New Rawland has launched

[Nate P]

The xSogn has launched.

https://rawlandcycles.com/

Too on the nose to be a joke - from the spec list:
“Everything is subject to change”

[Steve Chan]

   The mailing list crowd will be disappoint there isn't a frameset only offering.

--
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.
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]

'

• Sunrise 11-42t cassette

Sun..race?

[billiam]

Very nice...that's a whole lotta (ORANGE!) bike for $1700.

The only thing I'm not crazy about is the 1X drive train.

billiam in medford, ore

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Nate P <nphi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Randall Daniels]

What is the point of these low-trail, front-racked, mtb-lite bikes with huge knobby tires? Leaving aside the off-putting business practices and unfortunate color choice/build spec/stock pictures. I am also confounded by the lack of a frameset option.

I mean I get low-trail for road/mixed terrain on a sporty lighter built bike but something like this seems pointless? It's not like bikepackers and dirt ultra-racers have any issue with front loading a more neutral/high trail bike.

[rcnute]

This is a f'in cool bike!  If I wasn't in line for something quite similar I'd be in!

Ryan

[Justin, Oakland]

Agree. It may not tick all the boxes but for the price out the door it looks good

-J

[Steven Frederick]

Here now, orange is a great color for a bike.  The low trail, mtb-biased allroad concept is where Rawland has settled-it's the kind of bike they like to ride so it's what they build.  That's not where I'm at bike-wise these days, and I can't speak to business practices or broken promises, but this bike is classic Rawland right down to the awkward looking fork bend...

Steve

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Randall Daniels <randal...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is the point of these low-trail, front-racked, mtb-lite bikes with huge knobby tires? Leaving aside the off-putting business practices and unfortunate color choice/build spec/stock pictures. I am also confounded by the lack of a frameset option.

I mean I get low-trail for road/mixed terrain on a sporty lighter built bike but something like this seems pointless? It's not like bikepackers and dirt ultra-racers have any issue with front loading a more neutral/high trail bike.

--

[David Pertuz]

Looks like a great bike. I've been riding a cSogn since 2009 that I'm going to get disc-ivied because I like it so much; if I had to replace it with something new this would do a great job. That unicrown fork looks terrible, so I'd definitely wait for the Pacenti fork. 

David

Chicago

--
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.

[Ryan Watson]

On Jan 12, 2018, at 05:41, Steven Frederick <stl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here now, orange is a great color for a bike.

In fact, orange is the fastest color!

https://www.flickr.com/groups/orangebicycles/

I wish my rSogn were orange instead of dreary grey. 

Hopefully the new Sogn has the extreme chainstay crimping like the rSogn. I'm convinced that's the secret planing ingredient :-)

Ryan

[Philip Kim]

The price looks good. A lot of people looking for low trail, disc, thru axles. i wonder how it would ride, i would imagine it to be a bit more burly than their earlier offerings. 

I think Rawland knows that so they offset the xsogn by coloring it orange. it's the only way really.

[Chris Cullum]

The driveside chainstay does appear to be have fairly extreme crimping:

The main triangle tubing looks to be OS, maybe 8/5/8? Just a guess. If a frameset showed up and it was 7/4/7 OS I *might* be tempted.

Ryan

[Alex Wetmore]

It's great that there are two complete bikes options now between this and the Masi SR 650b.

It's too bad that they are both using low end components and aren't available in a higher spec version with dynohub, better brakes, a good front rack, and a slightly better drivetrain.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris Cullum <cullum...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:23:07 AM
To: rswatson
Cc: Steven Frederick; Randall Daniels; 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] New Rawland has launched

 

--
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.

[Justin, Oakland]

For a frameset there’s also the new-ish New Albion Drake. http://newalbioncycles.com/drake-frame/

Discs
QR

[jack loudon]

I agree that the Pacenti fork will be nicer looking, but I'd bet $10 that the unicrown will be lighter weight, not to mention cheaper.  

Jack

Seattle 

[Alex Wetmore]

The Drake is not a low trail bike like the Masi or Rawland.  By the time you get a custom fork made and everything painted to match you could just buy an Elephant, Endpoint or Crust.

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Justin, Oakland <justin...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:52:56 AM
To: 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] New Rawland has launched

For a frameset there’s also the new-ish New Albion Drake. http://newalbioncycles.com/drake-frame/

Discs
QR

[Mark McGrath]

The low trail fork is advantageous for a front loaded situation.  For non loaded up front would you say the Drake would be the better option?

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:

The Drake is not a low trail bike like the Masi or Rawland.  By the time you get a custom fork made and everything painted to match you could just buy an Elephant, Endpoint or Crust.

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Justin, Oakland <justin...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:52:56 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] New Rawland has launched

 

For a frameset there’s also the new-ish New Albion Drake. http://newalbioncycles.com/drake-frame/

Discs
QR

--
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.

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 the Google Groups "650b" group.

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

[Alex Wetmore]

It's all personal preference, but I also like low trail handling for unloaded bikes.  I rarely ride bikes unloaded though, I at least have a rain jacket to carry.

I don't have much interest in rear load bikes.  Carrying weight up front allows me to build a bike that performs better and handles normally when riding out of the saddle.  An exception would be child carrying bikes, where at some point they don't fit up front.

alex

---

From: Mark McGrath <mmc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:23:13 AM
To: Alex Wetmore
Cc: Justin, Oakland; 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] New Rawland has launched

[John Roberts]

I actually had the same word turned to "sunrise" automatically while crafting this reply... Typo notwithstanding, I wouldn't put a Sunrace on a beater. One of many replacements I'd have to make..

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:12:51 PM UTC-8, Igor Belopolsky wrote:

'

• Sunrise 11-42t cassette

Sun..race?

[David Parsons]

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-8, John Roberts wrote:

I actually had the same word turned to "sunrise" automatically while crafting this reply... Typo notwithstanding, I wouldn't put a Sunrace on a beater.

