Grant currently has only indirect access to the list, so he forwarded me an update on some of the recent topics we've been discussing here - everything beyond the line are his words.
---------------
Bleriot etc: I got tired of too many dealers de-dignifying it as a loss leader, and so I'm just pulling the plug on the whole Bleriot program. That means that after about late June, no dealer who doesn't have them will be able to get them. We'll then be obligated to buy up QBP's stock, which will give us enough 'riots for a few months, maybe even through winter. They will not go on sale; still $750.
The QBP partnership was pleasant, I have only the best things to say about QBP, but it was about a dozen and a half dealers that sealed the Bleriot's fate.
We could, I suppose, continue to get them ourselves. But the original deal was created with the help of QBP's trading company, and it wouldn't be fair for us to tie up its time with business that no longer involves QBP. So rather than put them in the position of "handing off" the Bleriot deal to a competitor trading company--after they'd worked so hard on the details--I'm just going to kill the fine bike and start fresh with another trading company and a few more bikes, which--if all goes well which it hardly ever does--will be ready in about January, March, May, and July of 2009.
The concepts are: Cheap Quickbeam, cheap A. Homer/Saluki, cheap Atlantis, and cheap Mixte. The plan is four sizes each: 48-52-56-60, all with 6-deg upsloping top tubes (like Bombadil), so each size will fit a wider rage of leglengths/riders.
I say "cheap," but the quality will be the same as the Bleriot. Made in Taiwan. Our lugs, crowns, bb shells, tube pick, 'ame & 'phics, all that. Probably they'll be one-color (no cream head tube), and m-m-may retail for $700 or a hair less (not $699.99!).
Our minimums per bike are 150. So, four sizes is about 37 each, which will give us good depth and stock for a while.
Meanwhile, we are getting in a last run of real Quickbeams---70 of them late this summer, in Silver with blue graphics.
Toyo's production is low and slow on the normal bikes, so we're supplementing it with Wford A. Homers and then some Atlantis frames. Toyo sort of expects to catch up in about 9 months, but I'm not optimistic, and that's why we're relying on Wford to fix the slack.
Customs: Curt's on his own now, and we're training a new builder (new to us). I know this guy, have for 25 years, he's done repairs for us for 3 years, he does NOT have his own brand and says he wants nothing to do with it, and I actually believe him. First he'll build 30 protovelos for us--or however many it takes for him to get his groove and get really comfortable with the particulars of our bikes.
I'm tired of frustrations, but overall things are really good. We have a new (second) full-time shipper; Miesha's back and here with her baby (Freddy) and doing well. The site is getting better. We'll soon have instructional youtube videos for various things we get asked about all the time (twine, shellac, mounting racks, and then just fundamentals like fixing flats).
On May 14, 12:29 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Customs: Curt's on his own now, and we're training a new builder (new to
> us). I know this guy, have for 25 years, he's done repairs for us for 3
> years, he does NOT have his own brand and says he wants nothing to do with
> it, and I actually believe him. First he'll build 30 protovelos for us--or
> however many it takes for him to get his groove and get really comfortable
> with the particulars of our bikes.
Thanks for the update. I wonder if the new builder is John Tallerico,
who use to work out of a space next to the Bicycle Outfitter in Los
Altos, CA?
The size range is unfortunate. A 63 or 64 cm would make the new
bicycle models have a wider appeal.
The main line bicycle companies are all giving up on sizes above 60 cm
or so because of shipping.
-Bill Lucas
Santa Cruz, CA
On May 14, 12:29 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Grant currently has only indirect access to the list, so he forwarded me an
> update on some of the recent topics we've been discussing here - everything
> beyond the line are his words.
> ---------------
> Bleriot etc:
> I got tired of too many dealers de-dignifying it as a loss leader, and so
> I'm just pulling the plug on the whole Bleriot program. That means that
> after about late June, no dealer who doesn't have them will be able to get
> them. We'll then be obligated to buy up QBP's stock, which will give us
> enough 'riots for a few months, maybe even through winter.
> They will not go on sale; still $750.
> The QBP partnership was pleasant, I have only the best things to say about
> QBP, but it was about a dozen and a half dealers that sealed the Bleriot's
> fate.
