BQ Copies
John
interested. I subscribed last year, but it's just not for me. I've
got Summer 2010 (Volume 8 No. 4) and all 4 issues of Volume 9. If
you're willing to repay my shipping cost, they're free otherwise.
Please reply offline.
lindbergjohn at hotmail dot com
John
PATRICK MOORE
(don't hoard the back issues; usually use them as impromptu trading
scrip) and find it interesting enough to keep at it, but it does
strongly reflect the editor's own interests -- and who can blame him?
The latest issue was quite interesting, IMO.
One defect is that it lacks sprightly writing: Jan writes competently
but not hugely interestingly. Grant is in the opposite camp: not
always right (and who can blame him?) but always interesting.
Personally, I'd like to see more articles like that a year or two ago
by the woman who toured India on an Indian 3d world roadster.
Moving on: can anyone suggest good general purpose cycling mags, with
an interest in history and in the more unusual bike tech (trikes! Jest
kiddin')? RR is now a very rare bird. Bicycling is not as bad as in
its abysmal days under one Z Espinoza, but it is bland, decaf,
soporific; Cycling Plus is expensive and too bland for the price, not
to mention the fact that it is (of course) Britain focused. Road Bike
Action, Velo News, meh. Mountain Bike Action -- does that still exist?
If so, meh again. Is there another Bicycle Guide out there in the
media cosmos?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>
--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
John
Tim McNamara
On Oct 17, 2011, at 12:17 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
> Curious why you don't like it. I've subscribed for several years
> (don't hoard the back issues; usually use them as impromptu trading
> scrip) and find it interesting enough to keep at it, but it does
> strongly reflect the editor's own interests -- and who can blame him?
> The latest issue was quite interesting, IMO.
While my preferences differ from Jan's in terms of bike geometry, etc., BQ covers enough different stuff to keep me reading it. Some of the historical stuff is really good and I have thoroughly enjoyed his interviews with various French randonneurs et al.
> One defect is that it lacks sprightly writing: Jan writes competently
> but not hugely interestingly.
On the other hand, his review of the Calfee CFRP bike bordered on the weird with much discussion of what he might have done with the bike rather than about the bike.
> Grant is in the opposite camp: not
> always right (and who can blame him?) but always interesting.
The Riv Reader remains my favorite cycling "periodical."
> Personally, I'd like to see more articles like that a year or two ago
> by the woman who toured India on an Indian 3d world roadster.
>
> Moving on: can anyone suggest good general purpose cycling mags, with
> an interest in history and in the more unusual bike tech (trikes! Jest
> kiddin')? RR is now a very rare bird. Bicycling is not as bad as in
> its abysmal days under one Z Espinoza, but it is bland, decaf,
> soporific; Cycling Plus is expensive and too bland for the price, not
> to mention the fact that it is (of course) Britain focused. Road Bike
> Action, Velo News, meh. Mountain Bike Action -- does that still exist?
> If so, meh again. Is there another Bicycle Guide out there in the
> media cosmos?
Not that I have found. There's just not enough market for this sort of thing to pay for it, I suppose. But if someone knows of something, I'd be delighted to hear about it.
Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
rob markwardt
Other than that we are pretty much freaks. Go to the magazine rack
and just look at the quantity of mags on cars, motorcycles, soccer,
knives, watches, dolls, guns (OH my!), etc....are we really that
small? There is basically nothing on the bikes I assume most of us
like. I appreciate whatever I can get...right now BQ is ahead by
miles. I've got all the old Readers, just about all the BQ's and
previous VBQ's, most of the Bridgestone BOB mags and a few of the "On
the Roads". When I get bored I pull an old one out of the
pile....better than anything else out there.
Bill Gibson
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Bill Gibson
Tempe, Arizona, USA
PATRICK MOORE
--
Peter Pesce
I also subscribe to Bicycle Times and find it serves its niche very well also. A bit more urban and everyday than BQ, but I think they compliment each other.
I wish GP had more time to write RR's, but I can appreciate that running a bike company takes a lot of time. I just hope that as Compass Bicycles grows, Jan can keep cranking out BQ!