To completely change the subject, why not?   Weight? 

[Justin August]

Seriously. The SunRace 11-42 cassette is used by tons of people putting tons of miles on their bikes.

What’s the complaint?

-J

--
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/Telgn7yBc-E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Kevin]

I really wish it was available as frame and fork only. I was going to build up a 650b Soma Wolverine so I have everything to build one of these up minus the parts to change the rear hub from QR to a thru axle, bars, and a stem. I'd have to rebuild the front wheel with a different hub as the wheel I build has a SP PD8 on it and I'd need a PD8X and the brakes I have aren't direct mount. I'd still consider getting it and selling the entire drivetrain, wheels, and shifters. Cheaper than going with an Elephant. Although, I'd like to know more about the specs for the Rawland tubing.

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-5, Nate P wrote:

[Andrew]

....and the Drake has a 71.5 degree head tube angle in most sizes - a low trail fork would need extreme rake that may compromise strength etc.

[Andrew]

A nice looking  650B low trail disk fork available separately to a full frameset.  Hopefully with rack  & fender mounts.  Think of the possibilities - Ti  from China, anyone?  Bring it on!

[Ian A]

The Drake is a press fit bottom bracket. That would be a no go fpr me.

IanA

[satanas]

The problem is that Ti forks are vanishingly rare, and they don't seem to be much lighter (if at all) than good steel forks, while costing more. They look cool with a Ti frame, and some of the very few people who have them think they're comfy, but there are few reports and I've seen zero independent tests.

By the way, I notice the thread title says "launched", a rather nautical term also applicable to the Titanic, submarines, etc.

Later,
Stephen

[Parkaboy]

I don't know what the timeline is, but they did post this on instagram last summer so I would assume they'll drop at some point. I heard that the new Rawlands were going to be sold by Walmart. If that's still the case it could be a real game changer.

[Adem Rudin]

Soma has been teasing that low-trail disc fork since mid 2016

https://www.instagram.com/p/BGFpX9yTUvX/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BWio6GrgIlR/

In May of 2016, they said "Maybe 6 months out", then in the spring of 2017 say said "Arriving soon". No news since the July '17 Instagram post of a fork that "passed testing".

-Adem Rudin

Mountain View, CA

[Nick Favicchio]

"Everything is subject to change"

Ever seen that on another page for a new bike for sale? Ever seen that for any product costing $1600?

That is so wild to me. What does that mean!?

[Justin August]

Maybe you’ll get a Trek Madone!

--
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/Telgn7yBc-E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Cullum]

On Jan 15, 2018 19:10, "Nick Favicchio" <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Everything is subject to change"

Ever seen that on another page for a new bike for sale?  Ever seen that for any product costing $1600?

Don't exaggerate Nick, it's $1699. But presumably that's subject to change as well.

That is so wild to me.  What does that mean!?

--

[Stephen Poole]

Further proof that Monty Python is relevant to everything:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

Later,

Stephen

--

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/Telgn7yBc-E/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Steven Frederick]

I get the irony given their history, but to be fair, pretty much every bike website in the world has a "specifications subject to change without notice," disclaimer somewhere.

Steve

--

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.

[Mark in Beacon]

The difference being, of course, that there are actual bicycles with actual angles and parts and such that may or may not actually be changed without notice. And, it may be semantics, or marketing, but I would suggest, especially in this case, "specifications" is a slightly more reassuring word than "everything."

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 7:26:50 AM UTC-5, Stevef wrote:

I get the irony given their history, but to be fair, pretty much every bike website in the world has a "specifications subject to change without notice," disclaimer somewhere.

Steve

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Nick Favicchio <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Everything is subject to change"

Ever seen that on another page for a new bike for sale?  Ever seen that for any product costing $1600?

That is so wild to me.  What does that mean!?

--
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.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Has anyone actually reached out and asked Sean about this?

[Nick Favicchio]

Yea, "specifications" and "EVERYTHING" are different kettles of fish atmo.

[Ryan Watson]

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 09:25, Nick Favicchio <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yea, "specifications" and "EVERYTHING" are different kettles of fish atmo.

They seem the same to me.
What could possibly change that wouldn't be considered a specification?

Ryan

[Joe Bunik]

My reading had a somewhat smug, self-awareness to it. Maybe it's me
but I just don't trust em -- caveat emptor.
Joe

[Mark in Beacon]

That the bike would actually materialize for sale. But my point was that it's best not to be cute but stick to accepted terms when composing the fine print in this case.

Ryan wrote :What could possibly change that wouldn't be considered a specification? 

[Nick Favicchio]

Well, atmo, specifications, atmo, refers to specific and relatively small changes. Small component changes, slight changes in geometry, that kind of thing.

Everything, atmo, means everything, including when you might actually get a bike, what the bike might look like, what kind of brake system it uses, tubing spec, who knows what else? EVERYTHING!!

Specifications and Everything are different. Atmo. Ymmv.

[Justin Hughes]

I'm assuming you are aware of the degree to which Walmart holds suppliers' feet to the fire and that your comment is 100% sarcasm. In which case, I am laughing with you. Well done. 

Justin

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 12:51:44 PM UTC-5, Parkaboy wrote:

I heard that the new Rawlands were going to be sold by Walmart.

[Kevin]

Rawland has put the tubing specs up on the xSogn page. Top tube is 28.6 .8/.5/.8 and the down tube is 31.8 .8/.5/.8

. 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-5, Nate P wrote:

The xSogn has launched.

https://rawlandcycles.com/

Too on the nose to be a joke - from the spec list:

“Everything is subject to change”

[Andrew]

No mention with the “staal” for the xSogn as to any hardening like the Ravn & Ulv.

[Stephen Poole]

They should have "HTFU Stahl" stickers...

