Review of "Just Ride."

[Steven Frederick]

From none other than BIKE magazine, one of the best mtb mags. out there...

http://www.bikemag.com/news/reviewed-just-ride/

Steve

[James Warren]

Grant writes a book to promote something to counteract a prevailing mentality. The reviewer's review itself has one sentence that shows how pervasive that mentality is. The reviewer generally responds positively to Grant's book and offers the following as constructive criticism: mentioning a couple of Grant's points with which he disagrees, the reviewer writes, "I also think the notion of a 31-pound “performance” road bike (that’s how much his personal bike weighs) is ridiculous."

 

This tells me that the reviewer has not really gotten the point. I know the word "performance" is in quotes, so I'm not sure how he is defining performance. But the phrase "road bike" is not in quotes. The reviewer adheres to the idea that one's road ride can be only be high-performance when lightness and acceleration are the highest goals. Elsewhere in the article, the reviewer says that cycling should be much more. But he himself can't allow the thing called "road riding" to incorporate cycling's other joys. That's a bummer.

 

-Jim W.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RJM]

Ah, performance, such a weird thing to call a bicycle, especially when any performance is directly attributed to the person and not the equipment. 

 

I know when I ride my bike I have a fun time and come away without needing to take the next couple of days off due to back, neck, wrist ache, that is about all the performance I can handle.

 

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:07:23 AM UTC-5, James Warren wrote:

Grant writes a book to promote something to counteract a prevailing mentality. The reviewer's review itself has one sentence that shows how pervasive that mentality is. The reviewer generally responds positively to Grant's book and offers the following as constructive criticism: mentioning a couple of Grant's points with which he disagrees, the reviewer writes, "I also think the notion of a 31-pound “performance” road bike (that’s how much his personal bike weighs) is ridiculous."

 

This tells me that the reviewer has not really gotten the point. I know the word "performance" is in quotes, so I'm not sure how he is defining performance. But the phrase "road bike" is not in quotes. The reviewer adheres to the idea that one's road ride can be only be high-performance when lightness and acceleration are the highest goals. Elsewhere in the article, the reviewer says that cycling should be much more. But he himself can't allow the thing called "road riding" to incorporate cycling's other joys. That's a bummer.

 

-Jim W.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Frederick
Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:38 AM
To: "rbw-owners-bun."
Subject: [RBW] Review of "Just Ride."

From none other than BIKE magazine, one of the best mtb mags. out there...

http://www.bikemag.com/news/reviewed-just-ride/

Steve

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[dougP]

"Performance" is in the mind of rider. For me, my way-over-30 lb
Atlantis (I'd weigh it but I'm too lazy to drag the scale downstairs)
performs just fine for what I'm doing.

Funny story: did a "tour" recently (totally cush affair: lodging,
luggage transported, etc) where riders on typical MCRBs complained
about poor road surfaces, steep hills, sore hands, stiff necks, etc.
Most of the group was "of a certain age (or older)" with the
disposable income to buy whatever bike they desire. My trusty
Atlantis with 40 mm tires dealt nicely with the conditions, and I even
bagged a few bonus hills that stumped the compact double crew. They
teased me about my rack but were looking at my reflector disappear up
the hill.

Never forget: The older you get, the faster you were...

dougP

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dougP]

"This is not a book written by a timid man."

Love it! Overall, nice review. The reviewer likes GP's writing and
urges his audience to read the book. Those are two points of high
praise right there.

dougP

[James Warren]

Right. This illustrates my point. The reviewer of the article seems to visualize cycling as this great multi-faceted thing, but the subset of it called "road-riding" is not allowed to have a 31-pound bike. That's where I disagree. Doug's fully satisfying ride (described below) should be called a "road ride."

The reviewer doesn't say, "for me, road-riding performance means lighter weight..." He says, "the notion of a 31-pound 'performance' road bike is ridiculous." Given his position as reviewer, that assertion is presumptuous, trying to tell me, the reader, what road bike performance really means. He even says that it is worthy of ridicule to attempt to define road-riding differently with an over-30-pound bike. I'm guessing that this presumption and the commonality of it is at least part of what lead to "Just Ride."

