RBW Business Model

[Michael Hechmer]

There is a major flaw in the RBW Business Model.  They forgot to include planned obselence.  Really, how can you expect to grow a business when your products not only don't wear out they don't even loose their sex appeal?  Certainly Trek didn't make that mistake and see how they have grown since 1983 when I bought a 620.

Take my Saluki for example.  Serial # SA 00011.  I am more in love with it today than when I first got it.  Why would I want to buy a new bike?  Bicycle Quarterly comes in and I look at the reviews of all the hot new bikes and quickly realize I wouldn't trade em straight up for my Saluki.

OK, it now has a lot of touch up paint and I would probably get it powder coated if I could get my hands on some original decals, but the ride is just as joyful, no even better than new, and she still looks pretty good to me.  Instead of buying a new bike I can spend my money on fancy brakes, levers, tires from Compass, and TA Rings ("Well honey the rings were worn out and that's just what new rings cost.")

So Rivendell, instead of pushing a needed replacement or a new improved model, is stuck with the job of convincing people that they need more bikes. Then you have to listen to your spouse - how you gonna pay for it, where you gonna store it, how many bikes can you ride?  It never ends.

Unfortunately for Rivendell, my wife is still in love with her Betty Foy, so no bike sale this year.

Michael

[ANDREW ERMAN]

I enjoyed your post.  Thanks!  Andy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2aae68e6-b2c4-4b51-927d-cace875dc8ebo%40googlegroups.com.

[Ash]

😂🤣😂

Indeed!

I'm about to build a new Susie W Longbolts -  4th bike in as many years (to be fair, I have none now).  When budget discussions come up I make it a point to remind missus that these bike projects cost 1/10th or 1/20th of  the midlife crisis boat and sports car projects I was thinking about.  Besides, I don't need to take out a loan for a bike project :) and every test ride I go for, it is that many calories burned.  It is all upside!

PS: it is a formidable Saluki there!

[Patrick Moore]

I was kidding a friend today who makes his living as a handyman and often fails to adequately estimate his time that he used the "friendly and accommodating client" business model where you depend on the client to cough up extra to make up for your underestimate of time required (and your nice-guy nature that inhibits you from boldly saying, "This much, take it or leave it).

When Stevie operated Stevie's Happy Bikes in Corrales, I seriously guess that at least 25% of his income was flogging nice bikes and parts that people from the greater neighborhood simply dropped off (including 2 tout Campy curlicue Hetchins in good condition). 

I've owned and passed on 3 Rivendells for bikes that better meet my taste, and have that 4th one, the 2003 frameset etc. for sale; and given the really rapid flipping I see on this list, obsolescence, at least rapid change in taste, is not at all unknown on this list. I realize that Michael is kidding. But my 1999 is forever.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2aae68e6-b2c4-4b51-927d-cace875dc8ebo%40googlegroups.com.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

[Joe Bernard]

My Riv Custom is forever. Everything else is always susceptible to the right buyer at the right time, and I'm probably going to buy another production Riv eventually. Platypus!

[masmojo]

I know you were not being serious, but I can still say your wrong. Indeed Rivendells reputation for forever bikes is what keeps them in business!
It does present a challenge though, because 90% of your customer base already has a Rivendell.
How do you sell the owner of an Atlantis, Homer or Hunqapillar another bike when what they already have pretty much satisfies their needs!?
My original Clementine replaced an XO-1 which is hardly comparable at all (sadly) so I bought a Toyo Atlantis and that bike could satisfy just about any need anyone might have. Unfortunately I am a bikeoholic an I can't resist the newest thing so I have too many bikes that are all sort of serve the same function.
Recently, I endured a drastic life changing health event that is undoubtedly going to curtail my tendency to "over do it" when it comes to riding. No more 30+ mile days for me. In a very short time I went from trying to sell my Clementine to needing to keep it & selling my Atlantis 😪
And as much as I hate to admit it the Platypus is looking like a good replacement for both of those. Just as an aside, I sold my Atlantis to someone who already had a Hunqapillar!
So, maybe Rivendell is almost exactly right; good solid, reliable products that stand the test of time & do the required job extremely well. THAT is how you sell new bikes to the same Ole customers.
As your customers needs change, you products change with them and because you've done your job they will come back over & over.

I mean it's worth considering that when Rivendell first started would a Clem have been something they could have sold? It's doubtful.

