Author Topic: Are Brompton pricing themselves out of the market? (Read 24869 times)

chagzuki · « **Reply #25 on:** 17 July, 2012, 04:55:41 pm »

Yeah but chromoly is much stronger, is it not? So it's stiffer in tubing. I think I read that it was about 4 times more expensive which I take to be the reason why Brompton like hi-ten:

"High-Tensile (Hi-Ten) Steel
High-tensile or carbon steel is a common and inexpensive alloy comprised of iron mixed with 0.2% to 2.0% carbon. (Of note, when iron is mixed with more than 2.1% carbon it is no longer "steel", it goes by the name "cast iron".)

High-tensile steel is an inexpensive but relatively weak alloy. Although it has essentially the same density as other steels, manufacturers working with hi-ten steel are forced to use thick walled tubes to ensure adequate strength, and rarely use butting. For this reason, high-tensile frames are much heavier than their chromoly counterparts.

Today, high-tensile steel frames are primarily used for children's bikes and are sometimes found on inexpensive adult bikes."

rogerzilla · « **Reply #26 on:** 17 July, 2012, 08:48:52 pm »

Quote from: Biggsy on 17 July, 2012, 03:00:37 pm

Quote from: fuaran on 17 July, 2012, 02:48:36 pm
So they are illegally price fixing?

Is it illegal to drop a dealer who sells at below an agreed price? There will be the implied threat of that even if it never happens.

They used to refuse to supply dealers who sold at a discount, telling them there was no stock available for them. Maybe they still do. Spa Cycles used to sell them at a small discount and...they no longer sell Bromptons. The guy in there described Brompton by using an Old English word for the female genitalia.

I think there is a healthy profit in Bromptons, but you have to factor in the enormous cost of manufacturing in London.

arvid · « **Reply #27 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:08:48 pm »

Two years ago I was looking for a folder, and realistically my choice was between a Brompton and Bike Friday. Brompton has dealers everywhere. Bike Friday has one dealer in NL, in Amsterdam.
The bad part was delivery time though, when I asked the LBS about something other than the 3 speed/hub dynamo ones, they told me delivery times from 6 weeks up to 3 months.
I got a discounted S2L-X from a German store, it had been in the window for 5 years or so. I just checked the website, they still sell Bromptons.

Bledlow · « **Reply #28 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:11:33 pm »

I wonder how much Brompton could save by opening up in, say, Swansea.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #29 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:23:53 pm »

I think they'd lose some customers. If they offshored, they certainly would. They're almost a Veblen good and they NEED to be reassuringly expensive to give the impression of quality and exclusivity.

I wonder how many of their workers get tax credits just to be able to live in London? I would bet that the taxpayer is subsidising Brompton's wage bill so they can make expensive bikes to sell to rich people. It keeps some skilled jobs in Britain, though.

Arch · « **Reply #30 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:33:00 pm »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 17 July, 2012, 09:23:53 pm

I think they'd lose some customers. If they offshored, they certainly would. They're almost a Veblen good and they NEED to be reassuringly expensive to give the impression of quality and exclusivity.

I wonder how many of their workers get tax credits just to be able to live in London? I would bet that the taxpayer is subsidising Brompton's wage bill so they can make expensive bikes to sell to rich people. It keeps some skilled jobs in Britain, though.

Presumably we're also subsidising all the people buying a second Brompton on CycleScheme, or indeed any second/wishlist bike, instead of the 'get into cycling bike' I always thought it was meant to encourage...

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #31 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:33:11 pm »

Hi-Ten steel is the same stiffness as Cro-Mo, so a thinner tube wall would be more flexible. Increasing the tubing size to compensate would increase the folded size. Thicker weaker tubes are easier to braze and often more forgiving/ slower crack propagation.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #32 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:38:28 pm »

If you did FEA on the frame, you could probably get more stiffness by using non-round tubes. I'm not sure that the main tube of a Brompton has the same torsional loads as the down tube* of a diamond frame duie to its low position relative to the handlebars and the bent shape. Even if the tube is that big because of torsion (rather than strength, which is my guess) the hinge must introduce more flexibility than a thinner tube would.

*how on earth did a Slingshot bike ever work?

marcusjb · « **Reply #33 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:48:58 pm »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 17 July, 2012, 09:23:53 pm

I think they'd lose some customers. If they offshored, they certainly would. They're almost a Veblen good and they NEED to be reassuringly expensive to give the impression of quality and exclusivity.