> We could, I suppose, continue to get them ourselves. But the original deal
> was created with the help of QBP's trading company, and it wouldn't be fair
> for us to tie up its time with business that no longer involves QBP. So
> rather than put them in the position of "handing off" the Bleriot deal to a
> competitor trading company--after they'd worked so hard on the details--I'm
> just going to kill the fine bike and start fresh with another trading
> company and a few more bikes, which--if all goes well which it hardly ever
> does--will be ready in about January, March, May, and July of 2009.
> The concepts are: Cheap Quickbeam, cheap A. Homer/Saluki, cheap Atlantis,
> and cheap Mixte. The plan is four sizes each: 48-52-56-60, all with 6-deg
> upsloping top tubes (like Bombadil), so each size will fit a wider rage of
> leglengths/riders.
> I say "cheap," but the quality will be the same as the Bleriot. Made in
> Taiwan. Our lugs, crowns, bb shells, tube pick, 'ame & 'phics, all that.
> Probably they'll be one-color (no cream head tube), and m-m-may retail for
> $700 or a hair less (not $699.99!).
> Our minimums per bike are 150. So, four sizes is about 37 each, which will
> give us good depth and stock for a while.
> Meanwhile, we are getting in a last run of real Quickbeams---70 of them late
> this summer, in Silver with blue graphics.
> Toyo's production is low and slow on the normal bikes, so we're
> supplementing it with Wford A. Homers and then some Atlantis frames. Toyo
> sort of expects to catch up in about 9 months, but I'm not optimistic, and
> that's why we're relying on Wford to fix the slack.
> Customs: Curt's on his own now, and we're training a new builder (new to
> us). I know this guy, have for 25 years, he's done repairs for us for 3
> years, he does NOT have his own brand and says he wants nothing to do with
> it, and I actually believe him. First he'll build 30 protovelos for us--or
> however many it takes for him to get his groove and get really comfortable
> with the particulars of our bikes.
> I'm tired of frustrations, but overall things are really good. We have a new
> (second) full-time shipper; Miesha's back and here with her baby (Freddy)
> and doing well. The site is getting better. We'll soon have instructional
> youtube videos for various things we get asked about all the time (twine,
> shellac, mounting racks, and then just fundamentals like fixing flats).
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Wheelslucas <wheelslu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The size range is unfortunate. A 63 or 64 cm would make the new > bicycle models have a wider appeal. > The main line bicycle companies are all giving up on sizes above 60 cm > or so because of shipping.
I ride a 65 myself, but really, the market for those >62 sizes is pretty small. I'd expect a 60cm with a sloping top tube to fit more like a 62 and be fine for many who would otherwise buy a 63 or 64. I prefer a level top tube myself, but it'll be interesting to see how the new models shake out.
I'm glad that i'm too poor to consider a new bike this year - i've wanted a Quickbeam for a while anyway, but my first good bike was a silver Raleigh, and i'm going to be sorely tempted by a silver QB.
I agree with both the Bills. The sizing is unfortunate. One thing I
really have grown to like about Rivs are the horizontal TTs, something
which seems pretty rare nowadays. I ride a 62 Rambouillet which is a
size under what Riv recommends yet fits fine. I'm sure a 60 in either
of the newer frames would be fine also, especially in the Atlantis
like one. Still, I would have loved to have seen a budget 62 or 63 AHH
type bike. Oh well. I'm sure they'll be nice.
No mention of the Bombadil. I wonder what's up with that.
Mike (who is hoping to purchase a 63 AHH before the end of summer).
I agree with the horizontal top tube. In my opinion they look far
nicer than sloping top tubes. If they must be sloping, a modest 1
degree is okay, like on the Romulus. Maybe 2 degrees, like on the
Bleriot, but even that's pushing it, as far as my aesthetic taste is
concerned.
It is great that Riv is going to be putting out some affordable
framesets. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think they'd
have a hot item on their hands if they came out with an affordable,
Taiwanese-made version of the RB-1 or maybe the old Road Standard.