>> > From none other than BIKE magazine, one of the best mtb mags. out there...
>>
>> >http://www.bikemag.com/news/reviewed-just-ride/
>>
>> > Steve
>>

[RJM]

I agree with you and it is an attitude that becomes very apparent when you show up to a group road ride on a steel framed/racked and bagged/fat tired bike.  "You think you are riding with us on that??"

[clyde canter]

"Never forget:  The older you get, the faster you were.."

 

AND..You're older now than you've ever been.

.

[Kenneth Stagg]

I don't think I've ever had that response, but last weekend supplied a
pair of interesting comments on the Mariposa.

I did a century out of Newburg, WI and on the first leg a much
stronger rider on a rather pretty piece of plastic commented on how
nice my bike looked as he went by me. I caught up with him at a rest
stop and got a chance to look at his bike a bit more - the N logo was
very discrete and I'm still trying to remember what brand he said it
was (I don't think it was spelled out anywhere on the bike.)

At a later stop an older guy who had been chasing me for a while
commented that I was getting along pretty good on that old bike. He
was riding what looked to be an early 90's Trek - probably close to
ten years older than my bike :)

Fun ride and I never noticed the weight of my bike (unlike the weight
of my person.) Mostly the stronger riders on organized rides seem to
like the look of my bike even if they think of it as a bit of an
anachronism.

-Ken

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/bV0gMI1jNcIJ.

[René Sterental]

IMO, one of the hardest things to do is acknowledge that you've fallen prey to the marketing claims floating around so pervasively and realize you've been spending your money on the wrong items. Or just that your frame of reference has been built on invalid premises. Especially when you are confronted head-on by someone saying so...

 

You somehow need to get to ride one of these "alternative" machines to discover wordlessly how wrong you've been...

 

In this case, riding is believing... :-)

 

Then again, as we use to say in Venezuela, (loosely translated from Spanish) "Likes and colors know no authors".

 

René

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

This is why using a handful of narrowly defined marketing categories to describe bikes is preposterous. Among a lot of cyclists, it's either "mountain" or "road" (insert the word "performance" anywhere you like), unless it's a "hybrid" or a "cruiser" that only a nerdy old lady would ride. My fastest bike is a Cross-check that has drop bars and 40 mm tires and weighs at least 30 lbs. I referred to it as my road bike on a recent group ride, and one of my more category-oriented companions incredulously asked, "you call THAT a road bike?" I asked him what else he'd call it, but he was at a loss to find the appropriate pigeonhole. Country Bike is a neat concept, and one with which most of my bikes closely identify, but nobody outside the Riv Bubble knows the term.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:07:23 AM UTC-5, James Warren wrote:

Grant writes a book to promote something to counteract a prevailing mentality. The reviewer's review itself has one sentence that shows how pervasive that mentality is. The reviewer generally responds positively to Grant's book and offers the following as constructive criticism: mentioning a couple of Grant's points with which he disagrees, the reviewer writes, "I also think the notion of a 31-pound “performance” road bike (that’s how much his personal bike weighs) is ridiculous."

 

This tells me that the reviewer has not really gotten the point. I know the word "performance" is in quotes, so I'm not sure how he is defining performance. But the phrase "road bike" is not in quotes. The reviewer adheres to the idea that one's road ride can be only be high-performance when lightness and acceleration are the highest goals. Elsewhere in the article, the reviewer says that cycling should be much more. But he himself can't allow the thing called "road riding" to incorporate cycling's other joys. That's a bummer.

 

-Jim W.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Frederick
Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:38 AM
To: "rbw-owners-bun."
Subject: [RBW] Review of "Just Ride."

From none other than BIKE magazine, one of the best mtb mags. out there...

http://www.bikemag.com/news/reviewed-just-ride/

Steve

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Peter Morgano]

Funny, just had a discussion with a roadie friend here at work who insisted he could not get a Rodeo over a CAAD 10 because he would feel the extra 2-3lbs going up a hill.  I have argued with him for years about this stuff but he has drank the kool aid on the need for lightweight, CF components to improve his "performance."  He does do some amatuer races so I tried to convince him to get a SH then to be comfortable the rest of the time but my words are lost, unfortunately.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[Andy Smitty Schmidt]

Something Grant said in his talk in Portland recently... I paraphrase... If mid-ride you wish you were at the end of the ride, it's not a fun ride. 

