really well.This makes it easier to carry and you can even sit on the folded bike on a crowded train, which is a real bonus. (If you fancy trying this,put the saddle stem right down and lock it with the saddle turned at an angle to create a comfy bottom-shaped seat out of the frame tube.) By contrast the Mu folds into quite a big package,and is noticeably longer than the older Helios.At 68cm it’s the same height, but 5cm longer (85cm) and 3cm wider (43cm). This results in a package of 249 litres or 8.8 cubic feet,which is big by any standards.On the other hand, the little magnetic catches that hold the frame halves together really work on this bike,where on more‘compact’ Dahons they never really make contact. Folding and unfolding the Brompton is easy once you’ve learnt the fold order,but can be confusing if you haven’t.The fiendishly clever folding pedal in particular (many folding bikes have two,but most,like the Brompton,only need one) can cause all sorts of aggravation for the inexperienced. Folding the Dahon is much simpler, and in this bulkier guise,any idiot should be able to master it.The magnets lightly clip the frame shut,and the handlebars fold down outside the package and are locked by a little plastic clip.But you do have to be careful,because if you miss the clip,the bars will clonk into the stem, which can be nasty. Once the Dahon is fully folded, you remove the MKS MTE demountable pedals (note, as above,that only one really needs to come off).These weigh 150g apiece, or 25g less than the MKS Promenade pedals fitted to the Helios.Demountable pedals are good and bad in equal measure.They pop off easily, leaving very little sticking out of the cranks,but the shafts are greasy,and you have to put them somewhere safe or the bike is rendered completely useless.On the other hand,the Dahon is a useful 300g lighter without them, so you only need to carry 9.2kg in one chunk.

Conclusion

We hate to be wimpy and weedy on this crucial question,but it really does depend what you want a folding bike for.The truth is,they’re both very good in their way… At £800,the Mu SL is much cheaper than the Brompton,which costs a delightfully precise £1,007.The Dahon is lighter too. For leisure rides where you don’t intend to carry more than a day bag,it’s a fine machine for the price. On the other hand, the Brompton S2L-X folds quickly and repeatably to less than half the size and is a much less cumbersome package on trains and buses.For a very small weight penalty,it comes fully equipped (except for lights),and it appears to be marginally the quickest of the two.

Specifications

Brompton S2L-X £1,007 .Weight 9.9kg (22lbs) . Gears 2-speed . Ratio 56”,74” . Folded Size H64.5cm L57.5cm W 2 8 . 5 c m . Folded Vo l u m e 96.7ltr (3.4 cu ft) .Wheelbase 105 c m Coasting Speed 15.0 mph. 10-mile Circuit 40 mins . Manufacturer Brompton Bicycle tel 0208 232 8484

Dahon Mu SL £800 .Weight 9.5kg (21lbs) . Gears 8-speed SRAM derailleur . Ratios 31-89″ Folded Siz e H68cm L85cm W43cm . Folded Volume 249ltr (8.8 cu ft) .Wheelbase 102 cm Coasting Speed 14.7mph . 10-mile Circuit 41 mins . Manufacturer Dahon Folding Bikes  mail sales@dahon.co.uk. UK distributor Fisher Outdoor Leisure  tel 01727 798345 mail sales@fisheroutdoor.co.uk

A to B 55 – Aug 2006

Decisions, decisions, decisions… You know how it is, life’s treated you well, and you’ve settled on a Roller for best, and a Bentley for , you know, just pottering. But where do you find a matching folding bike? And what criteria do you use? Andrew Hague takes up the story, while Laila models the bikes…

Here are three folders,all modified and all with the 14-speed Rohloff gears,V-brakes and Schmidt hub dynamos (not shown in the summer photos).Which is best? I believe that a folding bike should fold in twenty seconds, fit easily into a car boot and be suitable for a hundred-mile ride. Originally,I had a Brompton with a Sturmey 5-speed, Schlumpf Mountain drive and conventional Brompton brakes and although it did all I wanted it to do, I thought there might be something better.

