Grant sent along another update which touches on a whole heap of subjects.
It would've been posted yesterday, but I'm several notches under the weather
this week.

-------

New RIV bike geos and fits:
The 48 will fit like a horizontal top tube (htt) of a 51 or to to 56 or so.
The 52, like a 53 to 60; the 56, like a 57 to 63 or so, and the 60, like a
62 to about-how-we-say-a 66. The explanation is simple, and it is: The top
tube slopes UP from the seat lug, NOT down from the head tube. So front-end
height is easily had. If you're on the small end of a new bike size, you'll
probably sink the stem in deep---an odd thing for most Rivvies (I think
that's a Beth Hamon term, not sure), but with the SU (sloping UP) top tubes
(TT), it makes sense. Saddle height is never a problem, not with today's
500mm seat posts.

So...the new sizes will fit a gigantic range of riders, all with four sizes.

I know the SUTT's don't have that Stradivarius look, but the goal of these
new bikes is to make solid, fantastic, versatile, comfortable, lugged steel
bicycles affordable to more people; to make it easier to buy (for instance)
an Atlantis-style bike (touring) even if you can't justify a $3,000 real one
because you aren't a full-time wealthy vagabond. Our bikes have a certain
look, and these will too. But the function and the sense of the SUTT seems
appropriate for the new bikes, and I think it's good to apply a different
Aesthetic Yardstick to a $700 frame than to one that costs twice or more of
that.

The Bleriot has "that Rivendell look," true, but we could never afford to
buy enough of them by ourselves (without QBP's help) to be able to stock
sizes deep enough to ensure good supply, and that matters.

The SUTT is only 6-degrees, or about four more degrees than our current
bikes. It is the same as the BOMBADIL, which you can see on our site. So:
I'm a fan of these bikes even before they're here. Of course, on one hand I
have to be. But on the other  hand, we're the force behind them---they
aren't being forced on us, and now we gotta defend them.  Not at all. I'm
really excited about them.

These days, to me, a nicely detailed bike that forces on you a low bar and
skinny tires. I look at bar height-ability and tire-ability...and lugs,
somewhere along the line.

TRAIL:
I'm GETTING tired of this topic, and have only this to say, for now: You can
get used to anything and learn to love it. The power of suggestion is
strong, especially in Matters of Subtle Differences and Subjectivity. All
that said, Trail is a stabilizing force, which means to some extent is can
make a bike safer to ride, less easily jostled-to-crash than a bike with too
little of it.

I'm not one to quake at the thought of going against the conventional wisdom
when I think it's off, but in this case I don't think it's off. If it were
off, then the tens of millions of happy bikes and riders in the last half
century and before wouldn't have been so happy and content. I understand
that THAT logic can't be applied as successfully to all matters in and out
of bike design, but I think it can apply to trail. There may be certain
circumstances that benefit from a little more or a little less (with the
extremes of riding out there, it would have to be that way), but for
day-in/day-out riding, trail figures in the high fifties to low sixties work
great.

Here's an odd fact that is troubling me some: The current 52 Bombadil, the
one so many people have ridden (including Chico Gino, who reported on it in
his blog), rides great by All Accounts. I have never ridden a bike that rode
an iota better, more pleasantly, easy flowing, easy to control, slippery and
grippy in all the right places. I  have ridden it on several S240s with
weights ranging from 27 to 55 pounds, and no problem, it feels like a bike.
Unloaded, it feels like a road bike (too much like one, for my taste).  The
troubling part is: 68mm of trail. It is troubling because "trailists" will
see that figure (or figure it out from other numbers) and doubt the bike
they'll never even ride. Trail theory says it should suc* going uphills
slow, yet  it doesn't. So right now and over the next week or so I have to
decide between sticking with something that I know works, or "designing to
theory." If I do that, I'll dig  into my bank of experience or whatever it
is and make a conservative shot, but if I do that, I'll feel like I'm caving
in. A slight loss of self-respect, but fewer future headaches?

FLEX:
A certain amount is fine, too much is not, and it's not a significant source
of "energy/speed loss." If you believe that a bike can't be too rigid, then
you'll naturally like rigid bikes better, and equate them with goodness and
speed. If you believe a little flex feels good and doesn't slow you down,
might even help the way a flexy dance floor or gym floor helps the jumps,
then you'll enjoy the slight, nearly but not quite imperceptable flex in a
moderate frame. Too much flex is a problem when it causes "ghost shifting,"
which is real shifting caused by the fame flexing enough to move the rear
hub away from the upper pulley, resulting  in the chain being de-railed to
the next hardest cog. If you're too much guy for a particular frame, you may
find this happening on steep climbs; but check your shift lever tightness
first, and make sure there's no excess friction in the system. Other
opinions abound, and seek 'em out!

Rolling resistance varies tremendously with the surface and tire pressure.
The prevailing opinion, which I go along with, says that rougher roads need
softer tires that roll over and absorb the bumps, rather than hitting them
and bouncing skyward. One example of "conventional tire wisdom" that I
doubt-to-don't-believe, is the idea that a supple sidewall makes a whopping
difference. Sidewall suppleness is most obvious when there's no air in the
tire, and even MORE MOST obvious when the tire isn't even on a rim. Once you
mount and inflate two tires, one with a supple sidewall (SS) and one with a
firmer sidewall (FS), then the differences are insignificant. If both tires
inflate to 75psi feel different, then they will behave differently, too. To
make the FS feel like the SS, you may have to reduce its psi by 5, and there
are no drawbacks to doing that.

But here again, it's kind of a case of magnifying amoebas, since (1)
compared to wind resistsance, rolling resistance is insignificant, and
matters only in races won or lost by wheel-widths; and (2) for anybody who
doesn't race at that supremely high level, it is a mistake (I'd say) to even
give it a second thought. You want a comfortable, reliable bike; a certain
amount of fitness; a friend to ride with, and a safe place to ride. If the
weather's good and the scenery is decent, that's all you need. That's not to
say you shouldn't enjoy discussions about bicycle theoretics, but in the
end, don't forget to re-size their importance...is all.

BUILDER:
New builder is not anybodyanybody knows, I am sure. Builders come with
various degrees of fame and reputation, but no builder imbues a frame
with magical love that flows from his fingertips. It's a romantic
notion, and I'd be the first to acknowledge that the range of skills,
especially in custom builders, varies far more than the prices they
charge. In a custom Riv builder, I am looking for a guy who loves
bicycles and is at home with metal and tools, and has personal metal-
making standards that are higher than my own, and won't take short
cuts. I also look for, and have found somebody with decades (more than
three) of experience building some of his own frames (including a
custom for me way back) and repairing hundreds of the finest frames in
the world. I know it is impossible to stop the speculation, so
speculate away, but  in the end, it will be a RIvendell frame, not a
_______ _________ frame, because it is our design, our lugs, our
concept, our choice of everything. Frames from him are still
months&months away,  and when they finally start to flow, they will
flow glacial-like!

Best, Grant