I realize that "racy"-style bikes have not been Riv's concern over the
last several years. But when I go out on club rides, my Romulus gets
continuous attention and appreciative comments from people riding the
latest carbon fiber machines. One recurrent lament I hear from various
people: "I had an old ... [De Rosa, Masi, Colnago, Cinelli,
Bridgestone, etc.] and I wish I had never sold it; steel has such a
nice ride, I should look into getting another one."
Based on my experience, my sense is that there is a potential market
out there for a lightweight lugged steel "racy" bike, even if it is
unlikely that many amateur or semi-pro racers would rush to get them.
A Taiwanese model might offer carbon-riding folks with an affordable
way to (or back to) lugged steel.
--Aaron
On May 14, 3:46 pm, Mike <mjawn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with both the Bills. The sizing is unfortunate. One thing I
> really have grown to like about Rivs are the horizontal TTs, something
> which seems pretty rare nowadays. I ride a 62 Rambouillet which is a
> size under what Riv recommends yet fits fine. I'm sure a 60 in either
> of the newer frames would be fine also, especially in the Atlantis
> like one. Still, I would have loved to have seen a budget 62 or 63 AHH
> type bike. Oh well. I'm sure they'll be nice.
> No mention of the Bombadil. I wonder what's up with that.
> Mike (who is hoping to purchase a 63 AHH before the end of summer).
The Rambouillet is RBW's version of a "racy" bike. It's the same basic bike as the Romulus and the Long Low I suppose. They've sold about 1,200 of them so far and after the Atlantis, it may be one of their better sellers. That didn't keep it in the line up though, because Grant had the Bombadil in the pipeline and the Hilsen coming. (Has Bombadil actually taken off yet?) You get a wonderful bike with any RBW, but you can't count on the same bike being there year after year. That's how most companies operate anyway, models change as time goes by. I just think they'd stay with the popular ones. Niche bikes like the Legolas or the Quickbeam are understandably on thin ice commercially, and I don't think that the Saluki has been a hit either, but the Ram could stay in the lineup a long time and continue to sell.
The build we just saw today with the Open Pro rims represents a capable, fleet set up. You can also set the bike up with Pasela TGs for a more sedate ride that still can speed up when needed. It's a bike that should stay in the line up, imho, and a great candidate for inexpensive production (but not on that list) but as we know by now, commercial concerns and user demand are not what always drives the folks at Walnut Creek. Artists are like that sometimes.
----- Original Message ---- From: Aaron Thomas <aaron.a.tho...@gmail.com>
Based on my experience, my sense is that there is a potential market out there for a lightweight lugged steel "racy" bike, even if it is unlikely that many amateur or semi-pro racers would rush to get them. A Taiwanese model might offer carbon-riding folks with an affordable way to (or back to) lugged steel.
Aaron Thomas wrote: > Based on my experience, my sense is that there is a potential market > out there for a lightweight lugged steel "racy" bike, even if it is > unlikely that many amateur or semi-pro racers would rush to get them. > A Taiwanese model might offer carbon-riding folks with an affordable > way to (or back to) lugged steel.
Given what's out there in the way of "racy" bikes and the current obsession with weight, I think trying to compete with modern carbon racing bikes is a losing proposition.
On the other hand, those bikes are ill-suited to the sort of riding most recreational riders actually are doing: 25mm max tire size w/o fenders, gearing poorly matched to riders, no rack fittings so you have to cantilever bags off the seatpost, not even a place to put a pump. What you might call either a "light touring bike" or a "randonneuring bike" is a much better fit, and it's a marketplace niche that is largely empty, and certainly empty in terms of carbon frames.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > What > you might call either a "light touring bike" or a "randonneuring bike" > is a much better fit, and it's a marketplace niche that is largely > empty, and certainly empty in terms of carbon frames.
I thought the Rambouillet was the light touring bike. Or even the AHH.
If you are referring to the old style French "constructeur" bikes with not only racks and fenders but light generation as part of the integration, then there is a cottage industry of custom builders building those. It's unlikely the demand exists to mass produce them.
You can read about them in Bicycle Quarterly, Jan Heine is certainly a champion of the constructeur bike for brevet riding.
