Moulton SST -- reasons (not) to buy?

[igauk]

To bring this thread back from off, off topic to just off topic this is an interesting article (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1243/09576509A01305 if you can find a paper copy or have deep pockets. Much of this is focused on the fully enclosed Moulton for speed records. But, according to Tony Hadland's book, the Zipper fairing upthread produced an almost 20% reduction in drag and users reported a 5-8 kmh speed advantage. Downsides were noise, riding on the hoods your head was in the wind and at very high speeds (e.g. 50 kmh) side winds and gusts could blow you over. AFAIK Moulton's aerodynamic research was done by the Millikens in the US, who had access to a (General Motors?) wind tunnel, so it wasn't just a fairing shaped object bolted to the front.

[gazza_d]

Resurrecting this possibly dead thread...

First off I'll declare that I love Moultons. My first M was a 60s frame and I've owned a handful more, and now ride either an Alfine 11 equipped APB (2002), or a TSR2 (2015) converted to 5 speeds with an SRAM P5 and coaster brake.

Moultons these days are a bit of an throwback to be honest. They were designed when there wasn't really any choice but steel. Anyone just wanting a light fast bike needs to look at something conventional with alloy or carbon. It'll be lighter, cheaper, simpler. And boring. People come up to you in the street to talk about the bike, or call out as you pass them. School children shout "cool bike"! Bottom line is that buying and owning a Moulton is more of an emotional choice. For me, I love the engineering of the things and that they are different, but I appreciate they are like Marmite to a lot of people.

My 2 space frames are both very similar weights to my 531 tourer (which has alloy racks). These days,the majority of my riding is a 16-18 mile (each way) commute which I always record on Strava. the Tourer is now the backup bike in case both Moultons are grounded for some reason.

The Moultons are possibly slightly slower overall, but that's mainly due to tyre choice in my eyes and additional drag from the IGHs and dynohubs as both Moultons are specced for year round commuting. The tourer has Marathon 700x28c (largest that fits) and the Ms have 20x1.35 M+ for reliability and puncture resistance. The moultons cope with all surfaces other than loose gravel or sand beautifully and tackle hard unsurfaced tracks (old rail lines etc) better than the tourer.

However the moultons are definately more agile and much more comfortable than the tourer. After my first ride on the APB I described it as a velvet covered girder and I have never changed my opinion. The riding style is different though from a conventional bike and you can;t just mash them up anything by sheer brute force. You can ride out of the saddle but it's only for short kicks. I'd suggest that possibly in somewhere like Cornwall which just seems to have only vertical roads in places that Moultons would struggle because you need that brute power.

I don't find the Moultons are any more of a maintenance pain than a normal bike. Once setup the front suspension barely needs touching other than an occasional spray over the links with GT85 than leaving overnight. Rear is just a case of keeping greased. I only occasionally grease my TSR pivot and it seems to be fine (it's done about 8k miles in about 4 years) although I do check for any play regularly. If you're not mechanically minded then you may need to hunt out a sympathetic mechanic though. The designs are not that complicated to be honest and certainly a lot less of a pain than some full-sus MTBs. A mate has had his (large US brand beginning with spec) MTB in the shop for over a month now whilst they struggle to deal with the rear shock (it's had to go back to maker) and pivots and it's only a couple of years old.

As for the Moulton Flyte, I like it, but they seem to be targeting it to a niche fanbase. To me it would be a perfect basis for a cheaper mass-market bike harking back to the goals F frame and original APB as that frameset must be cheaper to build than a spaceframe

[dezzie]

Still reckon it will be a 3k bike, it will have stem and bar options and also brand of gears n cranks, i would prefer they brought out a cheaper painted m60 with derrailluers or igh hub option, i would love a modern version of my 2 f frames but with modern gear as standard, the flyte does nothing for me.

[garygkn]

Just to be clear. The 'Y' frame was not produced at the time it was created because of legal issues with Raleigh it was impossible at the time for Alex Moulton to develop or progress. Not to be defeated Alex Moulton developed the space frame and started a new company. The first two bikes were the AM7 and AM2. Speaking from experience these bicycles both exhibit excellent ride qualities. Responsive, comfortable and laterally stiff as well as vertically stiff frame design. I think a comparison to Brompton is not fair on either design or company as both have set out to achieve vastly different aims and both have succeeded.

So the original 'Y' frame is the missing link between the 'F' frame designs and the space frame. It's a little known design even within the Moulton fraternity. The Flyte is a modern version of the original 'Y' frame design. The wheels are 406 and not 369 so they are bigger. It also incorporates the AM suspension. I've test ridden the Flyte and it was a very positive experience. Responsive, smooth and I had no trouble climbing a steep hill.

Raleigh disappeared and became extinct but despite all the odds Moulton went on to experience success and greater development of their unique take on bicycle design. The AM and NS bikes are all very popular exports from a company building and designing bicycles in Bradford on Avon.

Moulton really are a national treasure.

[simonineaston]

Does anyone have anything positive (or negative) to say about buying a Moulton? I'm thinking of the SST model (basically a slightly uprated TSR -- crucially incorporating a beefier rear-pivot bearing) equipped with the latest incarnation of Alfine 11...