So, yeah I am probably up for a Platypus despite the terrible name, because it most suits my present cycling need (and I believe I have virtually all the parts to build it at hand).

[Rob Kristoff]

I appreciate the light-hearted post. But we've been down the road of second-guessing Grant, Will, and Co.'s business dealings before. Instead, let's discuss that beautiful Saluki!

RK (now @bike.writing on insta)

[Bicycle Belle Ding Ding!]

A Clementine is always good, now and forever! I think yours will nobly serve you, Mas. And yes, you should also have the Platypus. I mean, that’s exactly what I’m having, so it won’t be without precedent! Just own all the Riv mixtes, that’s what I say.

It’s true that Rivs have overlap and that we Rivendell fans are hard-pressed to explain to our spouses (who usually aren’t as ardent fans as we are - why does it work that way most of the time? One member of the couple is a bike person and the other is ambivalent...) why we need yet another. In my case, this is my one extravagance...well, unless you count that I do spend a lot on healthy, organic food from the grocery store - but that serves my whole family so do we have to count that? I’ll let you in on the Secret Life of Women here and tell you that most of us are spending $$$ getting our hair colored every 6 weeks, some are getting nails done, still others will pay for other beauty treatments, massages, and gym memberships. Since I do none of those things, I feel ok spending money on good bikes and good bike stuff from Rivendell and Analog. I tell my husband we’re probably saving money - I should be praised for my thriftiness! I will be one of the happy owners of the new Platypus when it finally gets released. I really cannot wait, even though it will be set up a lot like my Clementine. Hey, I like what I like!

Back to the business model - don’t you think Rivendell’s best business decision of late was when they offered the Clems? Clems are fantastic, and at at their price point, so many new customers could be brought in. My family are prime examples of this - before my mother-in-law’s was sold we had 7. Most of them would not be excited enough about bikes to spend the money for a fully-lugged Rivendell, but the Clems were reasonable, in their minds.

I’m so glad you and your wife have long loved your Rivs, Michael. I think Rivs get more special as their mileage increases.

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

It's not a flaw... it's a feature!

[masmojo]

Yes, that Saluki is sweet!

And yes overall the Clementine sort of slid into a Niche, but I don't think that category really existed 20 years ago. Or at least there wasn't anyone who thought they could make hay with it.
To me the Electra Townie really staked out that territory of something casual, that was a bit more serious than a cruiser, but not built for serious "bikers".
And Clementine riders by and large take it a bit more serious still.

[Joe Bernard]

I never in a million years thought step-thru/mixtes would break through the "lady's bike" stigma in this country (most of the world didn't market them that way) and take off as A Serious Bicycle. Grant was the wise one who looked at them as bicycles first and thought "A lot of people would be better served with that dang toptube out of the way." He was right!

[dougP]

Michael:

In rebuttal, I'd like to point out how much the Rivendell model line-up has evolved over the years.  When I bought my Atlantis in '03, there was just a handful of models (don't recall the rest) and the Atlantis was the most heavy duty and touring oriented.  In 25 years, Rivendell has gone from a few, mostly road oriented bikes to a wide array.  Now, with the emphasis on trail riding and load carrying, the tire clearances have grown (my Atlantis is rated at 52mm max), chainstays have gotten longer, geometry has evolved, etc.  This isn't really planned obsolescence but does expand the model line up to appeal to a wider range of riders.  I've occasionally mused on the question "what would I want that my Atlantis doesn't do?" and have never come up with a good answer.  OTH, I was sorely tempted when I test rode the current long wheel base version of the current iteration.  We sometimes miss that even long playing models like the Atlantis have subtly evolved over the years. 

Just don't expect to see disc brakes or thru eyelets on forks.  :)

dougP

[Michael Hechmer]

Doug, you have put your finger on the problem exactly.  Yes, chainstays have gotten longer, tire clearance wider (than 52!) and geometries have been tweeked, but as you ask:

 "what would I want that my Atlantis doesn't do?" and have never come up with a good answer. "

What we poor humans face is a situation where the ego wants wanting more than it wants having.  As soon as we have what we want, we start wanting something else.  Shiny objects abound!

To be clear,  RBW has brought forth a great many innovative products in the past 30 years and new bike buyers are getting great value for their money, especially because these bikes will still be a joy to ride in 2040.  I wish GP blessings and am so glad we own three of his creations.  That said, I can't come up with even half a reason to replace the Ramboulliet, Saluki, or Betty Foy in my garage.