I think if someone wants a steel road bike that is "racy" they can go
with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been
truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet
was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike. The
big difference between these Rivendells and the bikes mentioned above
will be the lugs, hopefully a 1" threaded fork, and an all arounder
capability. What really intrigues me is the Atlantis style bike. I
hope it has similar clearances and load capabilities, that would be
great. As I mentioned previously I'm a bit bummed about the sloping TT
but maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the slope won't look so drastic.
The slope on the Bombadil prototypes isn't so bad, especially for an
all arounder type bike. And they will be designed so that the bars can
be placed at saddle height or above. My Surly Cross Check is a great
bike and I like it a lot but it's not designed like a Rivendell. It
has clearances for big tires and braze ons for fenders and racks but
the headtube is a bit short for getting the bars up where I want, it's
not really designed for that.
I hope they have prototypes soon and pictures. I've been collecting
parts over the past year for an AHH but maybe I'll just hold out for
one of these.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Mike <mjawn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think if someone wants a steel road bike that is "racy" they can go > with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been > truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet > was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike. The > big difference between these Rivendells and the bikes mentioned above > will be the lugs, hopefully a 1" threaded fork, and an all arounder > capability. What really intrigues me is the Atlantis style bike. I > hope it has similar clearances and load capabilities, that would be > great. As I mentioned previously I'm a bit bummed about the sloping TT > but maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the slope won't look so drastic. > The slope on the Bombadil prototypes isn't so bad, especially for an > all arounder type bike. And they will be designed so that the bars can > be placed at saddle height or above. My Surly Cross Check is a great > bike and I like it a lot but it's not designed like a Rivendell. It > has clearances for big tires and braze ons for fenders and racks but > the headtube is a bit short for getting the bars up where I want, it's > not really designed for that.
> I hope they have prototypes soon and pictures. I've been collecting > parts over the past year for an AHH but maybe I'll just hold out for > one of these.
> I think if someone wants a steel road bike that is "racy" they can go > with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been > truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet > was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike.
The Terrafirma that was reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly is a good example. They found it to be very fast and zippy, racey, etc.. because of it's skinny, flexy tubing set. I would love to see Rivendell do a bike like that. A nice light, flexy road bike with Riv style, geometry, and clearances would be sweet. I'd buy a flexy Bleriot in a second! Unfortunately, at least as far as I know, Grant specs all the Rivs with too-stiff OS tubing. I've never understood why. Back in the Bridgestone days, he used to sing the praises of thin, flexy tubes much like Jan Heine does today. (see p.34 of the 1992 Bridgestone catalog).
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David Estes <cyclotour...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd say Waterford has that market nailed down. Richard Sachs if you want to > wait four years and $4k later.
I disagree with the notion that only a couple of builders serve the steel racing market. There are a LOT of custom builders around the country who would happily build a lugged steel racing frame, probably more active builders now than in the last 20 years. RS and the other handful of top & popular builders aside, there are a great many who do excellent work more in the $1500-2500 range with waits of just a few weeks or months.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David Estes <cyclotour...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'd say Waterford has that market nailed down. Richard Sachs if you want > to > > wait four years and $4k later.
> I disagree with the notion that only a couple of builders serve the > steel racing market. There are a LOT of custom builders around the > country who would happily build a lugged steel racing frame, probably > more active builders now than in the last 20 years. RS and the other > handful of top & popular builders aside, there are a great many who do > excellent work more in the $1500-2500 range with waits of just a few > weeks or months.
> Agreed. When I said "locked up," that was a contraction of "they have
everything you could want in a top end, super light steel racey-designed frame that's priced well and immediately available." I.F. makes a bunch, too, and as well as all the independents (Bob Brown would be my choice in your neck of the woods). Just saying W'ford has everything you could want, and probably makes more of said bikes (especially if you include the Gunnar line) than all the custom builders combined.
I did the math on handlebar position (had to do some trig and geometry), and the 60 cm Bombadil would place the handlebar at the same height relative to the bars as my 64 cm Atlantis. So that less expensive Atlantis sounds like it would be a really nice frame.
