am i missing something?

welshkev

why is this worth £2500? :shock: :?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Moulton-New-S ... 4295556%26

No Sweat

Those that like them REALLY like them.

I've not ridden one, so I don't have an opinion one way or another, except I'm very intrigued. Much of what we ride (and think is 'normal') is influenced directly by race bike design and UCI regulation, not necessarily by what is best for the rest of us riding on real roads.... maybe there's some real benefit in a small wheeled suspension road bike?

veronese68

I kind of like them in a warped way, but would never buy one as they are way too much money for me. I did see a guy riding one on a charity ride a couple of years ago and I think he said he'd paid £7,000 for it. :shock:
I read something about the manufacture of them and a ridiculous amount of work goes into making one and they are UK built, all of which pushes the price up.
But at that kind of money I'm out. Still kind of glad things like that exist in the world.

paulbox

welshkev wrote:

why is this worth £2500? :shock: :?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Moulton-New-S ... 4295556%26

I'm with you mate, they are mental, over £3k now.

Long_Time_Lurker

You may be able to ride that on the streets of London, but you would get laughed at/stared at anywhere else.
And that is before you told everyone what you paid for it.

The Rookie

It's worth what someone will pay for it, or in auction tersm it's worth one bid more than what the second highest bidder bids for it!
We wouldn't buy it, but so what, I wouldn't buy a Gulfstream IV either, but people do!

welshkev

The Beginner wrote:

It's worth what someone will pay for it, or in auction tersm it's worth one bid more than what the second highest bidder bids for it!
We wouldn't buy it, but so what, I wouldn't buy a Gulfstream IV either, but people do!

my point wasn't what it's worth? it's why is it worth it?

pesky_jones

It's probally not worth that amount, it's just the fact that people are willing to spend 'X' amount, so the seller would be stupid not to price it at 'X'

How it got to that point I don't know

Chunkers1980

welshkev wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

It's worth what someone will pay for it, or in auction tersm it's worth one bid more than what the second highest bidder bids for it!
We wouldn't buy it, but so what, I wouldn't buy a Gulfstream IV either, but people do!

my point wasn't what it's worth? it's why is it worth it?

I knew what you meant. Bit like classic cars I suppose.

Is is still in production? Is that a special? Who's owned it?

The Rookie

welshkev wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

It's worth what someone will pay for it, or in auction tersm it's worth one bid more than what the second highest bidder bids for it!
We wouldn't buy it, but so what, I wouldn't buy a Gulfstream IV either, but people do!

my point wasn't what it's worth? it's why is it worth it?

Why is a genuine Van Gogh worth more than an identical copy? Because someone has decided it is and is happy to pay for it.

If you wanted to buy one, you'd almost certainly end up buying new as they come up rarely so this is then a bargain!

welshkev

The Beginner wrote:

welshkev wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

It's worth what someone will pay for it, or in auction tersm it's worth one bid more than what the second highest bidder bids for it!
We wouldn't buy it, but so what, I wouldn't buy a Gulfstream IV either, but people do!

my point wasn't what it's worth? it's why is it worth it?

Why is a genuine Van Gogh worth more than an identical copy? Because someone has decided it is and is happy to pay for it.

If you wanted to buy one, you'd almost certainly end up buying new as they come up rarely so this is then a bargain!

Yeah, but its hard to find a new Van Gogh these days

The Northern Monkey

What the actual fluck is that.

Ben_morris

Kin horrible,

YeehaaMcgee

No Sweat wrote:

Those that like them REALLY like them.

I've not ridden one, so I don't have an opinion one way or another, except I'm very intrigued. Much of what we ride (and think is 'normal') is influenced directly by race bike design and UCI regulation, not necessarily by what is best for the rest of us riding on real roads.... maybe there's some real benefit in a small wheeled suspension road bike?

The fact that we can have awesome bikes, perfectly fit for purpose, for a couple of hundred quid, has nothing to do with the UCI "man" forcing us.
For those that don't need to be able to fit their bike onto a bus or train, or office cubicle, decent sized wheels, and a standard frame are ideal.
For the rest, there's all sorts of commuter bikes.

No Sweat

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The fact that we can have awesome bikes, perfectly fit for purpose, for a couple of hundred quid, has nothing to do with the UCI "man" forcing us.

If I have understood your post correctly, I think you are suggesting that main-stream road bike design is not influenced by UCI regulation?
Really?

Of course many peoople, quite rightly, buy 'commuter' or 'shopper' bikes for those purposes.

It's equally obvious that many people, who have absolutely no intention of racing, or training to race, are buying 'road' bikes which are directly aping the design of race bikes. This is of course perfectly fine, if they merely wish to look like the professionals, whilst out for a Sunday spin. The fact is for most 'non-racer' riders, a differently designed bike could be more comfortable, easier to ride, and arguably more fun and quicker than the bike they are actually offered to buy in their LBS. It is as absurd as taking an F1 car for a spin around the lanes rather than a GTi. Like the F1 car the great majority of 'road' bikes offered for sale are built to a formula (dictated by the UCI) which controls most cycle racing. Professionals, riding at 60kph benefit much more from the aerodynamic, but uncomfortable, extreme 'tucked' position than a non-racer averaging 25kph. Most 'non-racers' would be better off with bigger tyres, taller head tubes, room and fittings for mudguards(!) etc. etc.. On a road smaller wheels roll, for practical purposes, just as well as larger ones and certainly accelerate better, perhaps supension could actually make a bike faster (I don't really know, and personally wouldn't want the extra complication) as well as more comfortable, but I am pretty sure the UCI banned both of those options.

I'm just saying.....

welshkev

No Sweat wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The fact that we can have awesome bikes, perfectly fit for purpose, for a couple of hundred quid, has nothing to do with the UCI "man" forcing us.