I get passed all the time on my bike. Are those folks having more fun than me? Maybe. Are those folks enjoying more road-side berries than me? Definitely not.  

--Andy

[LF]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:07:23 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote:

Grant writes a book to promote something to counteract a prevailing mentality.

I really enjoyed "Just Ride," and all ready gave 5 copies as gifts. Probably, there is at least one thing to disagree with for everyone (except for Grant). I really enjoyed talking with the author at Harris Cycles book signing, liked the way he took the time to make personal contact with each and every autograph seeker, and voiced my most vehement objection to his words of wisdom. He advises moving the hips to steer the bike; here in New England, I learned that it is improper for we men to move our hips in public. Just goes to show ...

Best,
Larry

[dougP]

"I referred to it as my road bike on a recent group ride, and one of
my more category-oriented companions incredulously asked, "you call
THAT a road bike?"

Yea, to a lot of the biking world, we pose a dilemma by not fitting
neatly into a box. More than once I've encountered MTBers on simple
jeep or hiking trails, nothing particularly technical or challenging,
and they ask "what are you doing out here on THAT?" Heck, these are
just roads that aren't paved, not ski runs or goat tracks; the
Atlantis is perfectly happy.

We are apparently mis-understood. I for one can live with that.

dougP

On Jun 28, 10:41 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Interestingly, the guy I mentioned who expressed surprise that I'd call my Cross-check a road bike actually owns a Riv custom.

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[PATRICK MOORE]

I thought the review was on the whole pretty good. "Performance" is of
course very personal; my idea of what a "performance" bike should be
may not be yours. But, let us remember, there are many mansions in the
Kingdom and, more to the point, there are pleasures to be had from a
very light bike that you don't get from a 31 lb bike -- that is simply
a fact to be noted and dealt with as one's tastes decide. Me, I wish
my Fargo with the "light" Sun Rhyno/35 mm Kojak wheelset were no more
than 31 lb; it is prolly closer to 40 with the fat wheelset and full
kit. But it is still immensely fun. OTOH, it is certainly a nice
feeling to climb a hill on the 18 lb gofast. I ride both about
equally.

And I am hopeful when I hear that his views on CF are out of date: I
wonder how much of the bad news about CF is due, not to the material
but to the stupid-light designs it is used for?

One other reviewer, less kind, slammed GP for saying you can commute
in "work clothes" up to "10 miles." I am quoting the review, not the
book. I have to agree here: unless your work clothes include a lot of
sweat, you could not commute 10 miles in our summer weather and remain
presentable for work -- even if you kept your speed under 10 mph.
Hills and winds. At any rate, *I* would be sweating like a pig at that
speed and distance wearing khakis or light wools and an ironed button
down.

Grant has fixations that have become more particular, I think, as he
has gotten older: they seem very much to match the circumstances in
which he rides. Heck if I rode in Walnut Creek and environs, I'd have
kept my Sam HIll. But one can praise him for many things even if one
doesn't agree with it all.

Patrick "clipless/jersey/lightweight/low(ish) bars/skinny tires on
road/no g-d twine or shellac/no even more g-d tweed/no upright
bars//OTHO//no tight pants/no helmet/no gloves/no
glasses/racks/bags/dyn lights/no endurance and no speed" Moore

--
"Push back against the age as hard as it pushes against you."

Flannery O'Connor

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

The whole commuting in work clothes thing is getting a lot of press on various comment forums and other more official critiques. Of course, it depends on what you wear for work clothes, where you live (and the corresponding weather), and what sort of hygiene is expected at your job. I commute in Minnesota in my work clothes year-round. Since I am self-employed at a bike shop, I don't need to wear fancy clothes, and I sort of enjoy my own BO, so sweating a little is ok. If I had a job where I was expected to wear a tweed suit and be meticulously coiffed and smelling of fresh soap in Orlando, then I might select other clothes for my commute.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[islaysteve]

Patrick,  A very sane post, in fact one the sanest I've read on this topic.  Thanks, Steve

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[PATRICK MOORE]

Thanks. Let me say this and be done with it.