At lunch on Saturday, bossman Will was suggesting that a factory in the USA is a possible step. He wouldn't be held on the point as to whether this was an assembly factory or whether they would braze frames out there. They need to reach around 10000 bikes a year going into the US market (which they are a way off) before it made sense. The 'made in the USA' sticker would do wonders for their sales over there. Ironically, it would not help them in South America where made in britan is still very important.

As I said earlier, their more immediate plans are a separate brazing factory somewhere nearby, so no intention of moving from west London currently.

Ian H · « **Reply #34 on:** 17 July, 2012, 09:55:54 pm »

My niece's boyfriend was told, on his first full working day at the factory, that if he finished building the bike by 4 he could keep it.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #35 on:** 20 July, 2012, 09:13:02 am »

Quote from: rogerzilla on 17 July, 2012, 09:38:28 pm

If you did FEA on the frame, you could probably get more stiffness by using non-round tubes. I'm not sure that the main tube of a Brompton has the same torsional loads as the down tube* of a diamond frame duie to its low position relative to the handlebars and the bent shape. Even if the tube is that big because of torsion (rather than strength, which is my guess) the hinge must introduce more flexibility than a thinner tube would.

*how on earth did a Slingshot bike ever work?

Round tubes are best for resisting torsional loads. Non-round tubes can be better (or worse) for bending loads.

The torsion to be resisted between handlebars and seat tube/ cranks is the same, whatever the shape of frame between them.

clarion · « **Reply #36 on:** 20 July, 2012, 09:27:48 am »

Quote from: tiermat on 17 July, 2012, 11:51:51 am

They might not have patents, but they will have copyright on the fold AND the "look and feel" so any company wanting to produce a copy would be looking at problems if they copied it directly.

What did happen to Merc?

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #37 on:** 20 July, 2012, 09:33:49 am »

The Flamingo-made direct copy couldn't be sold in Europe. Flamingo's 'Birdy-style frame' Brompton copies were theoretically available elsewhere for a while afterwards but I've lost track of what they are up to now.

chagzuki · « **Reply #38 on:** 20 July, 2012, 01:05:21 pm »

Surely a slightly taller ovalized tube would be best? In conjunction with replacing the crappy wedge stem with an Ahead system would result in a much less 'bendy-bar' ride quality.
The design conundrum with the main tube is that it's generally the handle which one uses to carry the folded bike so needs to fit comfortably in the hand, at least in the region near the seat tube.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #39 on:** 20 July, 2012, 01:48:55 pm »

Ovalised in which direction, vertically? There are bugger-all lateral bending loads but lots of torsional. There are long levers (handlebars/ stem, pedals/ cranks, seatpost) applying torsional loads to the main tube. The only vertical bending loads are from braking and body weight.

It is difficult to smoothly bend a tube vertically that has been ovalised vertically.

chagzuki · « **Reply #40 on:** 20 July, 2012, 05:34:42 pm »

How much torsional bending is actually taking place?
I'm aware of flex felt when pulling on the handlebars that might originate almost exclusively from the wedge stem, but I've tended to think is a combination of the stem, frame hinge (which behaves like a spring) and the small diameter of the main frame tube.
Other similar steel bikes, i.e. Bike Fridays, Dahons etc. all have taller box / ovalized main frame tubes, though I take your point about problem of bending and those examples are all straight.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #41 on:** 20 July, 2012, 05:38:32 pm »

Quote from: clarion on 20 July, 2012, 09:27:48 am

Quote from: tiermat on 17 July, 2012, 11:51:51 am
They might not have patents, but they will have copyright on the fold AND the "look and feel" so any company wanting to produce a copy would be looking at problems if they copied it directly.

What did happen to Merc?

I think Brompton successfully litigated them away. The word is that they could be very good (most of the oily bits were every bit as good) but the seatposts rarely fitted snugly, so slipped all the time. Chinese QC.

I think a lot of the torsion that would go into the down tube of a diamond frame could be replaced by sideways bending of the stem (or the stem/head tube interface) on a Brompton.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #42 on:** 21 July, 2012, 07:29:35 am »

The torsional loads on the bicycle are the same regardless of whether there is a monotube with long stem and seatpost tubes or a diamond frame with short stem and seat post tubes.