[Mark in Beacon]

Well that's pretty stiff compared to the rSogn with a 25.4 1" 8/5/8 top tube and a 28.6 8/5/8 dt

[Murray Love]

Yeah it seems that 8/5/8 OS is the new Light 'n' Flexy. Which is a shame, since it means everyone gets to ride around on the rough equivalent what used to be the tubeset for heavy riders or tourists (SP, 022, 531ST), etc.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

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.

[Stephen Poole]

I'm inclined to think 858 OS is more akin to Columbus SL (969). I've ridden bikes with 858, 969 & 171 std and 858 OS, and IMHO the latter is nowhere near as dead feeling as the 171 (531 ST). If it was 969 OS (IIRC Cross Checks are made of that), then yes it's dead.

How the bikes will feel also depends on butt length, and TIG frames often have short butts/longer centres than tubes designed for lugs. That matters too.

The question to ask is thus, "Does my butt feel big in this?"

Later,

Stephen

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/Telgn7yBc-E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nick Favicchio]

Maybe this is obvious, but there are other factors beyond tubing selection as well that determine whether or not a bike feels "lively" or "planes".

Seat tube masts may be one. I think there is a lot of variation in rear triangles that may affect liveliness. Frame size (duh). Tire size and pressure. Prolly loads of other things I'm ignorant of.

Seems to be more then tubes. Dunno.

[jack loudon]

If planing is 'real', then why is a group of semi-luddites (us) the main group exploring this concept?  If there was a *clearly measurable* performance difference, then it seems that Trek/Specialized plus the pro racers would be all over it.  I know that high-end carbon racing frames are 'tuned' to some extent, but it doesn't seem to be generally accepted that tuning a frame for a specific rider's weight and power will result in a measurably faster bike.  If this were true, every frame size (for very high-end racing frames) might come in 2 or 3 levels of flexiness.  Am I missing something here?  Why has this thing not been sorted out after 100 years of bicycle development?

Jack (who sorta believes in planing)

Seattle

[Justin August]

I think a corollary question is “Why are you on a discussion list dedicated to a tire size that was largely extinct for 30-40 years if the pro racers aren’t using them? If it was so good would t they all be using 650b tires in fat widths?”

--

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/Telgn7yBc-E/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[jack loudon]

Just to be clear, I'm not  interesting in pro racing or any kind of racing, but they (racing industry) would be likely to develop planing frames if this helped them to win races.  We would then be the trickle-down beneficiaries of this knowledge.  My interest in planing is mainly to explore if it is real or placebo (I think it's probably real). I like fat tires because they are more comfortable with no perceived loss in efficiency.  

[Justin August]

I understand what you’re saying however the whole journey into 650b, planing, etc was based on the idea that there have been flawed assumptions passed off as science at that level. Similar to the beliefs about nutrition that are currently being upended. It’s a fallacy to assume that the pros aren’t following the momentum and are just following pure science.

-J

[jack loudon]

I also understand what you're saying too, in that there is a lot of tradition and resistance to change in bike racing.  However, racers will go to extreme illegal means to win, through both chemical and mechanical doping, so why wouldn't they use the legal advantage of planing if it truly helped?  Also, planing frames *are* traditional, and were prevalent in the '50's and '60's, before OS tubing, yet these 'noodly' frames were largely rejected, and stiffness was pursued as the holy grail. Now perhaps we're coming full circle back to flexible frames?  I dunno, it's a rainy Saturday morning, and maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing :)

Jack 

[eric moss]

I think that the bikes favored by the pros do plane for them at the speeds and power levels they are riding, especially in the sprints that often determine their paychecks.  I have a real racing bike that planed beautifully back when I was able to put out a lot more wattage in a higher gear.  Now I can't put out that power, and it's just not in sync the same way.

[J L]

There is a little apples and oranges going on here.

Bike racers use bikes that are tuned for speed and precise handling. 

Planing is a way to describe a bike that maintains positive feedback and amplifies a riders efforts. 

Despite being one type of optimization that could result in a competitive advantage, planning does not yield the kinds of ride characteristics that win pro races. 

A humorous analogy to draw attention to the misplaced comparison: 

Some people like salt, however, if salt  actually changed the flavour of food for the better then cookie brand x would use it in the recipes. 

Jason

SF, CA

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.

[Justin August]

Said by someone who has never had my wife’s sea salt chocolate chip cookies.

;)
-J

[avand...@gmail.com]

I don't really buy the planing argument where the bike is a loaded spring returning energy. The other description I have heard makes more sense. Having a frame that flexes a little while pedaling is beneficial as your legs aren't an orderly mechanical connection to the crank like what you would find in a combustion engine. 

As your leg bears down on the pedal it deviates in all sorts of ways. Having the frame follow along that trajectory makes sense, the path of the force is deflected so it is applied to the pedal stroke and not fighting the ideal path of the crank.  It also makes sense why super stiff bikes feel dead.

No doubt the pros are flexing their bikes. The high dollar marketing dollars are chasing stiffness in all components to keep the product moving with the exceptions of 'vertical compliance'.

[David Parsons]

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 9:50:07 AM UTC-8, jack loudon wrote:

If planing is 'real', then why is a group of semi-luddites (us) the main group exploring this concept?  If there was a *clearly measurable* performance difference, then it seems that Trek/Specialized plus the pro racers would be all over it.  

I don't think it's an accident that the whole planing cult came out of randonneuring;  6-5 hours of beating yourself to death pushing the bicycle as fast as it can go is not quite the same as 45 hours of trying to finish that 1200k before you die from exhaustion.  The rationale for planing is slippery, but it seems to come down to "it's a lot more comfortable than being beat to death by a stiff frame" with all the nonsense about performance tossed on top because being comfortable doesn't seem like enough.

