Moulton Bicycle celebrate 50th anniversary

Moultons seem to bring out strong feelings about the science of small wheels (rubbish/genius: delete as biased). I have ridden road bikes for some 40 years and recently tried out Moultons: first a TSR 8 and then an AM-20. Quite simply the AM-20 is brilliant. No idea about the science/tech, but it's worth every penny. All I'd say is, try one, and then judge.

If you wonder about the Moulton concept, then take a minute to consider the difference between a modern car with small wheels and suspension (equivalent to a Moulton) and a old horse drawn carriage (a conventional bicycle).

Small wheels are not necessarily faster, but compared to a normal bicycle:
Have a lower rotating weight (less of a flywheel effect)
Accelerate faster
Have quicker handling
Are lighter and stronger
The suspension allows them to keep better contact with The road and provide a smoother ride.
On a Moulton the whole centre of gravity is lower, and the unsprung weight is minimised to maximise the benefits gained.

The "classic" bicycle design is not an engineering achievement, but a series of design constraints applied by the UCI since the 30's.

Dr Moulton ripped that book up, and completely re-engineered the bicycle concept from the ground up. He didnt assume anything, but tested every area to find the perfect balance.

Tony Hadland's book "The Moulton Bicycle" is not just a read for Moulton fans, but for anyone interested in bicycle technology, engineering and design.

When Moulton concept was born it was believed that to minimise rolling resistance one simply had to pump up the tyres as hard as possible.

As we now know with the exception of perfectly smooth surfaces for every given combination of rider's weight and road surface there is an optimum (fastest) pressure that strikes the balance between hysteresis (losses of the tyre itself) and suspension losses (energy lost due to inability of the tyre to absorb imperfections of the road) so the statement "harder is faster" on its own is false.

The problem with small wheels isn't the diameter per se but the small volume tyres that require much higher pressure.
Rock hard tyres may feel fast but if they don't deflect enough they will be slowing you down and the worse the surface the less efficient rolling.

No wonder that suspension is then required to help the tyres to conform to the road surface and effectively to solve the problem they (the tyres) had created at the first place.

You could have an equally fast and comfortable bike without the added weight, bob and complexity of suspension by fitting larger volume tyres. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who has doubts about the Moulton at speed would be advised to read Tony Hadland's definitive book, 'the Moulton bicycle'.

They certainly 'feel' bloody fast.

And that other small wheeled vehicle that Moulton is so closely associated with seems to have done all right over the years too.

Empiric observation seems to indicate the word IS flat! If someone wishes to suggest a small wheel is better than a large one, that's fine by me. Just show me the figures.

I thought the picture of the women in the cut away mini was from the '60's until I saw the later pictures! Tried to love my Moulton but ultimately the philosophy didn't work for me and I went back to 700c.

What caused him to "believe" that small wheels result in less rolling resistance? The opposite is true.

Fifty years of