-----Original Message----- >From: Mike <mjawn...@gmail.com> >What really intrigues me is the Atlantis style bike. I >hope it has similar clearances and load capabilities, that would be >great. As I mentioned previously I'm a bit bummed about the sloping TT >but maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the slope won't look so drastic. >The slope on the Bombadil prototypes isn't so bad, especially for an >all arounder type bike. And they will be designed so that the bars can >be placed at saddle height or above.
My point in bringing up the "racy" bike was precisely the mass-
production and price issue. I am certainly aware that there are many
custom builders out there, and even some larges-scale companies like
Waterford and IF. But at 2k or better for a frameset (and this
includes W'ford), they're effectively out of reach of most people,
especially folks who may be weekend warriors on carbon, but who are
curious and intrigued by the old school steel ride and aesthetic, yet
may be wary of dropping a couple of hard-earned bills on what for them
is an unknown entity.
For this reason, I had in mind a quality, lugged bike with RB-1 or
Road Standard-like geometry (which can take a 28mm tire), but made
available at the Bleriot's price point.
I entirely concur with Ryan's comment on the tubing. A friend of mine
has an old RB-2 and that thing has explosive acceleration and climbing
power compared to my Romulus, despite somewhat comparable geometries.
I can only surmise that there's some difference in how the tubing
transfers output. But I've reached the limits of my knowledge in this
regard....
Aaron
On May 15, 8:04 am, "David Estes" <cyclotour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David Estes <cyclotour...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I'd say Waterford has that market nailed down. Richard Sachs if you want
> > to
> > > wait four years and $4k later.
> > I disagree with the notion that only a couple of builders serve the
> > steel racing market. There are a LOT of custom builders around the
> > country who would happily build a lugged steel racing frame, probably
> > more active builders now than in the last 20 years. RS and the other
> > handful of top & popular builders aside, there are a great many who do
> > excellent work more in the $1500-2500 range with waits of just a few
> > weeks or months.
> > Agreed. When I said "locked up," that was a contraction of "they have
> everything you could want in a top end, super light steel racey-designed
> frame that's priced well and immediately available." I.F. makes a bunch,
> too, and as well as all the independents (Bob Brown would be my choice in
> your neck of the woods). Just saying W'ford has everything you could want,
> and probably makes more of said bikes (especially if you include the Gunnar
> line) than all the custom builders combined.
I notice quite different geometries when comparing the Bridestone RB and the Ram/Rom. On the size I ride, the chainstays are 41 cm vs. 44.5 cm. And the head tube angles are 74deg30' vs. 73 degrees. BB drops are 70 cm vs. 77 cm. I don't know the trail or fork rake numbers.
At least in the areas of chainstay and head angle, I would think those geometry differences would be significant. I wouldn't rule them out as causes of differences in the ride characteristics, but I too have now reached the limits of my knowledge...
-----Original Message----- >From: Aaron Thomas <aaron.a.tho...@gmail.com> >Sent: May 15, 2008 8:32 AM >To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> >Subject: [RBW] Re: GP Notes on the Bleriot, new & current models and aQuickbeam ru
>My point in bringing up the "racy" bike was precisely the mass- >production and price issue. I am certainly aware that there are many >custom builders out there, and even some larges-scale companies like >Waterford and IF. But at 2k or better for a frameset (and this >includes W'ford), they're effectively out of reach of most people, >especially folks who may be weekend warriors on carbon, but who are >curious and intrigued by the old school steel ride and aesthetic, yet >may be wary of dropping a couple of hard-earned bills on what for them >is an unknown entity.
>For this reason, I had in mind a quality, lugged bike with RB-1 or >Road Standard-like geometry (which can take a 28mm tire), but made >available at the Bleriot's price point.
>I entirely concur with Ryan's comment on the tubing. A friend of mine >has an old RB-2 and that thing has explosive acceleration and climbing >power compared to my Romulus, despite somewhat comparable geometries. >I can only surmise that there's some difference in how the tubing >transfers output. But I've reached the limits of my knowledge in this >regard....
>Aaron
>On May 15, 8:04 am, "David Estes" <cyclotour...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David Estes <cyclotour...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > I'd say Waterford has that market nailed down. Richard Sachs if you want >> > to >> > > wait four years and $4k later.