Just Ride,

Michael

[Joe Bernard]

All I need for a reason to try a new Rivendell is "I want to try that one." 🙂

[Corwin]

Hi Michael -

I mean no disrespect.

Here's my take on the RBW Business Model:

In 2004, when I came to try and buy one of the original [Coleman green] Quickbeams, Mark said: "We'll treat you right". And everyone at Rivendell always has treated me right ever since. Miesha, Sterling, Rich, Will, Keven, Vince, Roman, Dave, John, Robert, Jenny, Harry, Corey, Spencer, Mark and Grant (measured my PBH himself) have always put my interests ahead of their own. In my opinion, that is the VERY BEST BUSINESS MODEL possible. I have studied many, many businesses. The single unifying characteristic of a great business is a genuine, concerted focus on customer satisfaction.

In my opinion, there is no need to go anywhere else.

Namaste,

Corwin

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 10:38:11 AM UTC-7, Michael Hechmer wrote:

[Mark Roland]

Yes, this is true, authentic customer service. In my experience, that has been a constant since I have been a Rivendell customer. And it is in fact the most important aspect of the business model with a small company making very niche products.

Side by side with that, you have the evolution of the principal designer, and his concept of highly useful and enjoyable bicycle design. For those customers--and I wonder what the actual percentage is--say people on RBW--it becomes a kind of cult of personality.

This has a pejorative connotation, but I use the term cult in an earlier sense. Anyway, I mean it positively. I can think of few examples of an industrial designer that has stuck with a single product (and some of its components) for basically their entire work life. You might mention Jobs, but more than one product. Same with someone like Elon Musk. I am not fans of either, in any case; to me they are more huckster and marketer than visionary or designer. So I can't think of an equivalent in another field. Or in bicycles, for that matter.

I would guess this RBW membership is a really nice base to have, and yeah, the changes and new models, they are in many ways sold to us the same way as most other things we buy--through a desire. For most of us, it is almost always not a need for a bicycle. How much different will my Susie be from my El Clem? But as BBDD points out, for me, at this brief moment in time anyway, it is an indulgence I am willing to indulge. I just hope I have time to ride my fleet of Rivendells in the coming times....

[Patrick Moore]

Skimming the posts on this thread, I was reminded of an early Grantian dictum that appealed to me a great deal (I ended up quoting it in a MBA program marketing paper): "We aren't market driven, we're product driven" -- this after having read ad nauseam about "perception of value" and that sort of shit. While I find many of Grant's products excessively whimsical, or at least idiosyncratic in a direction that is not my road, I do favor him for, basically, managing by or for the product, which means not compromising about a design you think best, even if your idea of best is a very minority idea.

[Patrick Moore]

Which by another obscure train of ideas leads me to another dictum, that of St. Thomas Aquinas: "The end of the artist [= maker] is the good of the artifact [= product]," where "end" is a technical term and refers to that of the 4 causes which is last in generation but first absolutely in the generation of things.

Just thought you should know.

--

[Ryan M.]

I appreciate buying widgets that are quality made for years and years of abuse. I find Paul Components stuff to be like that and I find Rivendell bikes are like that.

That hasn’t stopped me from buying and selling a bunch of products from both companies. I figure I just like to change up things sometimes and my tastes have changed over the years. The products from both companies do hold their value fairly well though.

I’ve kind gone the route of being primarily a road bike user to mostly a trail bike rider...also a “gravel” rider even though I dislike the term and I think racing culture has taken over some there. Anyway, my bike choices have evolved too during the years. Nowadays I’m more interested in bikes that can be ridden on rockier roads or dirt singletrack but also do fine if I want to ride 20 miles on the roads by my house. I also like having multiple bikes to choose from...like I enjoy having a few different cameras to choose from. I do not really need another bike, but I think a Gus Boots hillbike is probably in my future....it can take over the duties my Trek Fuel is currently doing.

I wonder how many people just buy one Rivendell and then keep riding it for 20 years never to be bothered to get another one. I am not one of those people.

[Patrick Moore]

"Yes" to "... buy one Rivendell and then keep riding it for20 years ..." and "No" to "never to be bothered to get another one."

My favorite bike of all time is my 1999 Joe Starck custom Riv Road, but I've bought and sold on 4 other Rivs as I found other bikes better suited to my admittedly idiosyncratic taste.

