333fab - Air Land Sea

[Edd Bread]

Couldn't find any posts about 333Fab's - Air Land Sea production frameset (aside from the usual glowing resources radavist etc.) Anyone have any experience with this bike? http://333fab.com/shop/air-land-sea-deposit-tcpfl

Price point it's pretty close to the Hunter Gatherer, I'm thinking of a new frame set next year. Thoughts? Opinions?

[Justin Hughes]

I got a lugged, low trail, disc custom with more bells and whistles and a custom rack for less than this. The paint is cool, but unless one of the sizes nails geometry for you then I don't see how $2500 is a deal. Especially since it's not in stock. 

36t 1x only is a non-starter for me, personally. My bike has a 68mm shell, can fit 27.5x2.1 with fenders and a compact road crank (I'm pretty sure -- I use a 42/28 that has plenty of clearance). 

Justin

[Reed Kennedy]

Color me mystified. That's more than I paid for a full custom lugged frame with custom rack, decalleur, and Son SL wiring. 

Not saying it's bad frame. Just that it had better be pretty magic for that price!

Best,

Reed

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:09 PM Edd Bread <edl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Couldn't find any posts about 333Fab's - Air Land Sea production frameset (aside from the usual glowing resources radavist etc.) Anyone have any experience with this bike? http://333fab.com/shop/air-land-sea-deposit-tcpfl

Price point it's pretty close to the Hunter Gatherer, I'm thinking of a new frame set next year. Thoughts? Opinions?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Igor Belopolsky]

gotta ride the hype wave yall

[Mark Bulgier]

I'm not defending the price, but I would like to point out that Max is an extremely talented welder and you won't see prettier or stronger welds anywhere.  Though admittedly that matters more on an unpainted Ti or stainless frame.  And even there, pretty welds don't ride any better than lumpy ones.

I believe this is essentially a one-man shop, Max does it all.  Could be wrong, I haven't visited lately.  Max partnered up with Bill Davidson, framebuilder to the stars since the '70s, but I don't think Bill works on the 333fab frames.  Maybe Bill helps with the steel fork, because Max once admitted to me he wasn't a brazing guru.  That was a couple years ago though, and a smart guy like Max could have remade himself as a brazin' master in that time, especially with Davidson looking over his shoulder.  Oh and they have a mechanic who assembles the painted frame into a bike -- solid, experienced career pro who came along with Davidson from Davidson's previous shop.  Note, I don't know for sure who works on these Air Land Sea bikes -- ask him, if knowing who worked on your bike is important to you.  But that was the line-up last time I visited -- no apprentices "learning on the job" on your frame.

Funny to me that he never mentions that it's a steel frame, on that webpage.  I mean, I can tell by looking at it, and he does say the tubing is "Columbus (SFL, ÜOS, Life, Zona) and U.S. made Vari-Wall 'THERMLX' tubing", which maybe lots of people know are all steel.  But 333fab is known for Ti frames, so I would have put the word "steel" into the very first sentence. Let me be clear, I'm not accusing him of obfuscation!  I just think it's funny that you could write a whole webpage about a bike and forget to mention that it's not Ti, aluminum or carpet fiber.

Question: how do you put a fork with 1-1/8" steerer in a frame made for a tapered 1-1/2" steerer?  Is there a headset made for that setup, or is it a shim?  I could ask Max but I'm lazy and only mildly curious.  I can see how that keeps all your options open for forkage. You could even have two forks, for a bike with two distinct personalities.  You gotta like really fat head tubes though.  (Remember, I'm old and stuck in the previous millennium and I fear change.)

Mark Bulgier

Seattle

[nash...@gmail.com]

The hunter gatherer is only 1200$ if I'm not mistaken.

[Edd Bread]

Oh right! The Air Land Sea, is 1250 for the deposit alone!

[Nhat Vu]

Hi Mark. Chris King makes the devolution headsets and various adaptor kits that allow for the "undersized" steerer tubes to fit bigger headtubes. Likely there are others out there with the same idea too.

Cheers,

Nhat

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Lowe]

Yup, they're now $1200. It was only $1000 if you were quick enough to order one back in the summer (which I was!) My H-G will hopefully be arriving before the end of the year. The frames are done and now FBM are working on the forks. FBM may not be well know in road circles but they are well known in BMX and one could argue that welding a BMX frame is harder than a road frame because of tighter spaces brought on by a much smaller triangle. 