Torsional stiffness relates to 'enclosed area' so ovalising a tube reduces torsional stiffness for a given length of perimeter. Replacing the B's Hi-Ten main frame with a thinner-walled, slightly larger diameter Cro-Mo version will make little difference in stiffness or weight but will make fabrication slightly more difficult. Going to lower stiffness material like Al (1/3 of steel) or Ti (1/2) would require a significant volume increase in folded size.

Changing to a threadless stem might be interesting but changing a short thickwalled stem insert for a length of larger diameter thickwalled steerer tube isn't a great weight difference. Adjusting a threadless headset without using a starnut or suchlike would imply a need for a threaded adjustment 'unit' between the upper bearing cup and the clamped stem.

Increasing the bending stiffness of the stem or seatpost would require increased diameters with all of the associated implications. You are left with reducing the flex from the hinges. Possible but not a trivial task and risks exchanging an utterly reliable, quiet and forgiving mechanism for something that isn't.

Biggsy · « **Reply #43 on:** 21 July, 2012, 09:48:20 am »

Good point about the hinges. Let's be honest, who was forgetting about them!?

Could a titanium main frame be stiff enough while being substantially lighter than the current steel one?

chagzuki · « **Reply #44 on:** 21 July, 2012, 12:20:58 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 21 July, 2012, 07:29:35 am

Torsional stiffness relates to 'enclosed area' so ovalising a tube reduces torsional stiffness for a given length of perimeter.

Are you saying that e.g. a Dahon Speed frame would be better with a less tall, rounder main tube since lateral bending is insignificant whereas torsional stiffness should be optimised?

chagzuki · « **Reply #45 on:** 21 July, 2012, 12:32:06 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 21 July, 2012, 07:29:35 am

Changing to a threadless stem might be interesting but changing a short thickwalled stem insert for a length of larger diameter thickwalled steerer tube isn't a great weight difference. Adjusting a threadless headset without using a starnut or suchlike would imply a need for a threaded adjustment 'unit' between the upper bearing cup and the clamped stem.

It's not really a big design problem, Dahon addressed it back in 2006 and Tern have tweaked it a little. The result makes the old quill/wedge stem kludge look antiquated. . . well, it's 2012 already, it is outdated.

LittleWheelsandBig · « **Reply #46 on:** 21 July, 2012, 12:39:23 pm »

An ovalised main is better for vertical bending but worse for lateral bending and torsion.

I don't find a threadless headset to be a great advantage but opinions differ.

Arellcat · « **Reply #47 on:** 21 July, 2012, 01:09:17 pm »

Quote from: LittleWheelsandBig on 21 July, 2012, 07:29:35 am

Changing to a threadless stem might be interesting but changing a short thickwalled stem insert for a length of larger diameter thickwalled steerer tube isn't a great weight difference. Adjusting a threadless headset without using a starnut or suchlike would imply a need for a threaded adjustment 'unit' between the upper bearing cup and the clamped stem.

I tried it with mine, using a plain spacer, a Problem Solvers micro-adjust spacer and a regular threadless headset. I had great difficulty keeping it at the correct preload, and eventually went back to threaded.

Dahon's implementation, with a large diameter fork steerer internally threaded for preload adjustment and clamped by the lower half of the stem hinge, worked very nicely.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #48 on:** 21 July, 2012, 06:29:58 pm »

Quote from: Biggsy on 21 July, 2012, 09:48:20 am

Good point about the hinges. Let's be honest, who was forgetting about them!?

Could a titanium main frame be stiff enough while being substantially lighter than the current steel one?

It would need to be larger in diameter. The Merc has shown that it can be done with aluminium, so no problem really.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #49 on:** 22 July, 2012, 12:43:04 am »

Quote from: marcusjb on 17 July, 2012, 02:45:28 pm

Quote from: BucksBrompton on 17 July, 2012, 02:35:05 pm

A quick google finds this:-
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/tern/link-d7i-2012-folding-bike-ec032583
£575, plus £100 worth of accessories. Sure its not as good as a Brompton overall. But its aluminium/7 speed Nexus hub. Just makes the Brompton look pricey. Saying that I'll still probably get another Brompton!

Blimey - I thought Bromptons were heavy!

Weight: 14.4 kg

I reckon in the pre-aluminium era that would have been regarded as a fairly decent weight. That Bromptons weigh less shows they have moved with the times in some respects, whatever may be said of £500-components on £900-bikes.