BUT!! These other replacements have all been refined by what I learned from riding those 4 Rivs that I sold on; the most recent being that 2003 Curt Goodrich; I loved it, rode it, discovered a flaw*, and replaced it, the outstanding replacement standing on the shoulder of that previous giant.

* I think I've never experienced "planing," but I finally realize I've experienced its opposite: The 2003 just didn't go like the 1999; come to an incline, turn into a headwind, and it got sluggish, didn't respond properly to higher exertion, and hurt my quads. Excessively thick-walled OS tubing? Again, 7 lb F + F + Ultegra alloy HS for a 58 c-c, where my 60 c-c Libertas weighs 5.9 F + F + STEEL (old Campy Record) HS. At any rate, the replacement, with thinwall standard tubing just seems more eager.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Ryan M. <ryan.merri...@gmail.com> wrote:

...I wonder how many people just buy one Rivendell and then keep riding it for 20 years never to be bothered to get another one. I am not one of those people. 

[masmojo]

Had I bought the Atlantis First, instead of the Clementine, I would have just pickup where I left off with my XO-1 for another 20 years and probably wouldn't have landed here.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Ryan M. <ryan.merr...@gmail.com> wrote:

...I wonder how many people just buy one Rivendell and then keep riding it for 20 years never to be bothered to get another one. I am not one of those people. 

[John Hawrylak]

Pat

Wow, the St Tom quote is great.  I think I see how it applies to RBW, but am mixed up on the 4 causes.  Any clarification???

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Patrick Moore]

It's in Book II of Aristotle's Physics where he analyzes nature. Natural reality, as opposed to say metaphysical reality (spirits, or angels, say, which in all traditional cultures, Aztec to Hindu to Zulu, are not individual things but concrete universal essences whose reality is a state of direct knowledge; Vedanta is particularly clear on this; or as someone said very well, "Spirit is knowlege in act; Wm Blake: "What is the Holy Spirit but an Intellectual Fountain?") or, on the other side of the "realness of reality," mathematical things, triangle, three which are realities (of a sort; three is something distinct and real, it is not nothing) abstracted from their material substratums by the mind --- after that very excessively long running jump: in contradistinction to these, natural reality is the world of change, or to use the technical term, "coming to be." He analyzes becoming in nature by analogy with becoming in art (art = the fully acquired "standardized" mental know-how and concomitant psychological and physiological habits or by which a maker can *routinely* and not by chance imagine what he wants to make and put that image into the matter in question, be it cake or a sonnet. Aristotle and Aquinas do not distinguish between the "fine" and the "applied" arts insofar as they are arts.

He analyzes coming to be in the arts using the instrument of analyzing how we talk about this, because common speech contains our most fundamental and basic insights, the most prior knowledge that can't be refuted by any posterior knowledge simply because posterior knowledge is based on the prior knowlege; those concepts most certain though very vague and inchoate -- "thing" or a being, for example; the methodological instrument is to clarify what we mean when we say, for example, "This comes to be from that" or "he made that out of this." From such analysis of the arts, it becomes apparent that you have 4 things that are reasons you give for the question, "Why does this thing have this or that property?" Why does the chair have 4 legs? First, because it's for sitting, and 4 legs and a seat and a back allow you to sit; the end or goal -- again, last to be achieved but first absolutely because you have to have an idea of what you are doing before you do it. Second the form, in this case the shapes and arrangements: because the device in question, chair, is something that has 4 legs to keep it off the ground and a seat for your ass and a back for your back; that's what a chair is. Third the matter; wood or steel or low density polyethylene. The chair has 4 legs because LDP can't support your bulk with just 1 leg or by a compressed air column or by parapsychological mind rays. Finally the agent or series of agents: that or those who put the shapes and arrangements in to the material, from designer and product engineer to the machine and the poor schmuck who pulls the handles. In the crafts, of course, this is one person responsible for the intellectual and the manual process as a whole.

