Is the Brompton's reign over?

[Mark South]

Just nosing around the Ridgeback website and saw this:

http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/bike/bike.asp?seriesid=6&index=2

It's cheaper than a Brompton and probably lighter, and come with rack
and V-brakes.

Anyone ridden or handled one?

--
Mark South: Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
"I wonder why so many Finnish traditions are related with booze?"
- Juha Sakkinen

[Peter Clinch]

Mark South wrote:
> Just nosing around the Ridgeback website and saw this:
>
> http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/bike/bike.asp?seriesid=6&index=2
>
> It's cheaper than a Brompton and probably lighter, and come with rack
> and V-brakes.
>
> Anyone ridden or handled one?

The Pashley Micro is cheaper and lighter than a Brompton, so there's
more to it than that. And a Brompton T comes with a rack[1], and though
the dual pivots on a Brom aren't the greatest stoppers on the planet
they're okay.

But looking at the picture it's quite clear that the Stowaway just
doesn't fold as well as the Brom, and so if you want a quick and
convenient fold then the Brompton is still Up There. This is not so say
the Stowaway is bad in any way, but don't expect it to slide behind a
train seat nearly as well...

Pete.

[1] though I use an L and Brom's own pannier system, which works
*incredibly* well. If you've got boxes to carry the rack would be good
but it's rather low for panniers, and the Brom pannier at the front
attaches and detaches more easily, and you can get at it from the saddle.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...
> Mark South wrote:
> > Just nosing around the Ridgeback website and saw this:
> >
> > http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/bike/bike.asp?seriesid=6&index=2
> >
> > It's cheaper than a Brompton and probably lighter, and come with rack
> > and V-brakes.
> >
> > Anyone ridden or handled one?
>
> The Pashley Micro is cheaper and lighter than a Brompton, so there's
> more to it than that. And a Brompton T comes with a rack[1], and though
> the dual pivots on a Brom aren't the greatest stoppers on the planet
> they're okay.
>
> But looking at the picture it's quite clear that the Stowaway just
> doesn't fold as well as the Brom, and so if you want a quick and
> convenient fold then the Brompton is still Up There. This is not so say
> the Stowaway is bad in any way, but don't expect it to slide behind a
> train seat nearly as well...

The folded picture isn't a Stowaway, it looks like the Impulse. The
Stowaway folded dimensions are, 26 x 94 x 71cm. How does that compare
with a Brommie.

I must admit that on first glance the shape of the Stowaway owes
something to the Brompton. The rack looks integral to the frame, I can
remove the one on my Brommie if I wish. I haven't found a quoted weight.

Colin

[Peter Clinch]

Colin Blackburn wrote:

> The answer, now I've found the numbers, is nowhere near as well. The
> Brompton is 25 x 56 x 55cm approximately.

But, as with Dahons, Halfways etc. that doesn't make the Brom a better
machine, period, just one with a neater fold. There are some jobs where
that's of primary importance, but lots of others where good *enough* is
all you need. Decent sized car boot, understair cupboard, etc. etc. it
would be fine. As usual, Horses == Courses.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...
> Colin Blackburn wrote:
>
> > The answer, now I've found the numbers, is nowhere near as well. The
> > Brompton is 25 x 56 x 55cm approximately.
>
> But, as with Dahons, Halfways etc. that doesn't make the Brom a better
> machine, period, just one with a neater fold. There are some jobs where
> that's of primary importance, but lots of others where good *enough* is
> all you need. Decent sized car boot, understair cupboard, etc. etc. it
> would be fine. As usual, Horses == Courses.

Of course. However, given the subject line one comparison, in this
context, must be the fold. In my case it is a vital one since I am using
two trains a day and the boot of a small car.

Colin

[Trealaw Boy]

Does any one else agree that the ITV coverage of the Tour is too
USPS/Armstrong biased. Certainly, its overly pro-English language speakers.

Duffers on Eurosport has his faults, but he is much more even handed with his
praise/criticism of teams and riders.

This contrast in the two broadcasters was highlighted for me, by the coverage
of Beloki's accident on the stage to Gap. I followed this live on Eurosport.
Duffield was amazed by Armstrong's off-road skills but was failry quick to
concern himself with the plight of Beloki.

In contrast, when viewed on ITV2 (highlights - but I'm sure this was broadcast
as live with no edits), all Paul Sherwen could concern himself with was
Armstrong, and what an amazing rider he is. He was actually raving about
Armstrong's skills without apparent concern for Beloki despite it being
instantly obvious that it was a bad fall. This rant seemed to go one and on,
and it was only when the camera went to Beloki could Sherwen bring himslef
together and concern himself with the dreadful accident. Shame on him!

Now USPS is a great team, and Armstrong is a great rider, but they are not the
only 'show in town'.

I'm sticking with Eurosport from now on!

TB