[Sukho Goff]

"Planing cult came out of Randonneuring.."
Let's make it a little more specific..the current "planing" cult is a result of one man's ideas and the incredible reach/scope of the internet.. (ok and print). He's given us all a new holy grail to think about and chase, and why not it's kinda fun. He's also influenced the bike industry in far ranging positive ways, so much so that there are people who don't know who he is and for example think the WTB Horizons were a groundbreaking tire size lol if you catch my drift. It's all good I guess

[Steve Palincsar]

Actually, what Jan did was recognize and give a name to something people
had noticed for decades, referred to as "a lively ride", and showed that
it resulted not from stiffness -- as everyone believed -- but instead
from flexibility.

On 01/20/2018 04:36 PM, Sukho Goff wrote:
> "Planing cult came out of Randonneuring.."
> Let's make it a little more specific..the current "planing" cult is a result of one man's ideas and the incredible reach/scope of the internet.. (ok and print). He's given us all a new holy grail to think about and chase, and why not it's kinda fun. He's also influenced the bike industry in far ranging positive ways, so much so that there are people who don't know who he is and for example think the WTB Horizons were a groundbreaking tire size lol if you catch my drift. It's all good I guess
>

--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA

[Mark in Beacon]

Well you are free to think what you want, but the planing concepts and testing were done using relatively short timed segments, and blind bike tests, iirc. In any case, very much performance oriented. I am sure the whole lateral this and vertical that in the cf realm has at least something to do with this responsiveness/feedback loop between rider and bicycle. But to think that the big companies are going to "be all over it" is naive, whatever the case may be. I mean, they have finally moved the needle in terms of wider tires--from 23 to 25, maybe 28.

[Mark in Beacon]

The Ishiwata 022 tubeset is not comparable to SP or 531ST. It is the same as Tange 2, or Colombus SL, 9/6/9, a venerable all-purpose racing and performance tubeset. My 022 bikes are much livelier than the one bike I had with 531ST (never had a bike with SP)..

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 5:13:15 PM UTC-5, Murray Love wrote:

Yeah it seems that 8/5/8 OS is the new Light 'n' Flexy. Which is a shame, since it means everyone gets to ride around on the rough equivalent what used to be the tubeset for heavy riders or tourists (SP, 022, 531ST), etc.

Murray

Victoria, BC

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Mark in Beacon <absolut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well that's pretty stiff compared to the rSogn with a 25.4 1" 8/5/8 top tube and a 28.6 8/5/8 dt

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 10:45:33 PM UTC-5, Kevin wrote:

Rawland has put the tubing specs up on the xSogn page. Top tube is 28.6 .8/.5/.8 and the down tube is 31.8 .8/.5/.8

. 
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-5, Nate P wrote:

The xSogn has launched.

https://rawlandcycles.com/

Too on the nose to be a joke - from the spec list:
“Everything is subject to change”

--
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.

[Sukho Goff]

Steve that's why I said "current" planing cult 😉. What's going on right now is arguably a direct result of JH. We're using his terminology and speccing custom frames based on his influence. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about how much he's influencing things right now.

[satanas]

IMHO, the worrying thing is that Jan does indeed come off (here and at iBOB, and perhaps not by intent) as the high priest of a cult and, as with many cults, the faithful are failing to question things. I've no doubt that Jan knows what works for Jan, but that doesn't mean it will work the same for everyone else - people need to do their own homework and research(!). This may show Jan's ideas work for them, or not.

NB: I'm not anti-Jan, but he does have a bigger soap box to stand on than most people which, IMHO, seems to overpower some people's critcal faculties. Tests with multiple repeats against controls are all well and good, however one should be careful not to confuse these with other things which are *personal preferences*, and which should thus not be extrapolated to others without individual verification.

People's circumstances, preferences and wattages vary considerably...

Later,
Stephen (who believes in planing, but that it's complex)

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/20/2018 05:28 PM, satanas wrote:
> IMHO, the worrying thing is that Jan does indeed come off (here and at iBOB, and perhaps not by intent) as the high priest of a cult and, as with many cults, the faithful are failing to question things. I've no doubt that Jan knows what works for Jan, but that doesn't mean it will work the same for everyone else - people need to do their own homework and research(!). This may show Jan's ideas work for them, or not.

That's not really fair.  Jan isn't asking anyone to take his ideas on
faith, as high priests of cults do.  He's "showing his work" as they
used to say in math[s] class.

>
> NB: I'm not anti-Jan, but he does have a bigger soap box to stand on than most people which, IMHO, seems to overpower some people's critcal faculties. Tests with multiple repeats against controls are all well and good, however one should be careful not to confuse these with other things which are *personal preferences*, and which should thus not be extrapolated to others without individual verification.
>
> People's circumstances, preferences and wattages vary considerably...

Indeed, and my circumstance, circumference, mass and wattage could
hardly differ more from his.  But surprisingly, many of our preferences
agree.

[Murray Love]

Right. I miswrote. I meant Ishiwata 024.

Murray

Victoria, BC

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

[Murray Love]

Yeah, this Jan-as-cult-leader thing is more than a little overblown. I can think of a couple of prominent bike personalities off the top of my head who fit the label better, but naming them would merely multiply discord.

Of course people are free to disagree with Jan on whatever, but the crucial distinction is that he gives you all the information you need to evaluate his positions, which isn't exactly Jim Jones-type behavior.  Disagree with his position on planing, or tire characteristics, or something else? Well, the numbers are often there, or other supporting arguments, and you're entirely free to come to your own conclusions.

On planing, Steve is right: Jan merely identified (and to some extent quantified) a phenomenon that many of us had observed over the years riding our own bikes.  If you prefer stiffer bikes, well, the current bicycle industry is satisfying your preferences almost without exception. If, like some of us, you've found that flexier is better with no lower limit identified so far, you're stuck with either scrounging for lightweight vintage frames or ponying up a couple of grand for a handbuilt frame. It's no surprise that an underserved niche would spend time lamenting the paucity of their options.

