Small(er) wheeled bikes - non folding!

[mercalia]

This is my 1965 Moulton Automatic with a duomatic 2 speed and coaster hub. £25 at a jumble plus a lot of time and some money.

wow you certainly had a lot of imagination to go from the deadbeat-decay to the nice red one

[Mick F]

Yes.
Wonderfull!

[Ugly]

Thanks for your kind comments guys. It gets ridden regularly and is a very pleasant ride.

[cyclist]

Raleigh Chopper had 16" front wheel and 20" rear wheel. The only caveat is that the dimensions would not fit every rider. i twas marketed to younger persons. Raleigh produced MK1, MK2, and MK3. There are other Raleigh bikes with 20" wheels, Adult sized BMX would work OK, if the seatpost was changed as well as the saddle angle, eg Mongoose L80, L100.

[Carlton green]

The thread seems to have come back from ‘the dead’, which is fine by me as some topics need re-airing from time to time. The Raleigh Twenty, and other identical bikes with Raleigh owned names, once sold in large numbers - I believe than the non-folding versions were more populated than the folding ones. The Raleigh Moulton also did OK and then we have the likes of the Dawes Kingpin. Personally I really like these small wheeled bikes: they offer a lot of utility, they are easier to transport, and they are easier to store. Of course there are reasons why bigger wheels are better - or rather can be - but sometimes it’s not all about what’s ‘best’ but rather about what works well for the individual.

[pjclinch]

Back in the 70s, the heyday of the Raleigh 20 and similar, there was (or so it seemed to me as a child at the time) a clear separation based on gender: women and girls had the likes of a 20 and boys/men went for bigger wheels (as the youngest of 3 I got a hand-me-down from my sister of a Halfords 20" "girls bike" and the only reason I rode it was I couldn't get my paper round done otherwise, I was ashamed to be seen on it). That gender separation doesn't seem to exist any more, beyond colours and accessories.

The original brief in this thread is "simple", which doesn't really fit Moultons since they've always had full suspension and a premium price.

Pete.

[Carlton green]

Back in the 70s, the heyday of the Raleigh 20 and similar, there was (or so it seemed to me as a child at the time) a clear separation based on gender: women and girls had the likes of a 20 and boys/men went for bigger wheels (as the youngest of 3 I got a hand-me-down from my sister of a Halfords 20" "girls bike" and the only reason I rode it was I couldn't get my paper round done otherwise, I was ashamed to be seen on it). That gender separation doesn't seem to exist any more, beyond colours and accessories.

The original brief in this thread is "simple", which doesn't really fit Moultons since they've always had full suspension and a premium price.

Pete.

Indeed gender lines were much more visible back in the 70’s, but I’m inclined to think that we’ve moved forwards since then. Doing a paper round is a great example the utility that such bikes give.

Here’s the original post:

Recently I remember something on here about 'fun' adult bikes with small wheels. Non-folding bikes which were simple - I've even done a web search but can't find anything. I can see the appeal of a light-weight, maybe single speed or 2 speed nimble bike.

The mass produced ‘Moultons’ were a bit more complex than the Raleigh Twenties. However - if still selling them at a premium price - Raleigh will have made them as cheaply and as simply as possible and they’re hardly complex compared mainstream bikes offered today (30 gears, suspension forks and hydraulic brakes). A while back old small wheel bikes were available at scrap prices, now they seem to be a bit dearer - maybe some folk are seeing their utility value.

[rjb]

An opportune thread resurrection. I passed this small wheeler today from a shed clearing. First thought it was a RSW but on the way home I stopped for a better look. Anyone know what it is. An early electric folding bike.
And does anyone know the significance of the number plate on the VW camper prop.

[pjclinch]

The mass produced ‘Moultons’ were a bit more complex than the Raleigh Twenties. However - if still selling them at a premium price - Raleigh will have made them as cheaply and as simply as possible and they’re hardly complex compared mainstream bikes offered today (30 gears, suspension forks and hydraulic brakes). A while back old small wheel bikes were available at scrap prices, now they seem to be a bit dearer - maybe some folk are seeing their utility value.

Raleigh bought out Moulton after their initial success and then proceeded to rather sit on their "not invented here" acquisition. They were always full suspension bikes though, in which manner they are more sophisticated than the vast bulk of (urban) bikes made today which still have rigid frames.
Bikes with 30 gears are pretty much a thing of the past now, with 1x derailleurs and hub gears taking over from triples in the urban space and a mix of 1x and 2x derailleurs in the sport space, and suspension forks and hydraulic disc brakes are typically just bought in from specialist vendors.