Chris Lowe

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:26 PM, <nash...@gmail.com> wrote:

The hunter gatherer is only 1200$ if I'm not mistaken.

[Steven Frederick]

I like it, but the stack height in my size is a little low and the 1X-specific design is a non-starter for me.  Not wild about the color but it's not terrible.  If I were to buy such a bike I'd probably go for the Fat Chance Chris Cross. 

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Edd Bread <edl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Couldn't find any posts about 333Fab's - Air Land Sea production frameset (aside from the usual glowing resources radavist etc.) Anyone have any experience with this bike? http://333fab.com/shop/air-land-sea-deposit-tcpfl

Price point it's pretty close to the Hunter Gatherer, I'm thinking of a new frame set next year. Thoughts? Opinions?

--

[Philip Kim]

as mark has alluded to, max has over 20 years of bike fab experience, with also help from bill davidson, who also has 44 years of framebuilding knowledge. 

i could be totally wrong but i'm not sure there is anywhere else that has that much framebuilding experience in one shop. more of the up-and-coming builders that i've seen are approaching a decade or just north of a decade. 

the color is also a 3 tone paint fade, with a lot of detailing and an artist that had to create those graphics. i tried to repaint an old frame with two tone fade paint and i was quoted $700 for it.

couple that with quality tubesets and ss paragon drop outs with choice of qr or ta, internal dyno wiring frame & fork,and pacenti mtb crown, and an option to make it 2x with di2, and an included chris king headset, and it's a costly bike to make. they also collaborated with swift industries to design a great front bag for the bike, as well as their own QR decaleur. even though they only do stock sizes, this bike seems to be designed with a cohesive vision. i am guessing the profit margin for these frames is very little.

i consider $2500 a very good deal for this bike all things considered. breadwinner bikes are around the same price point and seem to have a lot of happy owners.

[Karl Sanchez]

Put me in the camp that's pleased someone's taking advantage of 1x specific designs. With the spec'd 584-54 tire,  a 36t ring paired with a 10-42, you'd get gear inches ranging from 23.6 to 99.1, which I think is more than acceptable given the bike's (seemingly) dirt focused purpose. 

For me, the fact your bike doesn't seem like it's rattling apart on rough descents is almost worth the drawbacks alone. Couple that with a dead-simple "shift up/shift down" gear progression and I've found this system really fun to ride. 

[Steven Frederick]

I agree that 1X has some advantages off road-I have it on all my mountain bikes.  But for a bike like this, which I'd mainly use on mixed paved/dirt road surfaces, paths/rail-trails and maybe the occasional trail, I need smaller jumps between gears.  To get both the close ratio gears AND  the gear range that I'd want on a bike like this 2X is the better choice.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karl Sanchez <sanchez...@gmail.com> wrote:

Put me in the camp that's pleased someone's taking advantage of 1x specific designs. With the spec'd 584-54 tire,  a 36t ring paired with a 10-42, you'd get gear inches ranging from 23.6 to 99.1, which I think is more than acceptable given the bike's (seemingly) dirt focused purpose. 

For me, the fact your bike doesn't seem like it's rattling apart on rough descents is almost worth the drawbacks alone. Couple that with a dead-simple "shift up/shift down" gear progression and I've found this system really fun to ride. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Justin Hughes]

Agreed. My custom is for all intents and purposes a lugged, custom geo version of this. I would certainly not want the gaps of a 1x drivetrain. But, yeah, it's personal. Also, I've ridden it on trails where it had no business, fully loaded at stupid speeds. Never worried about "rattling apart" regarding the drivetrain at all. The fenders and water bottles were of more concern. Love my XT 1x11 drivetrain, but wouldn't want that gearing on my drop bar bike. 