Murray

Victoria, BC

[Murray Love]

This is an excellent way of putting it, and matches my own experience precisely. The stiffer the frame, in my experience, the more it feels like you have to fight the bike to get more power out of it at the limits, like you've hit a wall in its ability to translate exertion into output. 

There might also be something to the FE analyses which indicate that frame flex "winds up" the rear triangle a bit, effectively shortening the right chainstay under pedalling load, which then returns energy to the chain as the load is removed. But this might be a small effect.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

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.

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.

To the

[David Parsons]

The frames I'm making and riding these days are all super-flexy standard-diameter steel, but I've done permanents on a stiff carbon frame (an elderly Kestrel machine that my sister-in-law loaned me) and it was really nice to pedal and feel that all of my leg hamster-power was going into the wheels without winding up the frame.    But the $1700 or so of that frame is what it costs me to make 6 steel framesets (which, being flexy, are very comfortable to ride on) and that gives me 6 chances to tweak everything else to fit.

Victoria, BC

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.

To the

[jack loudon]

Randonneurs grind away at a more-or-less constant cadence and power output, compared to the more varied power output of shorter races.  If there is a particular combination of power and cadence that works best for planing (for a given frame), the randonneur may benefit more, because he/she can spend more time in the 'groove' that coincides with the flex characteristics of the bike.  So in this regard I agree with David Parsons, but I'm still on the fence as to whether the 'performance tossed on top' is indeed nonsense.

Jack

[Bill M.]

For many racers, especially those that actually win races or stages, the only thing that matters is how the bike responds to maximum efforts.  Does it get me to the mountain top finish first?  Do I win the final 500 meter drag race to the line?  That's a very different criterion than feeling fresher after the first 600k of PBP.  It's no surprise to me that racing bikes are stiff.  Yeah, I know, Sean Kelley, Vitus aluminum.  He rode what he was paid to ride, and those bikes have been relegated to history.

My old Calfee only really responded when I jumped on it, but the first time I sprinted up a short 8% grade it was astounding how good it felt.  Cruising on the flats it was stiffer than I needed, and in my post-heart attack state I just can't put out enough power to make a bike like that work.  In fact every bike I pedal now seems infinitely stiff at any pace I can sustain.  

Bill

Stockton, CA

[Stephen Poole]

Please note, I wasn't trying to suggest Jan has any intent to promote himself as high priest, but that quite a few others seem to regard him that way and appear to take everything on faith. I suppose I'm more of a "show me your experiment and let me see if I get the same result" sort of person; science works in part by trying to disprove things after all. FWIW, I agree that Jan does a good job of explaining things, including why he likes what he does.

What he writes is interesting and useful, whether one agrees with everything or not, and makes one think. That's a good thing, atmo.

Later,

Stephen

On 21 Jan 2018 9:44 am, "Steve Palincsar" <pali...@his.com> wrote:

That's not really fair.  Jan isn't asking anyone to take his ideas on faith, as high priests of cults do.  He's "showing his work" as they used to say in math class.

[Ken Freeman]

Every racer knows a fundamental:  if you DNF, you do not win.  Assuming there is a “win races” optimization profile, the benefit, even if potential has to be considered against the risk of increased race-losing hardware failures.  Example: Al crankset were lighter than steel cranksets.  But some race teams were early adopters who took the risk on the reliability of Al cranks, and others watched and “fast followed” as they felt the risk was turning in favor of the new technology.

Another point: in the days of the French masters innovations were attempted that were commercialized (at least on a small scale) with no attention paid to racing.  Attention was paid (by Herse if not others) to aircraft and aviation technology.  

And today carbon fiber structure came from air and space before it came to racing cars, in my experience advanced defense engineering called for carbon fiber in the early ‘80s.  At least one mechanical engineer I worked with left the defense company to explore bicycle design.

For 650b versus 23 mm tubulars, we 650ers and many Bobs may think there is a performance plus for the fatty tires, but are there also risks?

So it’s not clear we should assume bike racing adoption is the main sign of the general validity of innovation in cycling.

Wow, and when I was 15 in the 2nd half of the ‘60s we fully believed Racing was Golden.

Ken “former aerospace guy” Freeman

Ann Arbor, MI USA 

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.

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.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[jack loudon]

It's been said many times that riders win races, not bikes; innovation in racing bikes exists mainly to sell new bicycles.  I think there is more than a grain of truth in this, in spite of some earlier comments I made.  Innovation (like social change) most often comes not from the mainstream but from the outliers.

Jack

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.

--

[Chris Cullum]

On Jan 21, 2018 10:33, "jack loudon" <jwlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's been said many times that riders win races, not bikes; 

* Motorised doping excepted*

[Stephen Poole]

It's also been said that "team doctors win races," and there's an ongoing arms race between drug manufacturers and detection test designers. Even in amateur cycling, drug use was rampant back when I was in the biz - it seemed everyone had stories to tell about their compatriots; of course they themselves were always pure...

Later,

Stephen

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/21/2018 09:24 AM, Ken Freeman wrote:
>
> So it’s not clear we should assume bike racing adoption is the main
> sign of the general validity of innovation in cycling.

Racing has nothing to say about anything important for touring,
commuting or utility cycling.  Considering how very different most
recreational riders are from racers and how different most recreational
rides are from races, I'll go so far as to say racing not only has
little to say about recreational cycling, it's actually a pernicious
influence.  That obviously doesn't apply to those recreational riders
who are playing make-believe racer -- but even those folks don't have a
team car following them.

[Murray Watson]

I was under the impression that many of the highest end modern carbon road frames were not designed to be as stiff as possible - and that a lot of them flex in similar ways to a good steel or titanium frame. I seem to recall talk about carbon being easy to manipulate and therefore easy to adjust it's flex characteristics by layering differently, making it easier to stiffen chainstays and to make more flexible top tubes. Any truth to that?

