Was Alex Moulton right (60 years later)?

Warning: may contain iconoclasm.

The reasons that Alex Moulton came up with the original Moulton design are well-known. But do they actually stack up? Most came from an evaluation of the conventional diamond-framed racing bike (a Hetchins) that he liked, but felt could be substantially improved upon. His rationale was as follows:

All other vehicles show a trend toward smaller wheels, so why not the bicycle?

The convergence of bicycle wheels around a size of 700c (or “29er”, which is the same rim size with an off-road tyre) is no accident, even if the precise size is that of an obsolete French utility bicycle. Larger wheels roll more easily over all but the smoothest surfaces and allow sensibly-sized gearing components to be used. The trend of other vehicles towards smaller wheels is just not true any more. It’s true that railways moved from enormous 6’8″ driving wheels on steam locomotives to much smaller wheels on diesels and electrics, but this was simply because steam locomotives, especially express passenger ones, require large wheels to limit the speed of the directly-coupled heavy reciprocating components. Car wheels have become larger and larger over the decades since the Moulton bicycle was first made and, although tyres have become lower-profile, the overall size has still increased. As an example, a 1962 Ford Cortina used 145R13 tyres with an outside diameter of 13″ plus 2 x (145 x 82%) = 22″. A current Ford Mondeo, the closest equivalent, uses 215/60R16 tyres with an outside diameter of 16″ plus 2 x (215 x 60%) = 26″. Roads aren’t getting any smoother.

A conventional bicycle is sized to fit the rider, so it cannot be easily lent to another person

This is true, and can cause headaches for manufacturers, retailers and anyone trying to sell a secondhand bike, where very large frames are almost worthless! To a large extent, the Moulton addresses the problem by being “one size fits all”. Unfortunately, it only addresses the standover and seat height concerns; although most people can mount and ride it, it is only optimised for a small subset of people due to its length; taller people will feel quite cramped, which shorter ones will be unduly stretched. To some extent this could be addressed with a longer or shorter handlebar stem but Moulton never offered one; except for the longer Milremo stem on the M4, which was mainly for a sportier position. Eventually the Moulton Mini was launched for shorter riders, blowing the theory out of the water almost completely. Why the Moulton Mini had to have smaller wheels as well (a huge problem these days, with virtually no tyre availability) is a mystery to me – 16″ wheels wouldn’t have been a problem at all.

Luggage-carrying is an afterthought on most bicycles, requires accessories to be purchased, and can be difficult to fit

Since the Moulton was made, front and rear luggage rack fittings have become reasonably standardised on touring and hybrid bikes. Touring bikes normally use the fork to carry the load, rather than the frame as on a Moulton, but low riders don’t generally have a negative effect on handling. It is also possible to quickly unbolt the racks when not needed, and use a saddlebag or courier bag instead. A Moulton Mk1 (and most Mk2) rear rack is not designed for easy removal. It’s true that Alex’s Hetchins would have had trouble carrying luggage, but that wasn’t part of its design; it was a racing bicycle.

The top tube makes mounting and dismounting very difficult

This was true of diamond frames (not roadsters) in the 60s but is less so now; “compact” frames with sloping top tubes, popularised by Brodie/Kona for MTBs and then by Dave Lloyd for road bikes, are almost universal. Alternative frame designs such as mixte frames or cross frames with conventional wheels can be made acceptably stiff. In any case, the standover height of a modern spaceframe Moulton is not all that low.

Small wheels accelerate faster and roll more easily than large ones

The first part would be true if the F-frames hadn’t used such heavy steel rims and stodgy, low pressure tyres. I don’t have a typical 1960s 27″ road wheel to weigh but I doubt it was any heavier, given a narrower tyre – probably a tub – and alloy rim. Rolling resistance is always higher for a small wheel except on a perfectly smooth surface, like a velodrome. To some extent, the difference can be narrowed with a really good 16″ tyre and a latex inner tube, but you can do the same things to a large wheel. The fact that wheel sizes on modern Moultons have crept up to 17″ or the BMX 20″ size (really 18.5″) show you that the F-frame wheels were smaller than they should have been.

A road vehicle without suspension is wrong

All bicycles have suspension: the tyres. A good, supple tyre is an extremely effective form of suspension because it adds no extra weight (you need it for traction anyway) and the unsprung weight is minimised as far as possible. It would be more accurate to say that a bicycle with small wheels and no suspension is wrong, although millions of Brompton owners may disagree. A Moulton with the same tyres as a Brompton takes large bumps better, but isn’t vastly quicker. I’ve tried it. The significantly lower weight of the Brompton gives it an edge over rolling terrain, as well. Mechanical suspension is necessary for absorbing the biggest hits but adds a lot of weight and is invariably subject to wear. A steel road frame from the 1960s (or a lot earlier) just needs a repaint to make it as good as new. A Moulton from the 1960s normally requires a lot of fairly specialist work to renew worn bushes, if you can find any new parts. So, on a bike that might be expected to last a lifetime or two, suspension should really be the very last resort.