Why are Brompton folding bikes so expensive?

[SavageHoutkop]

More importantly, gear-hub-only need not dangle the chain quite so near the road to collect crud, nor flex it. I wish I'd gone for a three-speed hub gear instead of the 6-speed derailleur on my folder. I've only once really needed the bottom gear on the six and walking that would have been OK.

I'm happy with 6, although tbf I do use only the 3 90% of the time. I find the dérailleur useful in mild headwinds.

 

[Kell]

I don't use gears 2 or 3 as a rule, but do use 1 for some of the hills in High Wycombe (check out my thread about coming down a hill at 40 mph - obviously I have to pedal back up that).

But most of the time I'm in 4/5 which is annoying as it's two shifts.

 

[CopperBrompton]

[QUOTE 4159829, member: 45"]The Brompton isn't the best of each though. It's the best compromise, and not the best option for everyone.[/QUOTE]
I'd honestly say it's the best complete package. The front bag system, for example, offers an unrivalled degree of convenience, plus you can carry ridiculous weights without affecting the handling.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I was going to say, the Dahon folding mechanism was probably less than two seconds on the older bikes.

Dahons don't really fold, they kind of collapse. A bit.

 

[CopperBrompton]

That's true, and it gives you much the same gear range as a 6 speed, but weighs more. And costs more. But there's only one lever, if that's important to you. It's a far neater solution.

Neater, nicer to use, and smaller gaps between gears.

 

[Conradm]

I'd understood they're expensive to put you off buying them. Helpfully that means you can get something cheaper that doesn't have complex, expensive, weighty engineering solutions to accommodate the spurious need to fold something that works better if it doesn't fold.

 

[TheDoctor]

People buy folding bikes because they need folding bikes. There's nowt 'spurious' about it.
Oh, and "Holy thread resurrection, Batman!"

 

[Kell]

I think like lots of things in life, there's a difference between value and cost.

Comparatively, Brompton's do cost a lot, but I think they're good value because they work really well, they're designed for purpose and, to me*, there was nothing better I could find at any price - more or less expensive.

*I appreciate that for other people there may be too many compromises.

 

[alicat]

Holy thread resurrection!

Methinks someone has come on here to stir things up a bit.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I thought they were expensive so that they could fold into the empty space in your wallet.

 

[Kell]

[QUOTE 5319672, member: 45"]Bromptons are medieval bikes designed for the circus, with old-fashioned components. Serious Bromptoneers have to adapt their bikes to make them decent. They're overpriced pig-iron, riding on a reputation that is no longer valid.

Only nobbers ride Bromptons.

And clowns. Clowns like Bromptons.[/QUOTE]

Without wishing to poke the bear, what's the alternative if you NEED a folder. Bearing in mind that you're not comparing them to a non-folding bike, what would your solution be?

 

[Kell]

I wasn't taking you seriously - I'm happy with my choice. I had three full-size folders before the Brompton and two of them snapped rendering them worthless. To me, the Brompton is a far better overall package than any of my previous ones.

Before I looked at a Brompton, I looked at Airnimals (not a great folding mechanism - and some were double the price of a Brompton), Oribikes looked good (but there's little support for them), Dahons - both small wheeled and big, I felt the small wheeled Dahon I tried was like riding cooked spaghetti - and the two that snapped were both Dahons. Birdy's and Mezzos didn't really seem to offer more, and while I tried a Mezzo (and didn't get on with the steering) I never actually tried a Birdy.

As I've said previously, when I first realised I needed a folder I didn't want to get a Brompton. Back in 2008, the colour ways were dull and they seemed old-fashioned. They're still old-fashioned, but at least they're modernising where possible.

I still think there's a lot they can do better, but as mentioned above, it works for me.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I think like lots of things in life, there's a difference between value and cost.

Comparatively, Brompton's do cost a lot, but I think they're good value because they work really well, they're designed for purpose and, to me*, there was nothing better I could find at any price - more or less expensive..

I know two Brompton owners, both are very satisfied with their bikes and do not consider them frivolous or extravagant purchases. One of them also has an owned-from-new 531 Dawes Galaxy as his full-sized bike, so I consider him to be quite a discerning cyclist who knows that price and value are two different things. I've had a ride on one, but they aren't for me - I just don't get on with the way they handle compared to a large wheel machine.
Whatever became of the Bickertons? Someone else I know has got one to sling in the boot of his car, and is quite enthusiastic about it. I've never ridden it though, can't comment whether it's any more predictable than a Brompton. I'd imagine it's rather twitchy and bumpy.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Thread drift. What about Moultons? Or do you think they can’t be compared to Bromptons as they aren’t folders?

If I ‘needed’ an N+1 i would consider a Moulton. I can’t find the love for a Brompton.

 

[jay clock]

I'd honestly say it's the best complete package. The front bag system, for example, offers an unrivalled degree of convenience, plus you can carry ridiculous weights without affecting the handling.

correction ".... you can carry ridiculous weights that improve the handling"