Murray Watson

Melbourne, Australia

(First post I think!)

[Bill M.]

The cliche' ad copy is "laterally stiff, vertically compliant".  I don't recall any of the big mfg's crowing about increased lateral (i.e. pedaling) flex.

Bill

Stockton, CA

[Stephen Poole]

Carbon is tunable, in theory at least, but mostly the ad copy says "It's x% stiffer and y% lighter than the previous model." Comfort is mentioned rarely, BB and/or headtube stiffness almost every time.

Some carbon frames manage to be stiff but still feel efficient/nice, others just feel dead, IME. It's complicated.

Later,

Stephen (who thinks plenty of frames are too stiff for my liking)

[jack loudon]

I just went on the Calfee website thinking they might be offering something in carbon that was more flexible.  Unfortunately, this quote:  "Our Dragonfly frame is now offered with a 44mm head tube and an oversized down tube. These changes [...], increase frame stiffness for a livelier feel, and provide more efficient power transmission."

[Igor Belopolsky]

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Rawland-xSogn-Complete-Bike-Large/755472665

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bh1mHY1B9kJ/

[Hudson Doerge]

I wanted to tell myself that post must be a joke when I saw it. Such a disappointing end to a company that produced some really nice frames. Surely this must be the final nail in the coffin (I hope).

Hudson in ATX

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 10:50:07 AM UTC-7, jack loudon wrote:

If planing is 'real', then why is a group of semi-luddites (us) the main group exploring this concept?  If there was a *clearly measurable* performance difference, then it seems that Trek/Specialized plus the pro racers would be all over it.  I know that high-end carbon racing frames are 'tuned' to some extent, but it doesn't seem to be generally accepted that tuning a frame for a specific rider's weight and power will result in a measurably faster bike.  If this were true, every frame size (for very high-end racing frames) might come in 2 or 3 levels of flexiness.  Am I missing something here?  Why has this thing not been sorted out after 100 years of bicycle development?

Jack (who sorta believes in planing)

In the last few years as I visit Trek and Specialized shops they are constantly showing me new road and all-road bikes/frames that have flex built in--they show me tiny seat stays meant to flex, thin carbon top tubes meant to flex, elastomers built into rear triangles and front ends meant to flex. They tout various models as specced with 27.2mm seat posts "to flex more," and one even touted a 25.4mm handle bar as specced for more flex. And I never ask about flex. They just seem to see that as important in the market and say these are all their best selling bikes. They never mention planing, and I don't mention planing to them of course, but maybe there is a big realization going on out there that flex is good (?). Maybe I just got a few enlightened shop guys (?). Not that more flex is the same thing as planing, but there is an association, and they are likely offering flex as something for comfort and endurance riding(?).

One of my favorite stories in this genre is the preference racers in the late 70s and 80s had for bikes made of Reynolds 753 tubing and the general fame 753 had as a tubing. Because it was heat treated and stronger than 531 or Columbus SL it was usually specced in 7-4-7 tubing (skinny of course) and today most people who ride 753 of that variety talk about how great it flexes and they'll say it planes if they're into that. But back in the 70s and 80s, the same tubing was routinely touted as "stiffer". Bike magazines and reviews even claimed it was stiffer. But with that tubing wall dimension it was obviously not as stiff as 531 or Columbus SL.  I think what was going on is that riders of 753 knew it was better because they liked it a lot (and if planing is real, maybe they went a bit faster), and the prevailing definition of "better" in the 80s was stiffer. Since it was better it must be stiffer. Even back then in the stiffer=better days there was plenty of mention of "lively" frames and "resilient" frames, which was a kind of code for flex, but the need to use a euphemism for flex just proves how important stiffness was back then. To straight up call a bike flexy was considered a negative review, and the word was only associated with bikes with problems like out of saddle pedaling cause the chain to scrap the derailleur cage or ghost shift.

I seems like a tall claim to make that a generation of riders/racers believed they preferred stiffer frames but actually preferred flexy frames, often without being aware of it. If you're skeptical I am too, but there are other examples of this phenomenon, where a flexy bike is preferred and therefor gets called stiffer. Or where an undeniably flexy bike was faster to ride and the reviewers couldn't figure it out. This was true in reviews of the old SlingShot mtb that had a cable/spring instead of a downtube and an elastomer hinge between top tube and seat tube. In multiple magazine reviews, riders said it was the fastest mtb they'd ridden but they thought it must be a mistake or their imagination because it was too flexy to be fast.

Finally, you could ask your question ("why is a group of semi-luddites (us) the main group exploring this concept?") about wider tires at lower pressures too. No one is going to say so (except Jan), but the widening of tires used in pro racing has tracked right along with BQ's research. Why didn't racers figure this out first and tell us the hell about it instead of waiting for a bunch of freds to tell them? I don't know. Jan has explained persuasively that rolling resistance is a smaller component of pro racing speed than it is of slower riders (if I may be so bold) like us, because at pro racing speeds (now 28+ on the flat?) the vast majority of resistance is wind resistance. That may have something to do with it. Add in sponsorship, tradition, and all the other reasons that the group you would think would be leading in performance cycling innovation, often isn't.

--Mitch in Utah, a former track racer who just self-referenced as a fred. Oh well.

[Robert Bunting]

I just wish Jan would stop putting quotations around ...planing!

[satanas]

@ Mitch: You're seriously suggesting lots of racer-heads aren't stupid?!? I worked with quite a few BITD, and "stiffer" was an adjective commonly applied to anything approved of. Many of them had a very poor understanding of anything mechanical, but probably knew more about pharmacology (or had more interest in the latter). I can still recall one guy saying Kiwis were wimps as they used 39x18 on climbs in NZ rather than 42x18 like he did; new Record 12 comes with 39x29 as the nastiest low gear option, a bit different to the days of 42x17, etc. Suffering is pretty much roadies' religion, even if it can be reduced or avoided.