The Bike Friday

I fell for the Bike Friday propaganda, ordered a NewWorld Tourist with a Rohloff 14-speed hub and V-brakes,and went to Oregon to collect it. Find engagement rings stores near me and I fell in love with the rings, the Shimano brakes and the H-handlebars, but the rest of the bike was disappointing.The claim from Bike Friday was that it would ride like a big-wheeled bike and fold into a suitcase in 30 seconds.All of that proved wrong.Small wheels can never ride as well as big wheels.The Friday folds in a few seconds but is still big.To get it into a suitcase it has to be dismantled and that takes an hour;in that time any bike can be dismantled and put in a case.If Bike Friday know how to do it quicker they are keeping it a secret;there are no instructions. The Friday had to be completely rebuilt to be reliable.The Rohloff’s gear cables were replaced by an external assembly because the cables could not move in the tight bends of the Friday’s design.By rerouting the cables and making a stainless steel guide at the bottom bracket,gear changing and folding became easier. The bronze bearings in the hinges shattered in less than a year, letting the hinges distort.I made and press-fitted mild steel ones with lots of grease,and these have remained trouble-free.Proper mudguards were fitted and the shoddy assembly of the bike corrected;it is now rideable. The initial fold is quick.The chain does now not come off and the gear cable doesn’t snag.It just fits in the boot of my Bentley Continental,but if the pedals are the wrong way around the lid won’t close.The boot of my Rolls-Royce is much bigger,but this is not a car I can park anywhere whilst out on the bike! The best bag system of any folder can be found on the Brompton,so I asked Bike Friday to fit it and sent them the braze-on boss.When I got to their factory in Eugene, they had made no attempt to fit it.Instead they supplied a pannier carrier and a pair of absolutely water-tight Vaude bags.This works,but it wasn’t what I ordered.

Birdy

The Birdy Grey is an example of design for design’s sake.From the novelty of the folding front forks with soft springs comes a soft,energy absorbing ride and dangerously unstable steering.The geometry is all wrong: to move the saddle forward I made the aluminium adaptation shown in the photo of the seat post.The handlebar stem was of fixed height and position,which might suit someone,but certainly not me,so I made stainless steel H-bars and an adjustable stem.I can do this with my own workshop but it is beyond the scope of most cyclists and bike shops so I wonder how many satisfied Birdy owners there really are. I rode this bike in France and Austria where I climbed the Grossglockner Pass but on one of the descents the wires of the rear Schwalbe Stelvio tyre snapped at about 50mph. Although smaller than the Friday and fitting easier into the car boot, the folding is messy,the tool bag has to be removed before a fold and the chain always comes off,meaning dirty fingers later on.The Birdy brochures promote their bikes as serious tourers,but that is an unjustified claim.

Brompton

The Brompton in comparison is a modest machine.Although the company admits its bikes are in use all around the world,they are sold as commuting bikes.In fact, they are much more,and can do anything.With the Friday and Birdy equipped with Rohloff hubs and Vbrakes,and a Brompton with a Sturmey hub and side-pull callipers,I realized that the ideal folder had to be an upgraded Brompton. I bought a new L3 for the conversion,and in my opinion,this is now better than the other two bikes in almost every way.Of the three bikes in their ex-factory state, only the Brompton with its 3-speed Sturmey was suitable for a hundred-mile ride,so bad were the faults on the Friday and Birdy. This proves the excellence of the Brompton geometry and the thorough thinking that has resulted in a design that includes a folding pedal,bag,and lights that don’t clash with folding.When folded, the Brompton chain never comes off and lies between the wheels,meaning clean legs and fingers.I made a Brompton trailer-bike for my daughter and bought another Brompton for my wife.All three fit into the Bentley boot.No other bike is so neat and rideable.

The Brompton is the cheapest, and superficially – the crudest of the three. Not so, says Andrew Hague, and the family now have a Brompton each…

Contacts

Brompton Bicycle  www.bromptonbicycle.co.uk tel 0207 232 8484
Birdy web www.r-m.de tel +49 6151 366 86-0
Bike Friday (UK agent) Avon Valley  www.foldingbikes.co.uk tel 01225 442442
Bentley Motors  www.bentleymotors.com tel 0808 100 5200

A to B 55 – Aug 2006

‘It goes like the wind’: my initial somewhat subjective assessment of the new Birdy as I cycled across Westminster Bridge in London three days before Christmas last year. Would I feel as happy after the honeymoon period? The new Birdy was announced last September at various German cycling shows and a pre-production example was on display at the London Cycle Show in October. So what’s changed from the old model? The most obvious difference is a completely new frame. Instead of the angular rather unconventional look, the new frame is two pieces of shaped aluminium welded together. Riese and Müller, the manufacturers, call it a ‘monocoque frame’ welded together using ‘robotic technology’. The lines are much cleaner and the overall look much more twentyfirst century than the old model. R & M claim that the new bike is marginally lighter (140g less) and has a stiffer frame.