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-5, Stevef wrote:

I agree that 1X has some advantages off road-I have it on all my mountain bikes.  But for a bike like this, which I'd mainly use on mixed paved/dirt road surfaces, paths/rail-trails and maybe the occasional trail, I need smaller jumps between gears.  To get both the close ratio gears AND  the gear range that I'd want on a bike like this 2X is the better choice.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karl Sanchez <sanchez...@gmail.com> wrote:

Put me in the camp that's pleased someone's taking advantage of 1x specific designs. With the spec'd 584-54 tire,  a 36t ring paired with a 10-42, you'd get gear inches ranging from 23.6 to 99.1, which I think is more than acceptable given the bike's (seemingly) dirt focused purpose. 

For me, the fact your bike doesn't seem like it's rattling apart on rough descents is almost worth the drawbacks alone. Couple that with a dead-simple "shift up/shift down" gear progression and I've found this system really fun to ride. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Karl Sanchez]

Yup, totally understandable re: gaps. Larger gaps have personally not bothered me, but I know that many are sensitive to it. As far as rattling goes, I was talking about the decreased chain slap with clutched rear derailleurs. Of course, any drive train will work fine wherever you'd choose to ride a bike like this, but having a quieter system afforded by that particular technology really adds to the descending experience, imo.

I do understand that 2x clutch derailleurs exist, but the options for drop bar, integrated shifter, 2x systems compatible with those derailleurs seem to be limited to a shrinking number of configurations.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/N1bZ_ZWF5_Q/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[David Parsons]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:08:38 AM UTC-8, Philip Kim wrote:

 i am guessing the profit margin for these frames is very little.

I'm guessing $700/frame.  For what I'm guessing is 20 hours of work per frame by the time they're all finished, boxed, and ready for the postman to pick up.   It's an okay profit margin if they can keep their pipeline full, but pretty sketchy otherwise.

[Steve Park]

The AirLandSea is a smart execution of a niche concept.  

The price looks fair to me given the level of expertise and the amount of fussy detail with the graphics&paint, numerous braze-ons and overall construction (nice fork).

fwiw 333Fab's custom pricing is at or below average among builders with similar expertise - very fair for what you get.   I doubt Max@333Fab is gaining more than the pleasure of staying in business.

[Jason Marshall]

FWIW looks like BQ will be reviewing this bike in the winter issue:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcSz3ujgUIZ/?taken-by=bikequarterly

Jason

Chicago 

[Harold Bielstein]

Spoiler alert?

Sent from Hal's iPad

On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Mark Bulgier <ma...@bulgier.net> wrote:

Jason Marshall wrote:

> FWIW looks like BQ will be reviewing this bike in the winter issue:

I just read the review. Jan found some nice things to say about it, but complained that it was slow.  He couldn't keep up with Steve (who was on a Rawland Stag) until they switched bikes, and then it was Steve who couldn't keep up.  Then they gave it to Mark to test and he also pronounced it slow compared to his randonneuse, though he praised the handling.

They guess the lack of performance was probably due to the double-oversized downtube and OS TT, with fairly slender oval (flexy) chainstays.  Jan likes a flexy main triangle with relatively rigid chainstays.  Also the high-Q crankset may have been an issue, because Jan prefers narrow.  Placebo effect and/or confirmation bias are difficult to rule out too -- bike tests can never be double-blind.  So if you "just know" a bike with way-oversized tubing is going to be slow before you even get on it, it's hard to make sure that "knowledge" doesn't color your perception of it.  Note I am not saying Jan or BQ are especially biased.  They are probably more open-minded and fair than most bike reviewers, but confirmation bias is a real human tendency and probably impossible to completely avoid.

He found some other points to complain about, such as the decaleur not being quick-release. The seatstay-chainstay bridges are not equidistant from the dropout (Quelle horreur!), and the seatstay bridge fender braze-on faces forward, requiring an L-bracket to mount the fender.    

Overall, I don't expect Max will be pleased with this review.

-Mark 

[Mark Bulgier]

Harold Bielstein wrote:

> Spoiler alert?

Oops, is that a thing? It never occurred to me that was something I shouldn't share with the list, before y'all get your copies.  Apologies all around.

In my defense, my first sentence was "I just read the review", so you could have stopped reading there if you didn't want spoilers.

I thought spoilers were like "it was his sled" or "the Titanic sinks at the end."  Oops there I go again!

-Mark 

[po-wen s.]

As the builder, I think Max (builder) already got to read and (if he desired) to respond to the BQ writeup before it went to press?