Re Calfee: They are all built to order so maybe stiffness is negotiable; it ought to be.

Later,
Stephen

[jack loudon]

Thanks for the post, Mitch.  I just looked at the top road bikes on the Trek and Specialized websites, and they discuss 'ride-tuned tube performance optimization' and 'compliance utilized for optimal ride quality', but no specific claims that a compliant frame may be faster.  They certainly do claim their bikes are the fastest and best-handling ever, but this is due to their special 'race tuned' alchemy, plus a combination of the usual suspects: light weight, plenty of stiffness, a dash of compliance, and the latest/best components.  

Stephen convincingly states that racers don't have the aptitude nor interest in bicycle design.  I think they rightfully focus on training and nutrition, which has done far more to increase peloton speeds than bicycle design.  I'm pretty sure that a modern racer on a '70s steel bike could beat 1970's racer on a modern CF bike, solely because of training/nutritional advances.

Mitch, you and others have pointed out that planing bikes (of course not labeled as such back then) were commonplace in the 1960's and 70's.  These were supplanted by OS tube and alu bikes with no decrease in peloton speeds.

My current belief is that planing (not unlike our discussions of skinny tires), subjectively *feels* faster and probably is a bit faster, but the measurable benefits are statistically insignificant and are lost in the noise, especially when compared to rider fitness and a multitude of other variables.  That said, I very much prefer riding a lively frame!

Jack

[Alex Wetmore]

"My current belief is that planing (not unlike our discussions of skinny tires), subjectively *feels* faster and probably is a bit faster, but the measurable benefits are statistically insignificant and are lost in the noise, especially when compared to rider fitness and a multitude of other variables.  That said, I very much prefer riding a lively frame!"

How do you explain the double blind planing test between Jan and Mark?  Just luck that the person on the 7/4/7 frame was consistently faster on climbs than the rider on the 9/6/9 frame?

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of jack loudon <jwlo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:01:35 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Re: New Rawland has launched

 

--

[jack loudon]

Alex, the test (if I remember correctly - it's been awhile) included you, Jan, and Mark.  Mark and Jan were faster on the 7/4/7 frames than on the 9/6/9 frame, but your times were not faster.  That's two out of three; not conclusive.  It does tell me that planing may work if the frame flex matches the weight and power output of the rider, since Mark and Jan were closely matched.  

Another thing (picking nits - I know); it's quite possible that Mark and Jan knew when they were riding a 7/4/7 bike vs a 9/6/9 bike, and if so, this would not be true double-blind and could have skewed the results.  After all, they developed the idea of planing and are very sensitive to the feel of a lively vs dead bike.  A better test might include less-sensitive riders who just want to go fast and don't know or care about planing.  In general, I just wish there was more corroborating evidence out there  -  measurable, repeatable data. 

Sorry if this all sounds curmudgeonly.  I appreciate the research and efforts that you, Jan, and others have expended on this topic.

Jack

[Alex Wetmore]

Well, the big difference is that they are both very well matched riders.  I'm much slower.  So they had an easy comparison, if riding as fast as possible up this one climb, who is faster?  I could only race myself and had to guess based more on feel.

Jan and Mark repeat this performance comparison all of the time in bike tests, in the latest issue you can see it with the Masi.  In those cases it isn't double blind.

The bikes really were double blind.  The test administrator (Hahn) didn't even know which bike was which.  We had to call the builder (Jeff Lyon) to ID them after all of the testing was concluded.  The bikes were identified to the riders by the color of the stem cap, and Hahn mixed those up on a regular basis so that we couldn't get used to the pink or red or white bike being the fastest.

Anyone else can repeat this test, it just takes finding a few interested riders and a builder who will build 3 or more nearly identical frames.

Remember that they first got excited about light tubing bikes when they found that a Terraferma bike was consistently faster than Jan's Alex Singer (the reference bike for the magazine 10 years ago) no matter who rode it.  At the time there was no guess that more flexible tubing was faster. 

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of jack loudon <jwlo...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 12:52:30 PM

[Stephen Poole]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 04:01 jack loudon <jwlo...@gmail.com>

Stephen convincingly states that racers don't have the aptitude nor interest in bicycle design.  I think they rightfully focus on training and nutrition, which has done far more to increase peloton speeds than bicycle design.

Please note that I don't think *all* roadies are "mechanically declined", just most of them(!). BITD, they used to pay attention to the bike only if they perceived there was a problem. "Upgrades" often happened just before important events, i.e., changes from other parts to Campag, not such a great idea ("If it ain't broke don't fix it"). Training is the most important thing, and I'd like to think that it's not about volume so much these days, but I'm out of touch. As Hubert Opperman once supposedly said when asked about setting cycling records: "It's easy - when the pedal comes up you just push it down again."

Mitch, you and others have pointed out that planing bikes (of course not labeled as such back then) were commonplace in the 1960's and 70's.  These were supplanted by OS tube and alu bikes with no decrease in peloton speeds.

My current belief is that planing (not unlike our discussions of skinny tires), subjectively *feels* faster and probably is a bit faster, but the measurable benefits are statistically insignificant and are lost in the noise, especially when compared to rider fitness and a multitude of other variables.

It's complicated IMO, and I suspect will depend on what sort of effort is taking place, riding style, body type, etc.

For relatively low power, fully aerobic efforts like randonnees, I think flex/planing is good (more comfy/feels faster), and I haven't found a BB that's too flexible for that, however, I typically weigh ~140lbs and pedal at 100+rpm.

For high, but seated efforts, like climbing at a fast pace in verging on too big a gear, then more stiffness can be useful (NB: not unlimited stiffness) as the different bits of the bike tend to go in different directions when pulling hard on the bars; that feels wrong/unstable (to me, YMMV).