-Pete
PATRICK MOORE
Personally (emphasis: "personally") I'd like to see more historical
articles; perhaps another monthly feature? Also, as someone suggested,
readers' touring/travel/adventure contributions.
OTOH, BQ is largely a platform for Jan's own preferences (and he has
every right to make it so), so I wonder what the future will bring: a
change to a more general cycling publication but with the same quality
of production and information (my vote) or continuation on the current
route?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Peter Pesce <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just hope that as Compass Bicycles
> grows, Jan can keep cranking out BQ!
>
> -Pete
>
> --
islaysteve
PATRICK MOORE
Trikes and [Odd] Bikes, Jason Nunemaker's, BQ's, VO's, many makers'
blogs, and many, many others) plus sites devoted to (a personal
favorite) bicycle history -- Classic Rendezvous, Lightweight Classics
UK for example -- that altogether more than make up for the absence of
good cycling magazines.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/5SGykQ4VnIsJ.
Steve Palincsar
> Good example; and there are many other blogs (Kent's, Dave Moulton,
> Trikes and [Odd] Bikes, Jason Nunemaker's, BQ's, VO's, many makers'
> blogs, and many, many others) plus sites devoted to (a personal
> favorite) bicycle history -- Classic Rendezvous, Lightweight Classics
> UK for example -- that altogether more than make up for the absence of
> good cycling magazines.
Blogs may provide interesting reading, but they aren't journalism and
the authors aren't bound by journalistic ethics. For the most part, I
give them the same amount of credence I'd give a story told to me in a
bar by the guy sitting next to me. You expect more than that from a
magazine. (Of course, you often don't get it...)
PATRICK MOORE
"journal" or anything else: that it be intelligent (even if wrong) and
that it be well written (even if scurrilous -- forgot to mention the
best blog of all, BSNYC: wonderful talent, wisdom, insight and
culture). Ethics come far behind in order of importance.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
Steve Palincsar
> I have very low expectations for the bicycle literature I read, blog,
> "journal" or anything else: that it be intelligent (even if wrong) and
> that it be well written (even if scurrilous -- forgot to mention the
> best blog of all, BSNYC: wonderful talent, wisdom, insight and
> culture). Ethics come far behind in order of importance.
BSNYC, a perfect example. As much in the way of wisdom, insight, talent
and culture as the words of the prophets that are written on toilet
walls, tenement halls...
Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
Steve Palincsar
of Jan's blog...
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 16:49 -0700, Jan Heine wrote:
> On Oct 18, 4:11 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I somewhat doubt that BQ is peer-reviewed in the same way that science
> > journal articles are peer-reviewed.
>
> When I was working in science, I reviewed a number of papers, and had
> mine reviewed. The process is the same as the one we use at BQ. The
> copy editor (not Jan!) gets a submission and decides whether it
> warrants another look or not. If the paper makes assertions about
> history or technical issues, it goes out to review. The reviewers are
> outsiders who are not directly involved with BQ: Jim Papadopoulos,
> Frank Berto, Andreas Oehler and a few others. They are very qualified
> and certainly not loath to criticize what they read. If they raise
> objections, we don't publish the article unless the objections are
> addressed by the authors. Like scientific journals, we also publish
> all corrections and rebuttals concerning articles in BQ. (Does any
> blog do that?)
>
> I think the fact that we had to retract only a handful of statements
> in the last 9.5 years shows that the process works. You may have
> different preferences in bikes – we all do, even among the BQ crew –
> but when you read in Bicycle Quarterly that Bike A has more wheel flop
> than Bike B, you can be confident that this is true. Whether you
> prefer bikes with a lot of wheel flop is a different matter, but the
> basic facts have stood the test of time.
>
> We try to expand the horizon of the magazine without diluting from
> what makes it special. After all, if you want a test of the latest
> Trek, from a rider who just loves getting on a shiny new bike, you can
> get that elsewhere. Technical articles in BQ must break new ground and
> be well-documented (which is perhaps why we get few outside
> submissions - it takes a huge amount of work to do that type of
> research). Historical articles must be documented as well. (I have a
> lovely article on Speedwell titanium bikes that needs more
> documentation before we can publish it.) Ride stories must be both
> well-written and on a topic that is "off the beaten path" in some way
> or other. Basically, it has to meet high standards to be worthy of
> inclusion in Bicycle Quarterly.