Apply this to things that are not made by art or those that don't come about by chance: natural things. We also say, "the rose turned red from green bud," or the boy grew up; the color change took place in the rose, the change in height took place in the boy. But in natural things you have the coming to be of wholly and essentially new things, not just rearrangements of existing things; when I saw my daughter's birth, it was PD clear that she wasn't just a rearrangement of something that had already existed from all time; she was brand new! She is something in her own right, not merely a new arrangement of something else; she has her own identity. So, this comes from that, which implies a substratum -- because she really did come to be; she didn't exist before, just sort of out of sight; but this substratum ca't be one that is "anything" in itself, otherwise Catie would be merely an arrangement of that something. This is pure potentiality, but this doesn't mean just "nothing," it means an obscure original whose entire reality is a weird ontological relationship to a "kind" or "form," "eidos" in classical Greek -- my dissertation, in fact. It is eidos that makes the thing be and makes it be this rather than that. A cat is something, it's a thing, it's not just a randomness; we mean something by "cat," and no one can tell us otherwise; I know what a cat is, at least generally, and that's the point; it's a real kind of thing. So when a girl or a cat comes into the world, there is an ungraspable -- except by analogy with the material of the arts, and by reference to an eidos -- that makes this instance of the eidos possible here and now, for the instance comes and goes but the eidos remains -- "cat" exists even when all my cats die. Eidos gives being and it gives kind or meaning; being and meaning are givens, they can't be pulled out of a prior existential or epistemological hat; what hat would that be? Nothing comes from nothing, and a meaning is, well it can't be reduced to something prior to meaning.

Werner Heisenberg was so put to it to understand quantum reality that he finally got back to this idea of "a sort of being that is not completely being nor completely non-being, that is, Aristotle's idea of matter as potentiality."

Aristotle's ethics and psychology is based on this physical foundation; and Aquinas's theology is based on all the above, which is why you don't just jump in and read the Summa Theologica, even if this theological compendium in all in all its 4-tome bulk is a beginners' textbook; your beginners need prior beginnings.

Typed quickly off top of head, but perhaps makes sense. Problem is that Aristotle's texts are not real books, but class notes by students or lecture notes; most translations are done by linguists who have no clue about the subject matter, so that at least the standard McKeon Basic Works of 50 years ago was literally unintelligible in places -- translation requires more than knowing classical Greek; relied on very good tutors.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/12e481b1-7b65-4770-8d21-0693c1e38a7bo%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Forgot to add: All of the above will sound like the Simpsonian coyote while you are tripping on acid and having your head beaten on with a hammer while in a delirious dream in the Tzotzil language with a 109* fever (The Simpsons: Space Coyote and Homer's Insanity...), but there is a methodological step -- not a strictly epistemological one -- that consists of starting by removing current misconceptions. Aristotle does this preliminary paving by examining and pointing out the inherent contradictions in earlier attempts to explain natural things and their behavior, that is, the ideas of the various so-called "pre-Socratics." I don't believe that the pre-Socratics like Heraclitus were doing natural philosophy, but leave that aside for now. Basically, this purgative and preparatory step is to say, "what you thought you knew doesn't make sense, here're are the reasons." Once your mind is scrubbed clean, it is open to saying, OK, what you say is very weird, but there seems to be no alternative." 

The pre-Socratic views, forget them in detail, but recall this -- basically include all conventional modern ideas about the nature of being and the nature of becoming; yep, what Dawkins and Hawkins believe is essentially what Anaximander or Anaxoras were saying 500 or 1000 years before Christ. I'm not saying their science is wrong -- that's to be examined on the merits; but I am saying that their underlying presuppositions, that are philosophical and not scientific (I know about the scientific method), haven't been examined, they're simply assumed and asserted. I've studied this phenomenon since Galileo and Descartes thought they refuted Aristotle -- they didn't; didn't even address the main issue, is what it comes down to; can't quote bibliographical info but it's in Galileo's Discourse on 2 New Sciences and in that work of Descartes where he talks about the wax (Descartes was a smug and superficial git). Again, don't get me wrong, I learned algebra (really learned, understood, instead of memorized the equations) from Descartes' La Geometrie where he introduces the coordinate system -- essentially, you learn algebra, which is application of number to magnitude, thru some such mental instrument as this 3-D coordinate system); point being, they knew something and I learned a bit of it. But they didn't know philosophy -- recall the off-cuff remark by one late medieval or early Renaissance scholastic, Cardinal Cajetanus, after reading Descartes, "Nobody is going to take this stuff seriously." True paraphrase if not exact quote, and the tone is exact.

Whoof! Must get back to a resume. But this is more fun than a resume. Over and out.

[John Hawrylak]

Patrick

I'm confused about your 'planning" discussion.  Was the 60 C-C Liberatas the planning bike??    I thought all Rivendellls used OS main tubes (they may be thin wall but still OS).  Maybe the Liberatas was an exception, but  thought it was similar to a Ramboiulet

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ 

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:

"Yes" to "... buy one Rivendell and then keep riding it for20 years ..." and "No" to "never to be bothered to get another one."