The "as cheaply and simply as possible" things were the likes of the RSW16, very much a "Moulton shaped object" launched as a reaction to the original F-Frame (but with low pressure tyres in place of dedicated suspension combined with high pressure tyres, so much lower performance). F-Frames are now selling for far higher than scrap as restoration projects: they appear to be widely regarded as "classics".

Pete.

[PH]

The costs of modern mass produced bikes is such that the price difference between folding and non folding is minimal at most. Due to volume, it's quite likely that a folding bike will actually be a bit cheaper than an equivalent non folder. At the same time, the design of the folding mechanisms have improved to the point where, while riding, you may not notice you're on a folding bike. So the question is, if you're looking for a small wheeled bike, why discount having a folder?

[Carlton green]

An opportune thread resurrection.

I passed this small wheeler today from a shed clearing. First thought it was a RSW but on the way home I stopped for a better look. Anyone know what it is. An early electric folding bike.
And does anyone know the significance of the number plate on the VW camper prop.

It’s anyone’s guess about the bike and the number plate.

My guess is that when you passed by you were on one of your small wheeled bikes, they seem to have given you a lot of utility.

The costs of modern mass produced bikes is such that the price difference between folding and non folding is minimal at most. Due to volume, it's quite likely that a folding bike will actually be a bit cheaper than an equivalent non folder. At the same time, the design of the folding mechanisms have improved to the point where, while riding, you may not notice you're on a folding bike. So the question is, if you're looking for a small wheeled bike, why discount having a folder?

Agreed, however the thread is about five years old and perceptions will have changed in that time. My suspicion is that a non-folding frame can be stiffer than a folding one, how much that matters or not I’m not so sure of. Discount or preference?

The "as cheaply and simply as possible" things were the likes of the RSW16, very much a "Moulton shaped object" launched as a reaction to the original F-Frame (but with low pressure tyres in place of dedicated suspension combined with high pressure tyres, so much lower performance). F-Frames are now selling for far higher than scrap as restoration projects: they appear to be widely regarded as "classics".

Pete.

Going back decades I was on good terms with a Raleigh Moulton enthusiast who had some great examples. Having aged a lot, and lost interest in speed and long distances, I’m inclined to think that a well set up one would be a joy to ride - and could take the rider a long way. Those Moultons give a really comfy ride. Edit. As I recall it now, many decades later, one just seemed to float along.

[pjclinch]

Going back decades I was on good terms with a Raleigh Moulton enthusiast who had some great examples. Having aged a lot, and lost interest in speed and long distances, I’m inclined to think that a well set up one would be a joy to ride - and could take the rider a long way. Those Moultons give a really comfy ride.

The original F-Frame Moulton was launched with a successful attempt at breaking the London to Cardiff (or maybe the other way around...) cycling record, the idea being to prove to sceptical cyclists that small wheels were not necessarily going to slow you down.

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

The original F-Frame Moulton was launched with a successful attempt at breaking the London to Cardiff (or maybe the other way around...) cycling record, the idea being to prove to sceptical cyclists that small wheels were not necessarily going to slow you down.

Pete.

Did not the UCI ban small wheels on the track after a team pursuit was won by a small wheeled team who showed that being able to get closer to the rider in front was a distinct advantage?

[pjclinch]

Did not the UCI ban small wheels on the track after a team pursuit was won by a small wheeled team who showed that being able to get closer to the rider in front was a distinct advantage?

I've heard rumours to the effect that it's because it's easier to draft (it is!) that wee wheels are out, and it's certainly the case that for adult riders in road/track racing that small wheels under 550 mm are banned (and over 700 too).

It could just be some committee of the time simply didn't like the look of them: this is the UCI we're talking about!

However, John Woodburn's record breaking Cardiff to London ride was just him so any notional drafting performance would have been pretty moot!

Pete.

[LWaB]

The team pursuit drafting advantage of small wheels was a real thing. Probably exceeded the rolling resistance disadvantage.

The Moulton is a good long-distance choice purely on a comfort basis. They do roll a touch slower and are a bit sluggish uphill but that doesn’t matter much at the speeds I do. I figured that I did better during the third and fourth days of PBP (1 on 16”, 2 on 20”), compared to my big-wheel PBPs, just because of the reduced physical deterioration.