[Steve Palincsar]

Most BQ reviews have just such a response.

On 12/08/2017 12:41 AM, po-wen s. wrote:
> As the builder, I think Max (builder) already got to read and (if he desired) to respond to the BQ writeup before it went to press?
>

--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA

[Michael Sedgewick]

fwiw the Elephant national forest explorer is 1350 plus tax and shipping, and Glen Copus has copious experience.

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:09:15 PM UTC-5, Edd Bread wrote:

[jack loudon]

I want to comment on the negative reviews from BQ on some bikes (I haven't yet read the 333 review), but first will say that I like BQ and Compass products, and think Jan Heine does his best to be objective in his reviews.  However, his comments on planing (and other ride characteristics) reflect his personal biases and I think this should be made clearer in his reviews.  For instance, in his review last summer of the Firefly Enduro, Jan said the bike "planes" well, and he went on to buy this bike, so it's clear he was very happy with its performance.  OTOH, his riding partner Hahn Rossman didn't like the bike, and said the Firefly's 'climbing was leaden and uninspired'.  Hahn is heavier than Jan, so this may have something to do with their differences.  In another review of the Specialized Sequoia, the bike didn't plane until the original tires were replaced with Compass tires, and this helped the bike to plane.  In my own experience, I have a much-admired Italian road frame (Pegoretti Luigino) that 15 years ago I thought felt 'dead' compared to some lesser bikes I owned.  Now 15 years later I'm a bit slower/weaker and now very much like the flex characteristics of this frame.  My point is that planing, frame flex, trail, and many other ride characteristics are IMO largely subjective, and I think Jan should clarify this in his reviews.  Barring that, I hope most BQ readers will weigh Jan's comments against his (inevitable) biases and make up their own minds about the 333.  I'm sure a framebuilder with Max's experience could build a frame to make Jan or anyone else very happy.

Jack

Seattle

[Ryan Watson]

That goes for anybody reviewing anything, doesn't it? You're just getting one person's subjective opinion. I don't see a need for Jan to have to "clarify" anything. It's simply the nature of reviews in general. 

Ryan

--

[Justin, Oakland]

Ryan-
I think therein lies the rub with a lot of Jan’s writing. He switches between science and pseudoscience and ad-speak with alarming quickness, often not taking the time to reposition himself with the reader.

-J

[jack loudon]

True, but Jan has tremendous influence, and he tries to objectify sensations ('planing is real') which I believe are subjective, and vary from person to person, such as Jan's and Hahn's different views on the Firefly.  

Jack

[Jan Heine]

When we review things, there are always objective and subjective parts, and some that are somewhere in between. The basic specs are objectively beyond doubt - weight, wheel size, etc. If something breaks on the bike, it's somewhere in between - the same part might not have broken for other riders, who may not stress the bike as much. And something like 'planing' may be objectively quantifiable (we've done that with double-blind tests), but it's very much rider-dependent. That is why we always say that a bike "planed for us" or "got in sync with our pedal strokes." We'll never say that a bike is categorically faster.

To reduce the subjectivity in our testing, we try to have the bikes ridden by at least two riders. We never talk about our impressions until after the ride, because as scientists, we are very aware of confirmation bias. In the case of the latest bike test, we had no fewer than four riders try the bike. All four agreed that it didn't perform well. (One, however, knew that I was struggling on the bike. The fourth rider wasn't reported in the magazine.) 

I doubt you'll find another bike magazine that is as careful in their evaluations of the bikes. What is different with Bicycle Quarterly is that we are honest, and we'll say it when a bike doesn't perform well _for us_. It would be way easier to write "Cool graphics, awesome spec, 'nuff said!"

That doesn't mean that there won't be a rider who loves the bike. All we try is give the reader information, so they can form their own opinion. That is the best we can do. 

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

[David Parsons]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 10:29:57 AM UTC-8, jack loudon wrote:

True, but Jan has tremendous influence, and he tries to objectify sensations ('planing is real') which I believe are subjective, and vary from person to person, such as Jan's and Hahn's different views on the Firefly. 