New colours; old gear options

On the old Birdy, the colours were model and specific, but as an optional extra you can choose from the list of five colours.There are four models: 24-speed SRAM 3 x 8, Shimano 8-speed Nexus, Shimano Deore 9-speed derailleur and Rohloff 14-speed hub. Other components have changed, some for the better: a higher quality handlebar stem hinge; both optional stems are now height adjustable; the cable runs are inside the frame and so on. However, some changes are less convincing: Cheaper Avid brakes instead of Shimano Capreo for example.The new colours are bold: orange, blue (nearly purple), grey, cream and black. You either love them or hate them! Black probably looks best, as most of the add-ons mudguards, rack, etc – come in black too.

…How is it? Very fast is my first reaction and perfect for my needs…

Positives

I placed my order in October and Simpsons of Kentish Town, London – my excellent local dealer and A to B advertiser – took delivery in December. So how is it? Very fast is my initial reaction. And perfect for my needs. Every day I cycle 16 miles into London and return by train. A Brompton can do this and I have made the trip on a Brompton many times. But on a Birdy it is a breeze, particularly with the Rohloff gears.Whatever the situation, it is always in the right gear. This is not my first Birdy (I sold my previous Birdy Black through A to B last year). So where does the new Birdy deliver against the old? It is fast and performs well – ideal for a longer commute and potentially for touring too (touring panniers are available). It has good acceleration and is excellent at hill climbing.The suspension is a bonus on London’s rather variable roads. Folding can be divided into four stages: front wheel, back wheel, seat post and handlebars. The hub gear makes folding as easy as the Brompton (it’s slightly more difficult on the derailleur versions) but the folded package is not quite as neat. South West Trains, not renowned for being cycle friendly, give no problems during the rush-hour, even with the Birdy uncovered!

The niggles

As with any new model there are a few things that don’t work as they should. The worst is the problem with getting the seat post to stay where you want it. It doesn’t move much but it shouldn’t move at all! The new clamp looks much neater but seems not to perform as well. Riese & Müller is looking into this! The small piece of metal to protect the frame from the chain when folded fell off after 100 miles.The jury is still out on the new Marathon Racer tyres.These are faster and lighter than previous Marathon variants, but two punctures in the first 200 miles does not augur well.The tyres look good but seem painfully thin and cost a fiver more than the often criticised Birdy own-brand tyres they replace (although I personally had no problems with them on my old Birdy).

…the Racer tyres are faster and lighter, but two punctures in 200 miles does not auger well…

Great if you fit the niche…or my commute the new Birdy is ideal and apart from the niggles above I am very happy with it. Of course, the competition is stiff out there, as every issue of A to B reminds us. Personally I think it provides a better ride than both the Brompton and various Dahon models. But it can cost a lot more too (apart from the basic Birdy Red which is still based on the old frame).And it doesn’t fold quite as neatly as the Brompton nor has such a good luggage system.The Birdy fits a fairly niche market and if you fit that niche, it’s perfect. If not, you might be better with something else. In the end it depends on your needs and the depth of your pocket. If you can afford it and it fulfils your needs it is a great bike.

Birdy Specification

Birdy Red (old frame) 8-speed Shimano Deore £830 . Birdy Touring £1,080 – orange, with 3×8-speed Shimano Intego derailleur . Birdy City £1,000 – cream, with 8-speed Nexus hub . Birdy Speed £1,340 – grey, with 9-speed Shimano Deore XT derailleur . Birdy Rohloff £1,950 – blue, with 14-speed hub Folded size 79cm x 61cm x 36cm. . Weight Birdy Speed weighs 10.4kg (23lb). The others are around 1kg more . Accessories mudguards and various racks extra . Other accessories include a bag, rucksack, lighting and kickstand. Off-road and Sch walbe Big Apple tyres are also available Manufacturer Riese and Müller GmbH www.r-m.de mail team@r-m.de . UK distributor None, but a limited number of specialist stockists.

Andrew Croggon

A to B 53 – April 2006

One wonders what goes on in the boardrooms of folding bike manufacturers. Are board members instructed never to mention the ‘B’ word? Or do they ritually stick pins in plasticine models of the Brentford Folder? The fact is – and we might as well get this over with – the Brompton is more or less unassailable in terms of practicality, ride and foldability.We’ve never seen a bike come close: a few 20-inch big wheelers are faster (not all though), a handful of machines have a rudimentary luggage carrying system, and some fold quite well, but the Brompton scores at least 8/10 in all these areas, so it can’t be beaten. Not yet, anyway. To successfully compete against the wunder-fahrrad, you need a machine that is significantly cheaper (certain Dahons and others), faster  (Bike Friday and Airnimal), or that exploit the Brompton’s primary weakness – its limited gear range.