First, I certainly talk too much and last week's absence was probably
a great relief for many readers. I shall try to be more moderate in my
verbiage -- indeed I quit the boblist largely to force myself to spend
less time driveling on bicycle topics to the annoyance (Real
annoyance! I am serious!) of many.

Moving on: There are many brands of koolaid and this list has its own
-- there are proponents or afficionados or gourmets for this flavor
who are as ideological in their fervor as -- well, perhaps not *quite*
as fervent as* -- the most die-hard
crabon-fibre-gawdawful-plastic-kit-wearing-Sava-focusing roadie.

I would like to urge us all to be mellow, cool, reticent, relaxed, and
otherwise dispassionate about others' likes and dislikes. Me, I
dislike full roadie kit but OTOH I also dislike tweed and hemp twine
-- on bikes, at least. I promise to be cool about these preferences
and hope others will do likewise.

Patrick "back to shutting up, mostly" Moore because many of those who
have their bars 8" higher than mine ride a lot more than I do.

>> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

>> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Push back against the age as hard as it pushes against you."
>>
>> Flannery O'Connor
>>
>> -------------------------
>> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
>> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
>> http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
>> -------------------------
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/hwDILwglA10J.
>
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Burton]

An anecdote on the road bike thing. Last year, as part of a charity ride (my second ever organized ride) I had the opportunity to go for a VIP ride the day before the real event. This is a ride put on by a somewhat famous Holliwood actor with several world-class pros and other top flight racers. I showed up to the start of the VIP ride late, about 15 minutes after the group had headed out, so, thinking I'd likely never catch up, I hammered it. Caught up after about half an hour (they were keeping a very leisurely pace). There I was, on my Hillbourne in full station wagon mode, while everyone else was on a bike straight off the manufacturer's team van. TdF level riders were coming over to gawk at my set up; the friction shifters, fenders, dyno hub, front bag, and they were loving it. Like they never new a bike could be so, em, practical.

The next day, on the charity century, the guy I'm riding with is on a full race stock Specialized bike. His rear wheel (CF everything) exploded. Few times have I felt so glad to be contrarian.

[jimD]

+1

Mr. Thill continues to hit em out of the park!

-JimD

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/2tw37Gig-cwJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[jimD]

Patrick,
Please, sir may I have some more Moore.
Seriously, your posts for me are thoughtful and fun to read.
Verbiage? Bring it on!
-Jimd

[jimD]

Ha!
-JimD

On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Burton wrote:

> An anecdote on the road bike thing. Last year, as part of a charity ride (my second ever organized ride) I had the opportunity to go for a VIP ride the day before the real event. This is a ride put on by a somewhat famous Holliwood actor with several world-class pros and other top flight racers. I showed up to the start of the VIP ride late, about 15 minutes after the group had headed out, so, thinking I'd likely never catch up, I hammered it. Caught up after about half an hour (they were keeping a very leisurely pace). There I was, on my Hillbourne in full station wagon mode, while everyone else was on a bike straight off the manufacturer's team van. TdF level riders were coming over to gawk at my set up; the friction shifters, fenders, dyno hub, front bag, and they were loving it. Like they never new a bike could be so, em, practical.
>
> The next day, on the charity century, the guy I'm riding with is on a full race stock Specialized bike. His rear wheel (CF everything) exploded. Few times have I felt so glad to be contrarian.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/TmA3oIl5pBgJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Mojo]

Patrick I too am missing your posts. Write when the spirit moves you. Those who don't wish to read can use the delete function. And those that complain about esoteric posts about trikes and the like have their own problem set.