My favorite bike of all time is my 1999 Joe Starck custom Riv Road, but I've bought and sold on 4 other Rivs as I found other bikes better suited to my admittedly idiosyncratic taste.

BUT!! These other replacements have all been refined by what I learned from riding those 4 Rivs that I sold on; the most recent being that 2003 Curt Goodrich; I loved it, rode it, discovered a flaw*, and replaced it, the outstanding replacement standing on the shoulder of that previous giant.

* I think I've never experienced "planing," but I finally realize I've experienced its opposite: The 2003 just didn't go like the 1999; come to an incline, turn into a headwind, and it got sluggish, didn't respond properly to higher exertion, and hurt my quads. Excessively thick-walled OS tubing? Again, 7 lb F + F + Ultegra alloy HS for a 58 c-c, where my 60 c-c Libertas weighs 5.9 F + F + STEEL (old Campy Record) HS. At any rate, the replacement, with thinwall standard tubing just seems more eager.

[Patrick Moore]

I meant that while I cannot say I've experienced what Jan calls "planing," I have experienced bikes that make me (consistently, over extended periods of ridership) make me want to use a smaller cog, and those that seem at least on occasion to "hold you back" -- feel sluggish in certain conditions, as if you were riding into a small headwind or as if your rear brake were dragging slightly, or as if you were riding on Schwalbe Marathons.

the 1999 custom never felt as if it were holding me back and I progressively geared it 70", 72", 75", and 76". The Matthews fat tire dirt road bike doesn't feel ever as if it holds me back. But the 2003 did, sometimes, as when the terrain began to slope upward slightly, or as when you turned into a headwind. The new Matthews replacement for this 2003 doesn't feel that way; it encouraged a roughly 4 gi higher cruising gear and, even in that gear, feels easier to pedal on hills and against winds, compared to the 70" of the 2003.

I've not yet ridden the Libertas, which is just a frameset being refurbished by Chauncey. I used its weight in comparison to that of the Libertas to illustrate the beefiness of the 2003, thinking that the heavy (as well as OS) tubing might be the cause of the perceived sluggishness.

The Libertas is a (I think) early 1970s road race bike with normal gauge and apparently thinwall 531 tubing; the Ram is a Rivendellian UJB with thicker and OS tubing. The Ram didn't feel bad, but it felt rather like the 2003 custom: not spritely, not encouraging a tooth smaller. It also felt a little slow to change direction compared to the customs, possibly because I am used to sub 25" wheels on road bikes instead of 27" wheels. Again, I've not ridden the Libertas, but given that the new Chauncey road bike rides so delightfully with NG .8.5.8 tubes, I have high hopes for the Libertas.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f55d0ef2-deb9-4eb1-8ecd-c6e1d8a96eb2o%40googlegroups.com.

--

[Mark Roland]

Ah, so this is how Grant gets Rivendells to ride so nice. Makes sense when you put it like this.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/12e481b1-7b65-4770-8d21-0693c1e38a7bo%40googlegroups.com.

[jack loudon]

I'll point out another flaw in the RBW business model.  Grant has inspired the creation of many, many bike designs brought out by other manufacturers, for which he has received little credit  and no monetary compensation.  I am evidence of this as I've never owned a Rivendell, though I have admired them for 20 years.  I've always thought I could get similar qualities for less money (or something) from other builders. I bought an Ebusu when thinking of a Rambouillet, a Long Haul Trucker when thinking of an Atlantis, and a Nordavinden (with higher trail fork) when thinking of a Roadeo.  In all cases, the Riv model was the archetype for my choices, and I'm pretty sure, with no first-hand experience, that Grant has a better understanding of bicycle design than any other living person.  I do think his frames can be needlessly stiff, and I'm not a particular fan of ornate lugs, but that does not take away from what he has accomplished. 

Jack - Seattle

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 10:38:11 AM UTC-7, Michael Hechmer wrote:, 

[Michael Hechmer]

Holy Cow Batman.  I have just checked back in on this thread.  Where I had only intended to inject a little irony and a humor, I find we have now descended, or ascended if you prefer, into the metaphysics of Aquinas.  Can  anyone tell us if Satre had an opinion about bicycles?

My point was pretty simple. Planed obsolescence drives the economy with very little obvious value to the end user.  But we do love shiny objects.