Well, his influence is mainly in the rando world and fellow travellers, yes?   There's a huge swath of the bikey world that metaphorically pats BQ and the PNW rando community on the head and says that's they're doing a really good job sweetie (even as they stampede towards 650b fatbike MTBs.)    I'm not a particular fan of BQ, but Jan's particular biases don't hurt the industry as a whole, even though they might be the kiss of death to a company that pushes a non-Heine-style bike towards BQ for reviewing.

[eric moss]

I think people are conflating "subjective", which has negative connotations, and "depends on rider weight and strength, and what's being ridden on".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jan Heine]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:04:46 PM UTC-8, David Parsons wrote:

 they might be the kiss of death to a company that pushes a non-Heine-style bike towards BQ for reviewing.

I think you underestimate the independence of our readers. When we tested the Ritchey Swiss Cross, we loved its great performance (for us!), but also noted the fork judder (for everybody!) and the high-trail geometry that didn't work well with the wide tires (for us? for most riders?). Ritchey wasn't too happy with the review, but we got no fewer than 8 e-mails and letters from readers who bought a Swiss Cross based on the BQ article. Only a small percentage of readers write to us after buying a bike, so this indicates quite a few bikes sold based on the review. It's clear that our readers used the information we provided and formed their own opinions. That is how it should be.

Writing a review that isn't 100% positive is the most difficult part of editing Bicycle Quarterly, and not something we take lightly. There are many drafts, discussions among the testers and editorial team, revisions after copy editors read those drafts, until we finally come up with something that we feel is fair to the builder whose reputation is at stake, and fair to the readers who may spend a lot of money on a bike that doesn't live up to their expectations. In this case, the builder is a personal friend, too, but we try not to let this color our review, nor the fact that the bike featured some Compass parts. We have earned a reputation for being honest, and we consider that our biggest asset.

Most of all, just because a bike doesn't work well for us, this doesn't mean it's a bad bike for you (see the Swiss Cross above). It all depends on what you like in a bike and what you want to do with it.

[David Parsons]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 6:57:19 PM UTC-8, Jan Heine wrote:

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:04:46 PM UTC-8, David Parsons wrote:

 they might be the kiss of death to a company that pushes a non-Heine-style bike towards BQ for reviewing.

I think you underestimate the independence of our readers.

A bad review hurts, no matter where it is.  It's not the fault of the reviewer, it's just how business works. 

[satanas]

^ It's actually quite difficult and annoying to write really negative reviews, but occasionally one finds things one dislikes, sometimes quite intensely. I can think of two bikes we reviewed for a local mag ~20 years ago that I disliked; the other tester liked one but not the other. There have been bikes I expected to like but didn't, and vice versa, so one really needs to ride them *before* jumping to any conclusions.

With any sort of published reviews the most useful thing, IMHO, is continuity of reviewers; if they stick around you can "calibrate" them, and figure out how their opinions and tastes fit in with your own.

One particular music critic in the Sydney Morning Herald hated everything I liked , and vice versa; I found his writing extremely useful, and confidently bought anything he panned, while avoiding anything he praised. In several years there was only one thing we agreed on.

Jan et al aren't IMHO as bad as that(!), but his opinions on most things except tyres, Q factor and history differ quite a bit from mine, which isn't surprising. It's actually remarkable that anyone here or at IBOB agrees on much at all, given how many vexed topics of discussion/argument there are.

There's a saying which suggests "if you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing," and that's not entirely silly when it comes to equipment reviews, given how tastes vary. That doesn't mean things which break or don't function properly shouldn't be remarked on, but given most publishers have advertisers it's not so sensible to complain about things others may well be happy with. Surly frames are a good example of this. They're well-made, durable, and mostly handle okay, but light and flexible they are not. That doesn't mean they don't sell and aren't popular; Surly has a bit of a cult following, rather like Jan. :-)

As long as reviews in BQ remain consistent I'm happy enough with them as I can extrapolate from Jan's tastes to my own easily enough.

Later,
Stephen (who will never see most of the bikes reviewed in BQ here in Oz)

[jack loudon]

Also, once you become familiar with the reviewer's tastes, what they don't say can be as important as what they do say.  In another review, the bike was generally praised, but any mention of workmanship was scrupulously avoided. There was a fairly obvious (even to me) brazing defect visible in one of the photos, so the reviewer's message was clear...