[grant]

I am generally relieved that the book hasn't been panned more and worse. An old friend didn't like it on Amazon, and that hurt me deeply, but I'm trying to get over that, and that hurt has been more than all balmed-up by the generally positive response here and other places.
I'm always described as polarizing or divisive, which is a funny thing to read. In print, even here, I tend to not dance around  points I'm trying to make, and I don't qualify things with IMHO or whatever. But most of the book IS opinion, and I hope nobody thinks it's all-or-nothing. I DO believe it all, but I don't expect 100 percent compliance or agreement or anything. Some of my best friends ride clipless and dress in spandex and grind away long long miles, and they're no fools. I do fear for the ones who ride carbon forks, though---and maybe carbon has gotten better, but snapping is still common, and the nature of the failures has not changed.
Anyway.......I really hope I don't offend anybody with my opinions. I think there has been and is an unhelpful emphasis on racer-like riding as a goal for us all---the idea that we suffer and get stronger and leaner in payment for the the suffering, and that we have so much to learn from racers. I really do think all that is bs. But anyway....there's no Kool-Aid to drink here. Just stuff to consider, whatever, and reject whenever rejection seems the way to go. Over and out on that, but thank you all for however much you've liked the book.

[James Valiensi]

I only had one gripe about the book: did not mention enough about how fun riding bicycles is.

James Valiensi, PE

Northridge, CA

H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/fuiitSArm0gJ.

[RJM]

I bought the book at the Nashville book signing, sat for your talk, listened to the questions and answers and waited in line to get it signed and meet you. I have finished the book since then and have to say I very much enjoyed it; I enjoyed it enough to tell my wife that she needs to read it and that right there means something. That just doesn't always happen. I can't say I agree with everything, but I certainly agree with about 65% of what you wrote, probably more. I really wish I didn't have an allergy to wool.

 

I am glad you wrote it and I am glad I had the opportunity to read it; the book made me happy, it was a fun read and had solid points throughout. So, thank you for that.

 

- Ryan

[charlie]

Thanks Grant for signing my copy in Portland and the one for my pal Craig (49'ners) He is reading it and learning and hopefully will be getting his new knees soon and will be on his bicycle again. I've been following your writing over the years and so wasn't too surprised when I read the book. You certainly have done something good with your book and I believe more will start realizing your points are true and we'll continue to see changes in the general mindset of many bicyclists.....old and new ones.

[Zack]

I just happened to be re-reading JR today, and noticed the piece that people have mentioned here, where the author of the review scoffs at Grant's "performance" bike that weighs 31 pounds.

The weird thing is, that is not at all what Grant says.  He says that's how much his bike weighs with two racks, fenders, bags, and that "it's no clunker."  

Kind of a stretch to say that is Grant calling it a performance bike.

Also, i would again suggest that anyone that reads and loves the book write a quick review on Amazon.  Goes for any book you like.  Those ratings are important and help with sales, and it's like voting for that type of content that you like in the future.  Just takes a sec.  

[charlie]

Was just thinking about the whole concept of the 'performance bicycle' and it really makes me laugh since the rider is the most important part of that equation. The point I'm trying to make is its all about the engine probably 95% of it. There is simply no way a top level pro riding a 30+ touring bicycle is going to get beat by your average guy on a high tech uber lightweight road machine. It just doesn't make that much difference until you level the playing field with both the rider and the machine (then its all rider) plus support crew these days not to mention how much cheating you do or don't do to win. Lightweight bicycles are nifty and fun and the 'Rando style' (Hilsen, Hillborne,Roadeo) mid weight is probably your best all around swift road machine. I still don't get the point of a 16 pound bicycle and why many think them to be significantly 'faster'...... without a rider pedaling them they just sit there leaning against a wall going nowhere fast.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:38:15 AM UTC-7, stevef wrote:

[PATRICK MOORE]

Believe me, an old, tired, discouraged rider climbing a steepish,
longish hill on an 18 lb bike with light wheels is going to feel that
things are very different compared to when said old, tired,
discouraged rider grinds up the same hill (in the heat, against the
wind) on a 37 lb bike with wheels made from 800 gram rims and 800 gram
tires!

Hell, even Jan Heine looks for ways to save weight.

Patrick "it's not (all) about the rider" Moore who would love a 16 lb
fixie gofast. (Only 2 lb away !!)

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM, charlie <cl_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't get the point of a 16 pound bicycle and why many think them to be
> significantly 'faster'...... without a rider pedaling them they just sit there leaning > against a wall going nowhere fast.