>> > I disagree with the notion that only a couple of builders serve the >> > steel racing market. There are a LOT of custom builders around the >> > country who would happily build a lugged steel racing frame, probably >> > more active builders now than in the last 20 years. RS and the other >> > handful of top & popular builders aside, there are a great many who do >> > excellent work more in the $1500-2500 range with waits of just a few >> > weeks or months.
I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
> > I think if someone wants a steel road bike that is "racy" they can go > > with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been > > truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet > > was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike.
> The Terrafirma that was reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly is a good example. > They found it to be very fast and zippy, racey, etc.. because of it's > skinny, flexy tubing set. I would love to see Rivendell do a bike like > that. A nice light, flexy road bike with Riv style, geometry, and > clearances would be sweet. I'd buy a flexy Bleriot in a > second! Unfortunately, at least as far as I know, Grant > specs all the Rivs with too-stiff OS tubing. I've never understood why. > Back in the Bridgestone days, he used to sing the praises of thin, > flexy tubes much like Jan Heine does today. (see p.34 of the 1992 > Bridgestone catalog).
there was an Orange 64cm QB in the homeless frames section. Shoulda
jumped on that while I had the chance and my tax refund sitting in the
bank. Just hard to justify 2 Rivs in one year!! Plus I already HAVE a
single speed (nothing special just an IRO Mark V). Oh well. I really
liked that orange guess I better jump on the silver ones when they're
available.
The market is tough right now and although I'm not happy about the
sizing options on the less expensive versions of bikes I think it's a
good thing in terms of Riv getting into a more mid-range cycling
market which a lot more people will be able to afford or be willing to
shell out the cash for.
I wonder if these new models will have DT shifter bosses. Then again
with the sloping TT they may be too low? Hmm. I wonder, does the
sloping TT impact the reach to DT shifters?
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Doug Van Cleve <dvancl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy folks.
> I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
The RBs were non-OS, with the exception of the '90 RB-2, which was intended to bridge the RB-1/RB-T gap and had longer chainstays and an OS downtube. I had a '92 RB-1, which used a relatively thinwall Ishiwata non-OS tubing mix and was much more flexible than all but the most thinwall (.7/.4/.7) OS tubes. Holy cow, did that bike ever feel responsive and fast, and in terms of subjective ride characteristics beat the pants off every OS road bike I've ever owned ('93 XO-3, Surly LHT, Kogswell P, Kogswell P/R). The Kogswell P was very close to the Rambouillet/Romulus geometry and tubing, btw.
If I recall correctly, GP addressed the rationale for using OS tubes in an early RR, but I could be misremembering. Even more tentatively, I seem to remember that he felt that it was one fight that he just wasn't prepared to pick at the time, either with the industry at large or with customer expectations. (This was the early 90s, when OS steel road bikes were the big new trend, and everybody was hopping on the stiffer-is-better bandwagon.) Remember also that he was having lugsets made specially for Rivendells, and he had to make an exclusive choice for one or the other. So, while it's easy with the benefit of hindsight to opine that the whole OS-steel trend was misbegotten for all frame sizes below (say) 64cm and any wall thicknesses above (say) .8/.5/.8--and I strongly believe this is the case--it was completely understandable at the time.
As far as impact resistance goes, I don't believe OS framesets are superior. To the extent that they are thinner walled (and remember that the other major justification for OS was that you could lighten the frame by moving to thinner-walled OS tubes), they will be easier to dent and perhaps buckle than equivalent non-OS tubes.
Wonder if the Quickbeam will be offered in puny sizes for gals like
me. Any 50cm QB frames in the works? Would love to purchase one to
replacement my rust chipped fixie commuter
Also, sorry to hear that Curt Goodrich has left the Rivendell fold.
LL
On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Murray Love" <murray.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Doug Van Cleve <dvancl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Howdy folks.
> > I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
> > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
> > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
> > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
> > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
> > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
> > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
> > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
> > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
> The RBs were non-OS, with the exception of the '90 RB-2, which was intended
> to bridge the RB-1/RB-T gap and had longer chainstays and an OS downtube. I
> had a '92 RB-1, which used a relatively thinwall Ishiwata non-OS tubing mix
> and was much more flexible than all but the most thinwall (.7/.4/.7) OS
> tubes. Holy cow, did that bike ever feel responsive and fast, and in terms
> of subjective ride characteristics beat the pants off every OS road bike
> I've ever owned ('93 XO-3, Surly LHT, Kogswell P, Kogswell P/R). The
> Kogswell P was very close to the Rambouillet/Romulus geometry and tubing,
> btw.