Well Sidlaws - did you ever get one? If you did, your timing was probably better than mine, as currently looking at several months wait!

[Sidlaws]

Does anyone have anything positive (or negative) to say about buying a Moulton? I'm thinking of the SST model (basically a slightly uprated TSR -- crucially incorporating a beefier rear-pivot bearing) equipped with the latest incarnation of Alfine 11...

Well Sidlaws - did you ever get one? If you did, your timing was probably better than mine, as currently looking at several months wait!

Hello simonineaston,
Sorry for the delay in replying... I only check in here once in a while.
I did not in the end buy an SST. I had a crisis in confidence about the Alfine 11 hub gear -- being unable to rid myself of a nagging doubt around efficiency. I vacillated for a while twixt an Aline 11 and the Campagnolo 22 variants... and at one point contacted Moulton with a view to ordering the latter only to learn that the Campie version was no longer available in silver... cue more prevarication.
I haven't entirely given up on the idea though (I think if you have fancied a Moulton, then you probably always will), but am waiting until I can test ride an Alfine 11 SST -- or an Alfine 11 bike of any stripe -- before taking the plunge.
Reading through your SST/Jubbly thread I recognise many elements of your journey to the SST, and for what it's worth, concur entirely. Looking forward to reading your reports... and in particular your experience of the Alfine.
Best.

[simonineaston]

Picking mine up this Friday! I've no doubt I'll blather on about it sooner or later, and am likely to post some content here...

[Sidlaws]

Picking mine up this Friday! I've no doubt I'll blather on about it sooner or later, and am likely to post some content here...

So ordering direct from the factory has reduced the lead time quite considerably?

[gazza_d]

Picking mine up this Friday! I've no doubt I'll blather on about it sooner or later, and am likely to post some content here...

Wow Simon that's quick! I thought specific orders were in the region of a year or more. My Cone was on stock, and I was just lucky that spec and colour suited, although I would have bought owt.

Sidlaws - I had an alfine 11 in a Moulton APB (it will be going into the cone) for about 4-5 years and it's been great. A really good gear range and nice quick shifting. Alfines can feel a little indirect to some so you'd be right to try one. If you don't want flat bars then the choices for a shifter are limited and expensive though.

After a month with the Cone (which has the SST frameset) and almost 300 miles I am still really pleased with it. It's a wonderful machine and although I can't prove it I do think Moulton must have tweaked the suspension slightly as it does feel slightly more supple than either the TSR or the APB, especially the rear

[simonineaston]

Wow Simon that's quick!

I know! Furthermore, having failed to cross the Kennet/Avon at Avoncliff meaning I incorrectly rode 'twixt Avoncliff and Freshford twice, once there & again back, I can confirm that all 11 gears work... Oh my Lord I am sooooh unfit.

A pimple unless you're me...

[cyclist]

Back to the main question.

A bicycle tries to fulfill certain criteria including:
1. Safety/stability (wheelbase, centre of gravity, tyre width, braking)
2. Comfort (tyre width, saddle position, saddle type, handlebar position & grip, saddle suspension, front suspension, rear suspension)
3. Speed (rider position, handlebar type, bicycle geometry, aerodynamics, gearing, crank length, weight)
4. Utility (presence of panniers etc.)

These items could be at odd with one another eg a wider tyre is more comfortable but it drags more so it affects speed. Conversely, a very thin tyre could painful to ride, and despite the apparent advantage it could slow you down. Not because, it is inferior it is because of the road imperfection.

Riders vary in terms of requirements and what they prioritise in the bicycle. Hence, there are no winners or losers in same quality bikes.

Moulton wanted to re-examine the bike. His first concern was the wheel size, influenced by the success of the Mini in the 195x-196x he believed that a small wheel size is not inferior to the 29" bikes. Moulton examined the bike several times to come up with the Moulton answer to the bike.

To me it prioritises comfort (step-through frame, suspension, short-reach), utility (built-in panniers) & safety (low centre of gravity) over having a speed edge over other bikes.

I was fascinated by the design, I tried Moulton bike, my experience was that it is very comfortable to ride. The step-through frame is not the lowest by today's standards esp the space frame. On the downside, its gear inch ratio is smaller than the gear inch ratio of comparative bicycles eg gravel or touring bikes (setting aside roadbikes), hence it would be slower as compared with other bikes.They accelerate faster, but they lose momentum, they also have higher rolling resistance. The suspension takes from the pedalling energy to some extent.

Also, I tend to prefer disc brakes which is not uncommon in gravel bikes, So, I would not feel very comfortable with rim brakes. Also, the bike is a tad heavier than titanium, aluminium alloy and carbon bikes.

A friend of mine of mine who likes Moulton bikes, stopped using them in group rides of Cycling UK (CTC), because he felt that he could not keep up with others with Moulton bikes especially, on climbs.

Others swear by them and find that the comfort, stability, and they find that on longer rides comfort pays off in terms of ability to ride for longer and not having fatigue, or not slowing down because of road imperfection.