Jack

Seattle

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/10/2017 09:32 AM, satanas wrote:
> ^ It's actually quite difficult and annoying to write really negative reviews, but occasionally one finds things one dislikes, sometimes quite intensely. I can think of two bikes we reviewed for a local mag ~20 years ago that I disliked; the other tester liked one but not the other. There have been bikes I expected to like but didn't, and vice versa, so one really needs to ride them *before* jumping to any conclusions.
>
> With any sort of published reviews the most useful thing, IMHO, is continuity of reviewers; if they stick around you can "calibrate" them, and figure out how their opinions and tastes fit in with your own.
>
> One particular music critic in the Sydney Morning Herald hated everything I liked , and vice versa; I found his writing extremely useful, and confidently bought anything he panned, while avoiding anything he praised. In several years there was only one thing we agreed on.
>
> Jan et al aren't IMHO as bad as that(!), but his opinions on most things except tyres, Q factor and history differ quite a bit from mine, which isn't surprising. It's actually remarkable that anyone here or at IBOB agrees on much at all, given how many vexed topics of discussion/argument there are.
>
> There's a saying which suggests "if you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing," and that's not entirely silly when it comes to equipment reviews, given how tastes vary. T

But as far as reviews are concerned, that's entirely useless, whereas
being clear and specific about what is liked or disliked can be quite
helpful.

> hat doesn't mean things which break or don't function properly shouldn't be remarked on, but given most publishers have advertisers it's not so sensible to complain about things others may well be happy with. Surly frames are a good example of this. They're well-made, durable, and mostly handle okay, but light and flexible they are not. That doesn't mean they don't sell and aren't popular; Surly has a bit of a cult following, rather like Jan. :-)

 A clear description of a test bike's low trail handling, for example,
would help us both even though our views of low trail handling are
diametrically opposite: you'd learn enough to know to avoid the bike in
question, while I would consider it a plus -- regardless of whether the
tester felt like you or like me about it.    Similarly, pointing out
that the Surly under review has a durable, stiff frame would be helpful
both to those seeking, and those wishing to avoid that stiffness.

>
> As long as reviews in BQ remain consistent I'm happy enough with them as I can extrapolate from Jan's tastes to my own easily enough.

Exactty.

[Joel Niemi]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:41:05 PM UTC-8, po-wen s. wrote:

As the builder, I think Max (builder) already got to read and (if he desired) to respond to the BQ writeup before it went to press?

There is a response, right after the several pages of the review / ride report.  I am not a likely customer for such a bike, but I was disappointed that 333Fab didn't take the opportunity to provide some commentary/explanation.  Rather, the response reads more (to me, at least) like a recap of the bike's features. 

Sort of like the difference between a book review and a book report. 

Joel Niemi - Snohomish, Washington, just a little ways away from Jack Pass

[Andrew]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 1:32:21 AM UTC+11, satanas wrote:

With any sort of published reviews the most useful thing, IMHO, is continuity of reviewers; if they stick around you can "calibrate" them,

......

 It's actually remarkable that anyone here or at IBOB agrees on much at all, given how many vexed topics of discussion/argument there are.

 

As long as reviews in BQ remain consistent I'm happy enough with them as  I can extrapolate from Jan's tastes to my own easily enough.

Later,
Stephen (who will never see most of the bikes reviewed in BQ here in Oz)

+1 on the continuity comment and a laugh about the agreement/vexed topics!

I'd like to comment about ways I calibrate & extrapolate from Jan's tastes.  Whilst not putting in anywhere near the mileage that Jan does, I differ at 100kg in being 40% heavier. That's enough that my usage of the same tyres and maybe the same frame tubing may not be appropriate. 

First, tyres.  I have some BSP but at the pressures I need to use for mixed paved/gravel rides I hear, feel and see the odd stone spat out sideways under the contact patch, but when using SBH on the same bike I get a ride experience that's more like that described by Jan in BQ for the BSP.  I'd suggest that a way of sharing some equivalence between experiences may be a ratio of bike+rider+bags weight to tyre air volume.  Expressed in Kg/litre.  And that volume should allow for tyre and tube thickness (BTW I have a spreadsheet for those who need assistance with the volume of a torus).  It's not as simple as volume, as wider tyres are more sensitive to accurate pressure in my experience.