Wisely, Airframe manufacturer Silkmead has gone for the latter course, upgrading from the lacklustre 4-speed Nexus to an 8-speed Sturmey Archer hub gear. We tested the 4-speed Airframe relatively recently (October 2002), so we won’t dwell on the things that haven’t changed.The main advance is with the hub – the Sturmey only weighs 100g more than the Nexus, but gear range increases from 184% to 305%, which is a lot more than the broadest Brompton option.The Sturmey 8-speed needs careful adjustment, and a degree of precision in the gear change, but once you’ve got the hang of it, the drive feels light and efficient. Our own early test sample has a weakness in Gear 6, and the Airframe has a tendency to slip out of Gear 7 after a few miles. Clearly, it’s the sort of mechanism where each gear has its own character and good and indifferent days… Gear selection isn’t helped by the Airframe’s unusual in-frame cables which put the gripshift at a funny angle, so you can’t see the gear selector window.

…the disconcerting creaks and groans have  all gone…

Quirks aside, the 8-speed gives the Airframe a wider range than almost any other folding bike on the road.With a bottom gear of 27″ and top of 83″, it makes the Mezzo, Brompton and most Dahons look like seafront Airframe makes quite a boulevard cruisers.

The Sturmey is unusual, providing quite close ratios in the intermediate gears, but a big jump down to 1st and up to 8th. Generally, this works well, giving plenty of close gears for fiddly variable gradients plus a good low first (it’s also a more efficient direct drive, which helps) when the going gets tougher.

Although greatly improved, the Airframe itself is still a bit flexible.The disconcerting creaks and groans of the prototype have gone, and the frame is much more resistant to twisting, but if you expect everything to stay put without a millimetre of ‘give’, you’ll still be disappointed. Riding technique helps here – the best method is to sit lightly on the saddle and twirl the pedals – advice that holds true for most folding bikes, but especially for the more flexible ones. The only real disappointment on the road is the tyres.The Airframe is a gentle, soft, feminine machine, and quite unsuited to the rather stodgy ‘Wellington boot’ Schwalbe Marathon tyres.They feel hard and uncompromising, recording a roll-down speed of only 12.4mph on a cold afternoon, and 12.8mph after a good warm through. As the Airframe is never going to attempt serious – or even mild – off-roading, we think a faster, lighter, more delicate tyre, such as the Schwalbe Stelvio, would suit it much better.

One thing the Airframe doesn’t need is suspension.The advantage of the scissor-style frame is a degree of well-damped vertical ‘give’ that would take some beating with gas-shocks and other heavy, complicated things. Of course, the downside is some lateral flexibility, but much less than in days past. Quite how heavier than its predecessor – which might give a clue.That’s still lighter than most folding bikes, and a small price to pay for a more rigid machine with a much wider gear range.

…a briefcase or courier bag fits into the carrier pretty well…

Accessories

All broadly unchanged, but either the rear mudguard design has changed or we failed to notice how ineffective it was in 2002.The long front mudguard is quite good, but the short one at the rear leaves your back plastered in mud. It desperately needs a mudflap of some kind. Otherwise, there’s a bell, plus the odd hinged Airframe carrier system (you take the bike out of the bag, unfold it, hang the bag from the carrier and ride off) which we compared to a deflated balloon in our previous test. The latest bag has a little pocket so it slips over the carrier, but it still looks a bit of an afterthought. On the other hand, a briefcase, or courier bag squeezes into the carrier pretty well, and with a bungee to hold it in place, you have a quick and effective luggage system.

Conclusion

This isn’t the easiest bike to fold and it isn’t the most rigid to ride, but the new Airframe ticks a lot more boxes than the old one, and at £770 it offers a lot of gears for the price. We haven’t said much about looks, but there’s no doubt this is an attractive machine – another area where it scores over the un-self-consciously practical Brompton. If you’re light and don’t have stonking great calf muscles, we’d strongly recommend a test ride.

Airframe Specification

Airframe 8-spd £770 .Weight 11.1kg (24lb) . Folded dimensions W32cm H55cm L103cm Folded volume 181ltrs . Gears Sturmey Archer 8-spd hub . Ratios 27″ 35″ 39″ 44″ 50″ 57″ 65″ 83″ . Manufacturer Silkmead Tubular Ltd tel 01582 609988 mail silkmead@btinternet.com

A to B 52 – Feb 2006