It is a feat of engineering, a great bike, with avid followers (Moultoneers), but it is not particularly my cup of tea.

[pjclinch]

To me it prioritises comfort (step-through frame, suspension, short-reach), utility (built-in panniers) & safety (low centre of gravity) over having a speed edge over other bikes.

Centre of mass is really down to where the rider sits and in what position, because unless they're made of sticks they'll be much heavier than a typical bike.
Given the bottom bracket isn't especially low on a Moulton the centre of mass when riding one isn't significantly lower than a conventional bike.
Built in panniers sound a bit niche, and I'm not aware of any current Moulton model that has such a thing.

...On the downside, its gear inch ratio is smaller than the gear inch ratio of comparative bicycles eg gravel or touring bikes (setting aside roadbikes), hence it would be slower as compared with other bikes.

This is down to whatever gearing you put on it, really a function of the chainwheel/sprocket ratio. My 406 Moulton runs similar overall ratios to my wife's 700c Gazelle. Given the availability of a huge range of chainwheels and sprocket sizes this really is a non-issue.

They accelerate faster, but they lose momentum, they also have higher rolling resistance. The suspension takes from the pedalling energy to some extent.

But if the surface isn't smooth the suspension makes the bike more efficient and reduces the rolling resistance: that's the fundamental point of it. If you're into mashing out of the saddle then leading link suspension like the SST's does bounce a fair bit. I prefer to sit down and spin so not a biggie for me, but not everyone does prefer that.

Also, I tend to prefer disc brakes which is not uncommon in gravel bikes, So, I would not feel very comfortable with rim brakes. Also, the bike is a tad heavier than titanium, aluminium alloy and carbon bikes.

Fair criticisms, though there's the NS Safari with discs at both ends, and weight isn't an end in itself: light weight is better if all else is equal, but all else tends not to be. Suspension weighs more, but you get something back from it unless you're riding on billiard tables.

A friend of mine of mine who likes Moulton bikes, stopped using them in group rides of Cycling UK (CTC), because he felt that he could not keep up with others with Moulton bikes especially, on climbs.

Not all Moultons are the same. The launch of the original one coincided with a new Cardiff to London road record set on one, they've been used in the RAAM and a Moulton streamliner set a world record for flying 200m on an upright bike. If you want an off-the-shelf go-fast bike they'd be a poor choice, but the popular myth of small wheels = slow bike isn't true. It will depend on the particular setup of the bike. My SST with its hub gear, racks and mudguards and swept up bars isn't especially fast, but it isn't set up to be.

This sort of thing would be a bit nippier...

It is a feat of engineering, a great bike, with avid followers (Moultoneers), but it is not particularly my cup of tea.

They're certainly not to everyone's taste, but the above rather implies that one Moulton is much like another, and that's really not the case.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

These items could be at odd with one another eg a wider tyre is more comfortable but it drags more so it affects speed. Conversely, a very thin tyre could painful to ride, and despite the apparent advantage it could slow you down. Not because, it is inferior it is because of the road imperfection.

Riders vary in terms of requirements and what they prioritise in the bicycle. Hence, there are no winners or losers in same quality bikes.

The opening statement about thin tyres, has been found to be no longer true.
Thin, hard tyres were though to be the better performing because those were the results, when they were put against a steel drum to measure the resistance. This test, itself was found to be flawed..
..in real world conditions it was found that thicker tyres (up to a given point) would actually roll better as they has a greater capacity to absorb road imperfections

Perhaps the ultimate performing bicycle under all your points would be the recumbent bicycle - an acknowledgement that it is not weight which holds back the performance of any bicycle, but rather wind resistance.

[cycle tramp]

Actually thinking about it, there's one item on your list which you've not mentioned, which is;

I) how much space the bike takes up when it's parked, either on a train or in a shed

Dr Moulton was fairly obsessed (in a good way) by this one point, believing that the conventional sized wheels of either bicycles or cars made the vehicles larger than they need to be, harder to park and take up more space, and that a small wheel, together with better suspension would still take up less room than those vehicles with traditional sized wheels..

.and to prove it he designed the mini, and Moulton bikes.

We all take it for granted that everyone has a space for a bike with larger wheels, and we really shouldn't do.

[pjclinch]

The opening statement about thin tyres, has been found to be no longer true.
Thin, hard tyres were though to be the better performing because those were the results, when they were put against a steel drum to measure the resistance. This test, itself was found to be flawed..
..in real world conditions it was found that thicker tyres (up to a given point) would actually roll better as they has a greater capacity to absorb road imperfections

But that's in the context of an otherwise unsuspended bike. May well be true with suspension too but I'd guess the point to which your optimum width/pressure for rolling resistance may well be in a different spot.

Perhaps the ultimate performing bicycle under all your points would be the recumbent bicycle - an acknowledgement that it is not weight which holds back the performance of any bicycle, but rather wind resistance.

Again it's implementation dependent. You won't go any faster on something like a Streetmachine than you will on a typical road bike. A velomobile, on the other hand...

Pete.