>
> Each issue of BQ takes about 3-4 months of full-time work to put
> together. Fortunately, that work is spread among a number of people,
> so I have some time to work on product design for Compass Bicycles and
> even ride my bike. A blog, like our "Off the Beaten Path," is
> relatively simple and takes a few hours for each post.
>
> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterly
> http://www.bikequarterly.com
>
> Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/
>
Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
Bill Gibson
It is evident that a lot of diligent work goes into BQ, no doubt about that. I stand corrected about the peer-review aspect of the process. My sincere apologies. That said, I still maintain that there are blogs out there that are well-written, informative, entertaining, and plenty faithful to technical facts, where applicable. My bias is toward the human experience side of riding bicycles, which BQ often does well. I tend to roll my eyes at the technical stuff, because I've never had wheel flop or tire rolling resistance make or break a fun ride for me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/Gvg2ADXdzMcJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Steve Palincsar
> I tend to roll my eyes at the technical stuff, because I've never had
> wheel flop or tire rolling resistance make or break a fun ride for me.
>
I was climbing a 14% grade in a 22" gear one time and wheel flop made
the bike shoot across the road at a 90 degree angle. I was able to stop
the bike before I ran into the bank (it was a sunken road) but it sure
did spoil the fun just then!
reynoldslugs
I love VBQ. It's well-thought out and an enjoyable publication. I
enjoy and respect Jan's consistent efforts to establish obejctive
protocols, seek peer review, and generally keep within scientific
principals. The publication, like the Rivendell Reader, is vastly
superior to the mass bicycling media.
My only quibble is not really a quibble, just an observation. Jan,
Hahn, and his crew are lighter and in a lot better shape than I am.
When I read the articles - - which are excellent - - I often wonder,
would the results and conclusions be the same for a 200+ pound rider?
Will the conclusions about tubing diameter, 8/5/8 versus 7/4/7, OS v
standard, planing versus non-planing, be the same for a big guy? Guy
my size climbing a 20% grade in a 20" gear is bound to be different on
a frame than Jan doing the same climb. How about cornering at the
extremes, tire safety and wear... a bunch of issues are different for
us, than for the 140-175 crowd.
It's not a criticism, not at all. Just that old shotputters have
different questions than former racers.
Max
(looking forward to a triathlon of biking, tug-of-war, and caber toss)
Steve Palincsar
> When I read the articles - - which are excellent - - I often wonder,
> would the results and conclusions be the same for a 200+ pound rider?
> Will the conclusions about tubing diameter, 8/5/8 versus 7/4/7, OS v
> standard, planing versus non-planing, be the same for a big guy?
I am your 0.1 ton test rider. I own two bikes that have appeared and
favorably reviewed in BQ, a Velo Orange Randonneur and a MAP Randonneur
Project. My bikes are slightly different from Jan's: 8/5/8 tubing vs
his 7/4/7. Otherwise, my bikes are exactly as he describes.
Both bikes were 1:1 frame replacements, the VO replacing a Rivendell
Rambouillet, the MAP replacing a Rivendell Saluki. Both Rivs were 8/5/8
OS, the replacements 8/5/8 std diam. The difference climbing in both
frames is notable.
Seth Vidal
I just want to make sure I read this right - you've had an improvement
in climbing by going to std diam from OS tubing?
-sv
Steve Palincsar
Yes. I found it impossible to "surge" the OS bikes up rises; I'd have
to downshift-downshift-downshift or bog down hopelessly.
With the std diam frames I can do a few extra-strong "large, round"
pedal strokes and easily surge the bike up a slight incline, or "ride
out of the saddle while still sitting down" - best way I can describe
getting my butt off the saddle by about 1 cm, still riding mostly the
way you do while out of the saddle while barely rising off the saddle
itself; and when I do, the bike surges forward kind of like what happens
when you squeeze a wet and slippery watermelon seed between your fingers
and it shoots forward.
This, I believe, is a manifestation of "the 'P' word."