> If I recall correctly, GP addressed the rationale for using OS tubes in an
> early RR, but I could be misremembering. Even more tentatively, I seem to
> remember that he felt that it was one fight that he just wasn't prepared to
> pick at the time, either with the industry at large or with customer
> expectations. (This was the early 90s, when OS steel road bikes were the
> big new trend, and everybody was hopping on the stiffer-is-better
> bandwagon.) Remember also that he was having lugsets made specially for
> Rivendells, and he had to make an exclusive choice for one or the other.
> So, while it's easy with the benefit of hindsight to opine that the whole
> OS-steel trend was misbegotten for all frame sizes below (say) 64cm and any
> wall thicknesses above (say) .8/.5/.8--and I strongly believe this is the
> case--it was completely understandable at the time.
> As far as impact resistance goes, I don't believe OS framesets are
> superior. To the extent that they are thinner walled (and remember that the
> other major justification for OS was that you could lighten the frame by
> moving to thinner-walled OS tubes), they will be easier to dent and perhaps
> buckle than equivalent non-OS tubes.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Lesli <lesli.lar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, sorry to hear that Curt Goodrich has left the Rivendell fold.
I don't think Curt left, i think Mark Nobilette did, probably to focus on his new Herse bikes. Nobilette was brought in to build the first Legolas (Legoli?), and from one of those RRs, was going to pick up part of the custom business too. I wonder who the new guy will be now though.
This is very interesting. And thanks for posting the link to the
catalog piece on frame stiffness.
Best I can tell from the catalogs, my friend's RB-2 is from 1993. I'm
not sure what tubing it has, but it sure is fast, responsive and
sprightly on climbs, compared to my otherwise beloved Romulus. That
RB-2 scampers up hills and if you want to dart quickly in any
direction, whether on flats or hills, it goes there.
These days, is anyone making any frameset comparable in tubing gauge
and geometry to the RB-1 at any price point?
-Aaron
On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Murray Love" <murray.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Doug Van Cleve <dvancl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Howdy folks.
> > I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
> > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
> > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
> > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
> > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
> > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
> > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
> > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
> > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
> The RBs were non-OS, with the exception of the '90 RB-2, which was intended
> to bridge the RB-1/RB-T gap and had longer chainstays and an OS downtube. I
> had a '92 RB-1, which used a relatively thinwall Ishiwata non-OS tubing mix
> and was much more flexible than all but the most thinwall (.7/.4/.7) OS
> tubes. Holy cow, did that bike ever feel responsive and fast, and in terms
> of subjective ride characteristics beat the pants off every OS road bike
> I've ever owned ('93 XO-3, Surly LHT, Kogswell P, Kogswell P/R). The
> Kogswell P was very close to the Rambouillet/Romulus geometry and tubing,
> btw.
> If I recall correctly, GP addressed the rationale for using OS tubes in an
> early RR, but I could be misremembering. Even more tentatively, I seem to
> remember that he felt that it was one fight that he just wasn't prepared to
> pick at the time, either with the industry at large or with customer
> expectations. (This was the early 90s, when OS steel road bikes were the
> big new trend, and everybody was hopping on the stiffer-is-better
> bandwagon.) Remember also that he was having lugsets made specially for
> Rivendells, and he had to make an exclusive choice for one or the other.
> So, while it's easy with the benefit of hindsight to opine that the whole
> OS-steel trend was misbegotten for all frame sizes below (say) 64cm and any
> wall thicknesses above (say) .8/.5/.8--and I strongly believe this is the
> case--it was completely understandable at the time.
> As far as impact resistance goes, I don't believe OS framesets are
> superior. To the extent that they are thinner walled (and remember that the
> other major justification for OS was that you could lighten the frame by
> moving to thinner-walled OS tubes), they will be easier to dent and perhaps
> buckle than equivalent non-OS tubes.
|