Second, I've had a few forks over the years that have left my front wheel twisting noticeably by a few degrees over stones and bumps, enough that I'm concerned for my safety! With frames, I have a few, some lighter and some heavier, and try to work out if there is one that I like the most.   I got a Nordavinden frame (known for being a bit noodly) just in order to try something with 7/4/7 tubing at my weight.  I picked up a secondhand Ravn frame (with tubing similarities to the AirLandSea) to try disks because I'm thinking more that tyres are a stronger influence than tubing in ride comfort - though the old fixie based on a Centurion DLX that I still sometimes ride is noticeably just heavy even with supple tyres. I'll probably not make a decision that enables thinning the herd to one for a while yet though. 

Andrew (who can copy Stephen's disclaimer)

[Philip Kim]

recently got my issue in and able to read this review

the review definitely gives credit to its handling, but lack of pedal input to response in speed. i think it was a very fair review. the bike bike seems less enjoyable uphill, but fun descending. not surprised from a frame built with os tubing and a steel fork with mtb crown

i think max clarifying that the bike is built for intended use of rough terrain of rocks and roots makes the purpose of the bike more clear. i think that's why the review on theradavist was more favorable than the BQ review.

i would've loved it the BQ team were able to do a side by side test with the carbon fork as well. I was also surprised that on turns the fork bent and the discs graced the pads. i think this bike uses TA, which is supposed to counter this issue.

[Theodor Rzad]

Slightly OT:

I have the parts collected for my new, incoming Falconer whose concept is generally in this area (surface-agnostic, low trail, fat+fast roadish 650b, etc.). The frame was designed to accept a 2x w/ 650x48s but my first build iteration will 1x w/ a 38T. Shifter is D/A 11s (10s downtube modded w/ 11s bar-end guts), rear der XTR 11s (clutched), and cassette is XT 11s 11-42T. I have a Wolftooth Tanpan 11 that is supposed to make it all work. I'll know this Saturday!

We'll see how the gaps feel, but I'm generally not that sensitive these things. I think it's due to using wide-range range clusters since 7s and spending many moons spinning BMX, Fixed, and SS drivetrains.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:49:25 AM UTC-8, Karl Sanchez wrote:

Yup, totally understandable re: gaps. Larger gaps have personally not bothered me, but I know that many are sensitive to it. As far as rattling goes, I was talking about the decreased chain slap with clutched rear derailleurs. Of course, any drive train will work fine wherever you'd choose to ride a bike like this, but having a quieter system afforded by that particular technology really adds to the descending experience, imo.

I do understand that 2x clutch derailleurs exist, but the options for drop bar, integrated shifter, 2x systems compatible with those derailleurs seem to be limited to a shrinking number of configurations.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM Justin Hughes <justin...@me.com> wrote:

Agreed. My custom is for all intents and purposes a lugged, custom geo version of this. I would certainly not want the gaps of a 1x drivetrain. But, yeah, it's personal. Also, I've ridden it on trails where it had no business, fully loaded at stupid speeds. Never worried about "rattling apart" regarding the drivetrain at all. The fenders and water bottles were of more concern. Love my XT 1x11 drivetrain, but wouldn't want that gearing on my drop bar bike. 

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-5, Stevef wrote:

I agree that 1X has some advantages off road-I have it on all my mountain bikes.  But for a bike like this, which I'd mainly use on mixed paved/dirt road surfaces, paths/rail-trails and maybe the occasional trail, I need smaller jumps between gears.  To get both the close ratio gears AND  the gear range that I'd want on a bike like this 2X is the better choice.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karl Sanchez <sanchez...@gmail.com> wrote:

Put me in the camp that's pleased someone's taking advantage of 1x specific designs. With the spec'd 584-54 tire,  a 36t ring paired with a 10-42, you'd get gear inches ranging from 23.6 to 99.1, which I think is more than acceptable given the bike's (seemingly) dirt focused purpose. 

For me, the fact your bike doesn't seem like it's rattling apart on rough descents is almost worth the drawbacks alone. Couple that with a dead-simple "shift up/shift down" gear progression and I've found this system really fun to ride. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/N1bZ_ZWF5_Q/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.