[Peter Pesce]

I thought the same thing. Nowhere in JR does Grant say "performance road bikes" should be heavy. He says that most people should not care about riding performed roads bikes nor care that much about weight.. In that statement, the reviewer is actually providing the perfect example of what Grant is on about in the book. Why can there be only one way of thinking about cycling?
That said, I do think it's fine if people want to geek out on bike tech. If they have the money and really enjoy the tech part of it fine. Patrick starts another thread about the cost of the new camy electric group. I too think its a bit much, but mocking someone for liking that makes us no better than those who mock us for liking wool. It's a big tent. Plenty of room inside. But to the point of Just Ride, too many people get sold the idea that its NOT a big tent, and your only options are carbon roadie or MTB. That's not right either.
As for the matter of the motor, that phenomenon exists everywhere in some form. The golfer who cant break 100 despite his $300 putter, the fisherman who can't catch a thing on his $1000 fly rod. The morgue is full of kids who thought their race replica motorcycle would make them Valentino Rossi, and YouTube is full of Ferraris and Lambos being driven by morons.
A bike or a Bentley will both get you to work.
OK, rant off.

Pete in CT

[Kelly]

Well same engine and my experience .. AHH vs Giant Tcr advanced. .. Riding position about 2mph difference in cruising speed... Wheels and tires and generator hub another mph or even 2 ... So instead of cruising along at 25mph it's around 20 21. There is a cost for that comfort. I can't quantify aceleration other than to say in a sprint no comparison...combination weight wheels shifters everything.

It's not apples to apples and if you are trying to hang on to fast group rides where your engine is barely enough to hang on every mile per hour is huge. I don't want my carbon race bike back.. I do know that bikes/components make a big difference when it comes to speed as much as it does with comfort.

Now at that 15 to 18 mph on flats casual ride there is no difference to me. Guess that's why i love my riv's ... I'm riding more for fun and less for speed.

Kelly

[charlie]

I hear ya Patrick and don't disagree to a point although the reality is that on a steep hill an old, discouraged rider is going to shift down a cog or two on his 23-28 pound Rando style bike because he has a triple up front and sensibly light wheels and tires for his weight and smoothly pedal right up. Gearing trumps weight any day....IMHO.  I'm talking about a much narrower range and comparing low 20's to low 30 pound bicycles which is where most comparisons are common. I'm also assuming the same position on the bike and I think a newer lightweight carbon or aluminum race bike is about 21+ pounds loaded up with water etc. and a similar Rivendell might weigh around 26+ pounds. I just don't think six pounds is a make it or break it deal on a casual club ride. For actual racing where milliseconds count you could certainly argue the weight issue.

As for hanging onto a fast group that won't wait for me....I'd rather ride alone or with folks who will slow the pace than change my ride to one that is less durable or comfortable.....or maybe just get an electric motor and smoke them all but then I guess that's using high tech in the other direction to gain an advantage. ; )

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:06:05 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

Believe me, an old, tired, discouraged rider climbing a steepish,
longish hill on an 18 lb bike with light wheels is going to feel that
things are very different compared to when said old, tired,
discouraged rider grinds up the same hill (in the heat, against the
wind) on a 37 lb bike with wheels made from 800 gram rims and 800 gram
tires!

Hell, even Jan Heine looks for ways to save weight.

Patrick "it's not (all) about the rider" Moore who would love a 16 lb
fixie gofast. (Only 2 lb away !!)

[jimD]

What I enjoy about Grant's writing, is that even when I don't agree, it is always fun to read.

-JimD

On Jun 29, 2012, at 8:01 PM, grant wrote:

[Peter Pesce]

If "fast group rides" are part of your regular riding portfolio then I'd absolutley agree that a bike made for fast group rides should be part of your stable. And I think it's masochistic to believe that an Atlantis could be that bike. Ride what everyone else is riding. Group road rides are about nothing if not conformity to the group, whatever that may be.
But if your weekend rides are solo rambles, the idea that a Specialized Roubaix is the "best" alternative to a Madone is insane.

[Brevivelo]

Hey Grant, bring the cool aid Riv flavour down under. Will buy the book and share it with my mates. Perhaps a 50th birthday gift. Re above though, I must agree, group rides, work better for me on similar equipment. Though I think you can put your own slant on it. A classic road sport bike , or the lines of a Roadeo, or Ramb , or Romulus with lightish wheels and tires, would be fast enough and close enough in weight to not matter, if there's issues about real road bike. Ride with another group.