If I have understood your post correctly, I think you are suggesting that main-stream road bike design is not influenced by UCI regulation?
Really?

.

you've mis-understood his post i'd say. no where did he state road bike design

No Sweat

In which case I apologise, of course.

It was the, 'For those that don't need to be able to fit their bike onto a bus or train, or office cubicle, decent sized wheels, and a standard frame are ideal', bit that confused me, as I don't think that is necesarily true........

YeehaaMcgee

No Sweat wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The fact that we can have awesome bikes, perfectly fit for purpose, for a couple of hundred quid, has nothing to do with the UCI "man" forcing us.

If I have understood your post correctly, I think you are suggesting that main-stream road bike design is not influenced by UCI regulation?
Really?

No, I'm saying that for the vast majority of people, a normal, double-triangle shaped bike, with normal sized wheels is ideal. For people who need the flexibility of a small portable bicycle, they have the choice of commutery type bikes.

The fact that a double triangle bicycle suits most people's needs has nothing to do with UCI ruling.
The standard sizes of large wheels (24" 26", 27.5", 29ers, 700C for example) cover rough roads well, whereas a smaller wheel will rattle. So, a smaller wheel can have a higher profile tyre and lower pressures? sure, but that makes it harder work than, (for example) a 26" inch wheel at around 50PSI, with a semi slick 1.75" width tyre.
The larger wheel, will be more comfortable, and cover gravelly roads and poor surfaces better.
So, suspension on a commuter? Well, yeah, it's kind of a necessity because of the small wheel issue.

See, small wheels are fine, for their limited purpose. But a flexy, inefficient frame, small wheels, and suspension will make it a b1tch to ride more than a handful of miles, compared to the matured design of a traditional bicycle.
There is simply no way that a Brompton or it's ilk will be as comfortable or quick, or efficient over distance, than a 26"+ wheeled bicycle, which are commonly referred to as "hybrids" or "cruisers" these days.
And the UCI has nothing to do with that, it's mechanics, physics, and the application of technology.

No Sweat

YeehaaMcgee I think we are getting at cross purposes here.

I agree with much of what you say.

Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that that the Moulton in the OP is NOT primarily designed as a 'shopper', or 'commuter', or (wrt that model as far as I can see) a 'folder'.

It was built as a fast, high performance, potentially long-distance road bike. Go and have a look at the manufacturer's website. I am not an apologist for Moulton, I have never ridden one and I don't wish to afford one, BUT I have an open mind about the fact that with ingenuity it is possible to reinvent the bicycle frame. Dr Moulton was a proper engineer.

I don't wholly agree with your assertion that small wheels are necesarily less efficient / slower / harder work, than large ones on a proper road. On a rough one, you are right, which is why those Moultons have suspension. Does the suspension make them flexy and inefficent? There are plenty of reviews available which say they are stiff enough, and in fact handle very well. Could you race them? Well yes. People have - just not in UCI sanctioned races. That is one possible reason (of many) why alternative frame designs like the Moulton, don't become more mainstream

YeehaaMcgee

I'd say the mind melting price tag is the reason they aren't popular. Millions of people ride small wheeled commuters every day. Those bikes have a place, are useful, and serve a purpose. You don't need snakeoil to sell them. Or fukdonculously high markups.

YeehaaMcgee

No Sweat wrote:

It was built as a fast, high performance, potentially long-distance road bike.

No Sweat

YeehaaMcgee you are missing something.

This is a review of a similar bike (OK not exactly the same but....).

Cycling Plus Feb 2007
"9/10: Amazing design that produces a wonderful ride"

"The attention to detail is amazing, the craftsmanship is exquisite, and the performance is wonderful. In a world where mass-produced frames and ill-conceived and realised carbon composite frames are held as being the best thing since sliced bread, there has to be an alternative. It turns out that true British craftsmanship and 'outside of the box' design can make a performance machine and a real head-turner all in one go. What a refreshing and most welcome change this Moulton is".

http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/images ... w_2007.pdf

I won't scoff until I have had direct personal exerience.

YeehaaMcgee

What makes you think I don't?
Bit presumptuous of you.

That's a pretty pish review you linked to, incidentally!
The Moulton achieves absolutely nothing, that has not been done, better, and more cost effectively by more traditional means. It is a niche piece of overpriced tat, using bizarre "thinking" (and I use the term loosely) to try and promote a crackpot idea.
There's better bikes out there, for well under a grand.

No Sweat

Do you?

Are you going to name these £1000 wonder bikes? Supply supporting evidence of superiority over the Moulton, other than some vague assertions?

If I had that sort of money to spend, I would certainly ride a Moulton and make my own mind up, I wouldn't rely on a review.

BTW the 'PISH review' was from the publisher of this website......

YeehaaMcgee

No Sweat wrote:

Do you?

Yes.

cooldad

At the thick end of six grand I'd rather have a cheap car, a motorcycle and a bicycle.

cooldad

ps just an hour to go on the auction in case some insane person wants to bid.

No Sweat

Clearly someone thinks it's now worth £3,300 (under an hour to go!)

I'm genuinely interested. Why does everyone here seem to have such a downer on this (whereas all the reviews I have ever seen have been very positive)? Is it just because it looks different? YeehaaMcgee aside, who else has ridden one? If you did, what were you comparing it to, and what did you consider using one for?

BTW the bike isn't mine.....and I've not had an opportunity to ride one.

YeehaaMcgee

It's an overcomplicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist, which actually brings about it's own problems. It also demonstrates a misunderstanding of bicycle engineering at a fundamental level. It has, literally, nothing going for it

cooldad

But it has Hope hubs...

cooldad

Gadzooks!*

Winning bid: £5,655.55 [ 42 bids ]

* or f****** hell.