For example.  I recently donated a perfectly useable, albeit aging Prius, to a local charity and bought a shiny new Accord Hybrid.  In hindsight, especially given a pandemic, it's hard to see enough value add to justify the cost.  I do love the car, even if it mostly sits in the garage unused.  But the beat goes on.  I bought a new set of feet for my old, but completely functional,  Yakima roof rack only to discover that the towers have been "redesigned" and feet for the old towers are no longer available.  So I had to buy new towers, but quickly discovered that the interface between the towers and bar had also been redesigned and I needed another $27 adapter kit.  So, I had a completely functional roof rack which only needed a new set of rubber pads to fit the new car.  Close to $400 later I now have a completely functional roof rack.  Yippee.

That's the kind of planned obsolesce, God bless him,  which GP does not indulge in.  It is also why in capitalism,  money flows uphill.

Michael

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 1:38:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Hechmer wrote:

There is a major flaw in the RBW Business Model.  They forgot to include planned obsolesce.  Really, how can you expect to grow a business when your products not only don't wear out they don't even loose their sex appeal?  Certainly Trek didn't make that mistake and see how they have grown since 1983 when I bought a 620.

[Patrick Moore]

As to Aristotelian physics and Aquinasian theology (he sniffed, disdainfully), I apologize because that very hastily but energetically typed and very much enjoyed reply ought to have gone privately to John, who asked for it and therefore deserved it.

Sartre was an idiot. As Heraclitus (?) said, "Have nothing to do with the inferior philosophers."

Patrick Moore, pondering the essential properties of mobile being while riding his 1 remaining Rivendell, and extrapolating to their universal -- or metaphysical -- analogues, in ABQ, NM.

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 7:35 PM Michael Hechmer <mhec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Holy Cow Batman.  I have just checked back in on this thread.  Where I had only intended to inject a little irony and a humor, I find we have now descended, or ascended if you prefer, into the metaphysics of Aquinas.  Can  anyone tell us if Satre had an opinion about bicycles?

[Paul Brodek]

I think that Grant is maybe brilliant, and was a significant influence in moving the bike industry and product offerings towards more practical products that better fit the needs of non-racers. I wouldn't be comfortable saying he has a better understanding of bike design than any other living individual. That's a pretty tall statement. No disrespect meant to Grant at all, and it's not like I can rattle off the names of other builders/designers who I think have a better understanding of bike design. I mainly can't wrap my head around how you'd even begin to analyze and quantify that.

Grant moved the market by focusing on product and meeting an unmet demand. He recognized the disconnect between what bicycle market segments had become, and what kind of product would actually be practical and fun for non-racers to ride. His first product move in that direction wasn't a radically new design, it was a modern revision of a 30yr-old+ market segment: a relatively lightweight, performance-oriented road frame that had better tire clearances and more relaxed geometry/handling than a typical contemporary road/race frame, without the extra weight and stiffness of a traditional touring frame. That market segment in the production bike world had mostly disappeared, and Grant brought it back to life.

I don't want to minimize that in the least, because it took vision to see that, and cojones to bring something to market that almost no other product manager thought was missing, or that even had a place. But it also didn't come out of nowhere. People were still riding '70s-era Cinellis, Mercians, Raleigh Internationals, Schwinn Paramounts. Custom American builders had built lots of sport-touring frames through the '70s and into the '80s, and a lot of those bikes were still around. Grant's contribution was seeing those designs not as a dead end, but a way forward.

Grant and his products have come a long way since then, as has the bicycle market as a whole. I don't know that if it wasn't for Grant, no factories would be building drop-bar road frames that fit tires wider than 28mm, or be spec'ing production road-ish frames with flat/upright bars. But he certainly got the ball rolling, and demonstrated there was demand for non-racing bikes that weren't ATBs or hybrids.

And bringing it back to his business model, in relation to his product, he certainly knows his customer base, and he knows how to reach beyond it a bit as well.

Paul Brodek

Hillsdale, NJ USA 

On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 12:10:22 AM UTC-4, jack loudon wrote:

[snips]

[jack loudon]

Paul, I may have one too many hard ciders when writing my paean to Grant, and your points are well taken :-)

Jack

[Mark Roland]

+1 well written, Paul. You should post this over on one of the IBoB Riv scuffles!!

[Paul Brodek]

Thanks, Mark. I just took a peek over there, and a-scufflin' they are!

Paul Brodek
Hillsdale, NJ US