[Garth]

I wonder .... if everyone had the choice of their favorite Riv frame with the exact same dimensions, in both steel and CF for about the same price .... which would you choose ?

For myself, I simply do not have the option of riding a CF frame as the size and dimensions I prefer do not exist in CF .  BUT .... if I had a choice of the same frame in either or .... I might have a hard time deciding ... lol .  Imagine a 3 or 4 lb. frame/fork vs. a 8-10 that a Bombadil or Hunq. weigh ...... it would certainly make me think about it .

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 12:59 -0700, Garth wrote:
>
> I wonder .... if everyone had the choice of their favorite Riv frame
> with the exact same dimensions, in both steel and CF for about the
> same price .... which would you choose ?

Steel, without question. I have no interest whatever in carbon fiber.

[Peter Morgano]

Having owned both I would never go back to CF, sold my look KG96 a while ago to someone who really really wanted it and was glad to see it go.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[PATRICK MOORE]

Garth: So, you are in the relatively small camp who are willing to
consider that five or six lbs removed might make a bike more pleasant.
Me, too, but I think I'd opt (given money, time, etc etc) for titanium
rather than CF simply because ti's durability is a given while at
least many question the durability of CF. If I knew for certain that
CF could last a lifetime of normal wear and tear, I'd certainly be
open to it. I know nothing about it except that some claim it can be
very strong, others that if feels rather dead. But it would be
interesting to see monocoque CF used for integrating what are usually
bolt on pieces -- fenders, storage, lighting, wiring, racks.

(The good news is that y'all's Bombas or Hunqas are probably lighter
than my Fargo. Now a Ti Fargo would be nice -- I know, they have one,
but I can't afford it and it would be foolish for me, even if I could,
to drop the $ just to save what, a couple of lbs?)

Steve: why do you have no interest at all in CF?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/2OZTwgCt9kMJ.

>
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Peter Morgano]

Hey now, if they had a exact geometry and clearance Titanium AHH it would be a tempting proposition, not sure it would ever make cost sense though.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:09 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
> Garth: So, you are in the relatively small camp who are willing to
> consider that five or six lbs removed might make a bike more pleasant.
> Me, too, but I think I'd opt (given money, time, etc etc) for titanium
> rather than CF simply because ti's durability is a given while at
> least many question the durability of CF. If I knew for certain that
> CF could last a lifetime of normal wear and tear, I'd certainly be
> open to it. I know nothing about it except that some claim it can be
> very strong, others that if feels rather dead. But it would be
> interesting to see monocoque CF used for integrating what are usually
> bolt on pieces -- fenders, storage, lighting, wiring, racks.
>
> (The good news is that y'all's Bombas or Hunqas are probably lighter
> than my Fargo. Now a Ti Fargo would be nice -- I know, they have one,
> but I can't afford it and it would be foolish for me, even if I could,
> to drop the $ just to save what, a couple of lbs?)
>
> Steve: why do you have no interest at all in CF?

I have always liked the way Ti looks, from the first moment I saw the
prototype Merlin MTB tandem they were testing while I was at Amherst at
the Eastern Tandem Rally back in the late 80s. I went up to it and said
"You are beautiful, what are you!"

I bought a Spectrum custom Ti in 1991, which I still ride. It still
looks good. I also have a Ti Santana tandem, this one polished rather
than clear-coated satin finish. They look beautiful, they feel great,
and as evidenced by 21 years of regular use, they stand up to it.

I rode a carbon Trek once. I went to a bike rally in 2000 or 2001 and
Trek was out in force, twisting people's arms to get them to take test
rides. I rode about 1/4 mi on a Postal Service OCLV and thought it felt
like I was riding a plywood bike, totally dead-feeling, not at all
metallic.

I know two people who have had to have CF frames replaced because they
propped their bikes up against trees w/2 full water bottles, and when
the bikes fell over the frames split where the water bottle cage joins
the frame. How many times I've had a steel or Ti bike fall over! Worst
that ever happened was once I had to replace the handle bar.