Seth Vidal
I believe your impression of events - I've just felt that on a tandem
before and it was a bit surprising - especially considering our tandem
is the very definition of oversized tubing :)
-sv
William
Steve Palincsar
> I wish I could test ride your MAP. I think your Saluki was a 58,
60 cm, c-t
> as is my Homer (nominally the same bike). I knew you 'upgraded' and
> liked your MAP, and I'm intrigued by the concepts and the classic look
> of a 'traditional' randonneuse. That said, I had a long talk on a
> brevet with a fellow on a gorgeous low-trail Ellis who hated the ride,
> said the bike was terrifying to ride over 20mph, and was working with
> Ellis to get a new fork to increase the trail. I feel that people's
> opinions about bikes tend to tell us as much about the differences in
> people as they do about the differences in bikes.
None of my low trail bikes is terrifying to ride at any speed. I've
owned a bike in the past that was frightening at high speed, the 1972
Paramount I owned for 20 years. In the early years, it had a very
frightening speed wobble, and even after changes in position cured the
speed wobble, high speed descents always made me feel as though I was
carrying my life in a goldfish bowl held in my outstretched fingers.
I think nothing of going full tilt downhill on any of my bikes. Of
course, we have no long hills here, unless I venture into the Blue Ridge
or the Catoctins, and in mountains like that my overwhelming concern is
excess momentum (I have momentum aplenty!) and an inability to slow down
or stop, so I descent very cautiously.
Here, where what passes for a hill is a half mile run down to a bridge
over a creek followed by a corresponding half-mile climb, it's full
tilt, spin 'em up to 120 rpm, cross the bridge and work your way through
the gears on the climb. And never even the slightest hint of
instability.
> To settle things, I think Steve should ship his MAP to me for a few
> months to try out. I'll take good care of it, honest :)
I deeply regret that you are too short... However, if you ever find
yourself in the vicinity of Alexandria, VA we could go down to Toys R Us
and see if they have any pedal blocks that would fit PDM-959 SPDs. ;-)
William
EricP
There have also been good reviews. Both my wife's bike and one of my
bikes now have B&M Lyt's based on Jan's review. It is also
interesting to see how Jan's interests and tastes have changed over
the years. And also, what has not. Glad to see the magazine
sticking around.
Disclosure, my body size and riding style have nothing at all in
common with Jan.
BQ, Rivendell Readers, and my old issues of Fat Tire Flyer are the
only magazines I've kept.
Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN
René Sterental
René
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Jan Heine <hei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You see that they have 25 mm tires on
> there, so the first thing you can do for them is fit wider tires to
> add pneumatic trail.
>
> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterly
> http://www.bikequarterly.com
>
> Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
Steve Palincsar
> What is pneumatic trail?
rob markwardt
René Sterental
one... Am I a pneumatic cyclist?
Sent from my iPad
Joe Broach
> My only quibble is not really a quibble, just an observation. Jan,
> Hahn, and his crew are lighter and in a lot better shape than I am.
This is why I really miss Alex Wetmore's contributions as a BQ
tester/reviewer. I think he just got too busy with other things to
put in the (considerable) time. I'd love to see BQ expand in this
direction with average but enthusiastic rider/testers in addition to
the usual suspects Jan/Hahn/Mark VdK. It would be fascinating to test
whether the handling and performance traits that superfit & skilled
riders prefer are also preferred by us mortals. Alex seems to agree
with most of Jan's preferences (low trail, light tubing, front
loading) despite his different build and riding style. He was always
at a disadvantage in the blind tests, though, because he didn't have a
similar riding partner to serve as comparison.
As an example, I feel like BQ's city/utility bike reviews have fallen
flat, even though I appreciate them. They read a little like an F1
driver testing a minivan. It would be great to get a "second take" in
these cases from a daily non-sport rider (maybe there was one in the
Big Dummy review. I can't remember all of a sudden). I think such a
rider might actually be more attuned to certain features of non-sport
bikes, just as Jan et al. are more attuned to high performance bikes.
At least in Portland, I've met a substantial number of riders who are
very interested in bike design, ride a lot, but rarely if ever ride
for sport. In fact, I find myself drifting toward that end of the
spectrum.
