Re: [Classicrendezvous] Odd Frames

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli:Laser)

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:01:56 +0100
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Odd Frames
From: "Hilary Stone" <>
To: Harvey M Sachs <>, Chris Beyer <>,

No, the Moulton bicycles were purely a product of Alex Moulton. The Issigonis connection comes in with Alex Moulton working with Issigonis on the suapension design of the Mini. AM was responsible for the Hydragas suspension units fitted to the MGF. Though he is a bike maker now (and since 1982) he is primarily a suspension engineer working with rubber suspension ­ trailors, trains, coaches ­ you name it. He was however 80 this year. There is a new version of Moulton New Series bike which has just been launched but at £5000+ ($7500) depending on spec most I suspect are going to Japan.

Hilary Stone ----------
>From: Harvey M Sachs <>
>To: Chris Beyer <>,
>Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Odd Frames
>Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2000, 8:50 pm
> Chris -
> If memory serves me correctly, the Dursley Pederson dates back to about
> 1900 -1903 (memory of what I read; I was not there....).
> For those too young to know about Moulton, Alex Moulton is not the Moulton
> framebuilder, but the originator of the Moulton small-wheel bikes. I
> believe the design of the bike and its suspension system was the work of
> another Alex, Issigonis (?), fresh from creating the British "mini" or
> "2-box" cars with transverse engines and front wheel drive. Austin &
> Morris, including the famous "Mini-Coopers. But, let's not migrate to cars.
> The Moulton bikes are still or again in production, and I certainly regard
> them as modern classics
> harvey sachs
> mclean va
> (owner of a mongrel first generation Moulton, converted to Sachs (no
> relation) 3x7 gearing)
> At 02:43 PM 10/10/2000 -0400, Chris Beyer wrote:
>>Lest we forget: the Dursley-Pedersen, which is reputedly one of Alex
>>Moulton's inspirations in frame design. Scandinavian by design, but
>>initially built in the UK, if I recall correctly.
>>Chris Beyer
>>Overcast 'n Blustery Bloomfield, NJ
>> wrote:
>> > In a message dated 10/10/0 5:41:33 PM, writes:
>> >
>> > >regarding all this hellenic, etc. stuff...
>> > >my memory is foggy on some of this, but
>> > >didn't most of the non-trad 'affectations'
>> > >arise during those pre-war years when british
>> > >racing was banned on the open roads, relegated
>> > >to outlaw type time trials only at dusk and later?
>> > >does anybody recall this story...riders rode only
>> > >in black, no commercial marks on uniforms...OR
>> > >on frames. if i'm half on here, the explanation i'm
>> > >reaching for is that all the 'unusual' frames designs
>> > >we associate with this thread were born out of
>> > >a framebuilders yearning to have an identifiable
>> > >look, whether there were transfers or not, or whether
>> > >the sun was out or not.
>> > >i can't seeing any engineering gains in any of this
>> > >stuff. only decorative. regarding the hellenic stuff,
>> > >after the stay is joined someplace on/near the
>> > >seat tube, i can't figure out how it's additional length,
>> > >that part that travels to the top tube, adds, or does
>> > >anything at all.
>> > >i'm not an engineer. and i'm not old enough
>> > >to have lived through those pre-war years.
>> > >any thoughts?
>> > >e-RICHIE
>> >
>> > That's the story but I don't think it's true. I think it's rooted in the
>> > English love of the eccentric. Only England produced the range of unusual
>> > frame design we see-Flying Gate, Hetchins, Bates, Thanet, etc. Comments,
>> > Hilary?
>> > Phil brown