>>2053975Bromptons are popular because by paying the Brompton tax, you're demonstrating that you're not some poor loser who bikes to work because he has to, no you're a member of a rarefied club of Bromptonauts who spent %amount% (I bet you think that's a lot huh? well it is but it was totally worth it). Never mind that plenty of normal bikes cost more, those bikes are for "cyclists" (judgmental assholes who don't realize you don't need all that expensive stuff)
>>2053968You'll sometimes hear Brompton people boasting about how wonderful the handling is on those little wheels but it's more like, "wow I didn't expect this thing to be usable at all", well it was %amount%, I should hope it would be usable (though in fact they don't get used much for anything).
There's really two use cases for Bromptons, one is the aforementioned upper middle class urbanist status symbol and the other is riding them. The second use case ostensibly overlaps with the first but actually this is not so. Because turns out lack of a British folding bike with a bunch of obnoxious proprietary parts is *usually* not the barrier to riding around in the city, in real life, for people who *actually* ride around in the city. That's why you will almost never see them being used for their supposed purpose and 99% of Brompton activity occurs on the internet, like posting YouTube comments about how all drivers are idiot assholes or how things would be so much better if we all just moved to Amsterdam.
People who really needed a folding bike usually ended up getting a Tern or a Dahon or a Bike Friday or something, anything really (now I will be called a "salty poorfag" by someone ignorant of what these things cost, aka someone who has a Brompton and doesn't know much about bikes, but why did I just repeat myself). Because even if a decently equipped Bike Friday costs a couple a thousand more than the Brompton, it's worth it to not have to say "Brompton" or be seen on a Brompton.
Cue "rent free", etc.