BQ is by far the most interesting bike pub since the Riv Reader,
though. I've learned a lot, rethought a lot, and thoroughly enjoyed
it. My cycling's the richer for Jan's efforts!
Best,
joe broach
portland, or
Tim McNamara
On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:16 PM, René Sterental wrote:
> Scratching my head at the first one and laughing hard at the last
> one... Am I a pneumatic cyclist?
>
NickBull
sense of the preferences and standards of the current reviewers (Jan
and a few sidekicks to write the "second view" part of the review).
If BQ were opened up to reviews from "guest-reviewers" then it would
be harder to know how to interpret those reviews. Even a "weak" issue
of BQ is better than the typical issue of Bicycling Magazine (hmm, is
it a coincidence that the initials are BM?) with its typical series of
articles on How to Train for a Century, How to Lose Another Five
Pounds, Adventures of Someone Who Doesn't Ride a Bike Very Much, and
Reviews of Another Five Carbon Fiber Wonderbikes and the Latest N-
Speed Drivetrain.
Nick
On Oct 18, 10:27 am, Peter Pesce <petepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think BQ serves its niche pretty well. And quite a niche it is. I
> sometimes wonder if a better title wouldn't be "Bikes Jan Likes." It would
> interesting to see more articles from outside contributors, just to provide
> other perspectives.
> I also subscribe to Bicycle Times and find it serves its niche very well
> also. A bit more urban and everyday than BQ, but I think they compliment
> each other.
> I wish GP had more time to write RR's, but I can appreciate that running a
> bike company takes a lot of time. I just hope that as Compass Bicycles
> grows, Jan can keep cranking out BQ!
>
> -Pete
Tim McNamara
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:46 AM, NickBull wrote:
> Even a "weak" issue
> of BQ is better than the typical issue of Bicycling Magazine (hmm, is
> it a coincidence that the initials are BM?) with its typical series of
> articles on How to Train for a Century, How to Lose Another Five
> Pounds, Adventures of Someone Who Doesn't Ride a Bike Very Much, and
> Reviews of Another Five Carbon Fiber Wonderbikes and the Latest N-
> Speed Drivetrain.
There's a difference in mission there. BQ is driven by Jan's interest in certain kinds of bikes and certain kinds of bike riding. Bicycling Magazine is driven to sell advertising.
Jim Cloud
Your experience with your 1972 Paramount is curious. I have a 1977
Paramount P-15 (26" seat tube size), which probably has identical
geometry to your 1972 bike. With a 2" fork rake and 73 degree head
angle (the standard dimensions for a Schwinn Paramount touring model
at the time) the trail is 52 mm, which is not particularly high
trail. I've descended hills at 50+ mpg with complete security and
nary a hint of wobble. I wonder if your Paramount had some other
problems...?
Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ
Steve Palincsar
> Steve,
>
> Your experience with your 1972 Paramount is curious. I have a 1977
> Paramount P-15 (26" seat tube size), which probably has identical
> geometry to your 1972 bike. With a 2" fork rake and 73 degree head
> angle (the standard dimensions for a Schwinn Paramount touring model
> at the time) the trail is 52 mm, which is not particularly high
> trail. I've descended hills at 50+ mpg with complete security and
> nary a hint of wobble. I wonder if your Paramount had some other
> problems...?
The speed wobble went away after I made some position changes, but on
fast descents it always felt like sliding down the razor blade of life.
It was a bit small for me -- was meant to be a 23", which itself is a
bit small for one who now takes 59-60cm frames, but they checked the
wrong box: 22" instead of 23" by accident, and then told me about how it
was always best to ride the smallest size frame you could possibly fit
on, that's what the racers did, blah blah blah all of which really meant
in 1971-1972 demand was far higher than production capacity and I'd
waited 6 months for this bike and there was no way they could possibly
get me the correct size that year.
It's funny, when I ordered the Spectrum Ti which in about 7 weeks will
be 20 years old I got it without fender clearance because I said I had
the Paramount which readily fit them, I'd use that whenever I needed
fenders. I rode the Spectrum twice and realized, there was no way I
could possibly ever ride the Paramount again, the fit was so very bad
for me.
I'm still mad as hell it was stolen, though.