Sprinting or climbing out of the saddle in short bursts will flex things even more, and I note that sprinters like Cav and Kittel (but not Sean Kelly) typically use very stiff frames, bars and stems; everyone in the pro peloton uses stiff cranks these days.

Touring is complicated, and depends on what if anything is being carried, and where/how. If rear panniers are used (the norm) the frame must be stiffer or there is likely to be excessive flex in the seatstays, top tube and head tube. The easiest and most common way to prevent this has been to use thicker wall and/or larger diameter tubes, which works but can result in a hard ride and dead feel. Wider tyres usually help with both load capacity and ride quality.

Front loading, saddlebags (trad or modern), and NO rear panniers can allow a much more flexible (and nicer riding) bike, as can bikepacking setups. Sometimes though it's unfortunately necessary to carry a lot of food and/or water, and that's hard to do on a flexy frame - unless you're prepared to tow a trailer.  :-(

The ideal bike for a given purpose should probably be as stiff as necessary - but no stiffer. Or else as flexible as practical without breaking or causing handling problems. For me, turning the cranks provides enough suffering, without needing to worry about whether the bike will go where intended, so I like stable - with no surprises. 

Later,

Stephen

[jack loudon]

Stephen, thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I know this planing thing has been beat pert near (as my father used to say) to death, but you added some valuable insight.  

[Sam Powrie]

Hi Fellows,

First greetings to list members. I live in Australia and have been a long-time worshipper at the altars of Grant, Sean, Jan, Alex and all things BOBish ;-). I was on the wonderful iBOB list a few years ago but left around 2011 when we all got a bit distracted and upset by the craziness around us. Hopefully all in the past! These days I am very grateful to own and ride a 650B rSogn which I bought as a mail-order frameset and built up myself from the parts box. It's been a great bike if a bit 'flexy' at times (I weigh around 100kg and tend to pound the pedals rather than spin)! 

So I've become very interested in the subject of this thread, the new xSogn. It seems to basically be a more 'up to date' rendition of the rSogn with discs and through-axles. It's also just within my now-retired means. I've sent Sean a few emails about it. He initially replied quite helpfully but I haven't heard from him since - he's pretty busy I guess. So I'm wondering if anyone on the list actually has ridden one and can offer a brief review or their impressions? Or has anyone found a review on-line somewhere? I'm particularly interested in the tubing gauges used. 

thanks,

Sam.

On Friday, 12 January 2018 12:55:48 UTC+10:30, Nate P wrote:

The xSogn has launched.

https://rawlandcycles.com/

Too on the nose to be a joke - from the spec list:
“Everything is subject to change”

[Stephen Poole]

Hi Sam,

I'm also retired and in Oz and have been wondering if there are any non-custom road+ compatible bikes or framesets available here *which actually come with 650b* other than the Open UP & UPPER, which are nice enough but neither cheap ($3.5, 4k & $6k AUD frameset) nor designed to fit fenders or significant luggage. (Perhaps tempting though if a deal could be had, and there are clones ex-China.)

Both Salsa and Surly might be available here, in theory anyway, but otherwise it's probably a custom or frameset from wherever. The new BMC frames are perhaps the most sensible non-custom option assuming Sally won't come to the party.

Crust are worth looking at too, and Matt is from Oz and super helpful. Surly and Crust are good about responding, and I assume Salsa are too, not that I've tried with them. Rawland OTOH are hard work to extract info from, and that's being polite. There's a steel Norco Search XR (as well as carbon) that takes up to 700x4x and 27.5x2.1" tyres and might be imported, and the Specialized Diverge (carbon or alu) or Sequoia (steel) will take 47-584, but don't come that way.

Later,

Stephen (who's getting a custom)

[rcnute]

I have one. It's a nice bike. It rides like a Rawland. Handling not dissimilar from (to?) the rSogn. The bike does feel on the heavier duty side which I think was a conscious design choice.

I'm selling mine, but it's not because I don't like it.

Ryan

[Sam Powrie]

Thanks Ryan, encouraging observations and probably much as I expected. What size is your bike - I assume that you are in the USA? Sam

[rcnute]

Mine's a medium (basically like a 56cm road bike).  I'm near Seattle WA USA.  Pop on over and take a test ride.  :)

Ryan

[Sam Powrie]

Would if I could! Good luck, Sam.

[Peter Turskovitch]

Hi Alex,

Can you refresh me about the details of that test? I'm a statistician with a bit of time on my hands.

Of course if it was really just 2 out of 3 people preferring the same bike, that could easily be explained by chance alone. But if I remember right you had more bikes and more trials, right?

Peter

[Alex Wetmore]

Some details of the test were just published on BQ's blog:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/myth-4-stiffer-frames-are-faster/

In the initial test there were 3 bikes, 3 riders, a dozen or so trials spread over 3 days of riding.  This was a decade ago so my memory isn't perfect, but I think day 1 of the riding was 6 rides around a ~5 mile hilly loop in Seattle.  Day 2 was a ~30 mile ride around Mercer Island with chances to trade bikes with each other.  Day 3 was a set of sprints up a long hill with all 3 riders starting together (so we could race).  We weren't allowed to talk to each other about our observations.  This photo was from day 1:

https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/3biketest.jpg

It really was an expensive test for a small magazine to run, 4 frames were built, 4 bikes were purchased for their component sets, and a lot of time was spent.

One of the members of the test team (Mark Vande Kamp) is also a statistician and works hard to make sure that we have statistically relevant results.  I was also involved in the tire testing from a year or two earlier and he helped a lot with data analysis there.

The back issues for this series are here: https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/print/4-pack-bq-back-issues/

I was involved in issues 23 and 24, but not in 28 and only lightly in 35 (which was a static analysis).

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Turskovitch <patric...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:14:22 AM