And then, there's the small matter of what bikes look like. Today's CF
road bikes look to me like children of the Bowen Spacelander. None of
them look like what I think a bike should look like. Some are downright
disgustingly ugly, some just laughable (like that Pinarello that
obviously was left in somebody's car trunk on a 104 degree day). None
are appealing to me. ("Yeah, but you're a cranky old man, set in your
ways!" OK, so?)

Ah, but what of the CF virtues? Look at that low weight, and that aero
slickness! Yeah, but when you weigh 0.1 tons and everybody loves to
draft off of you because of what a huge wind shadow you make, a few
pounds off the frame and a few less grams of frame wind resistance don't
mean diddly.

And besides, the whole question is moot. You simply can't get a CF
equivalent of the sort of bikes I've bought lately. Sure, if you want a
700x23 road racer, take your pick, the marketplace is chock full of
them. But I don't want one.

I already own the Spectrum, although I use 25mm tires with it, and with
a rack on the back and bar end shifters and a 20/32/44 MTB crank it's
pretty far from the road racers people are making today; and if for some
reason that bike went away I would not replace it.

My two most recent bikes are both randonneurs, one 700x32, one 650Bx42.
Both are low trail, both use a large size Berthoud handlebar bag.
Both have fittings for 3 water bottle cages, both have fenders. Not
Rivs, perhaps, but anyone here looking at them would undoubtedly say
they are both "all Rivved out." You aren't going to find anything like
that in carbon.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 16:28 -0400, Peter Morgano wrote:
> Hey now, if they had a exact geometry and clearance Titanium AHH it
> would be a tempting proposition, not sure it would ever make cost
> sense though.

And there aren't any suitable carbon forks for a bike like that, are
there?

[Peter Morgano]

Not with the clearance for 42s, that is a pipe dream for sure

[Garth]

On Monday, July 2, 2012 4:35:10 PM UTC-4, Steve Palincsar wrote:

And there aren't any suitable carbon forks for a bike like that, are
there?

My proposition was a hypothetical Steve ..... the dimensions of the bikes "could" be identical ... no matter if it's a Bomba, Atlantis, AHH or whatever .  Every dimension "could" be duplicated... meaning the choice would not come down to geometry, or tire size etc.... purely on material.

[Peter Pesce]

Steel for me. I chuckle every time I read an ad or review about some carbon bike that has "achieved" a comfortable ride.
I love the way steel bikes look, and feel. I even love the little "ping" they make when something taps a tube.

If I had all the money in the world to spend on one bike it would be steel.

[Garth]

Yeah Patrick , I've never ridden or owned a CF frame so any information is "second hand" ... lol.  The "feel" of a CF may have a lot to do with the geometry used also .... and you don't really know where a person is coming from in saying it feels "dead".  You really can't compare steel and CF directly spec for spec because the simply are made differently today . Maybe if they still made lugged CF like when they originated in the 80's you could compare them ... and I bet they rode quite similar . 

  I guess my main concern though, like yours would be longevity and durability in the long run.  And yes ... Titanium would be an interesting option too !  

I'm not weight weenie either .... but yeah .... if the exact same frame would weigh 5 lbs. less ?   Heck yes I'd consider it !  I ride hills every day too. While yes ... it is all about the experience and less weight may not matter in some ways ... it does matter in others.  It depends on how you want your experience to be . . .  and we each inherently get to choose that experience .  What anyone else thinks .... So What !  Who ya' riding for ?   lol :)

[Steve Palincsar]

Too hypothetical and theoretical for me, I'm afraid.

"Modern" CF -- molded CF, not tube-and-lug construction -- is a mass
production medium. The mold costs the earth, the first one off costs a
million bucks, and every one after costs two bucks to make. In order to
pay off the cost of the mold, you need a big production run. Contrast
that with steel or Ti, where you literally can make any dimension you
want, subject to the availability of the tubing (my Ti Spectrum has
constant diameter chain stays, for example, because back in 1991 there
was no titanium bike tubing, my bike's made of tubing meant to be used
in a nuclear reactor or an airplane) as a one-off and it won't cost any
more than any other bike, one-off or stock.

And the mass market for a bike that would interest me simply does not
exist... even though in my opinion, they make a lot more sense for most
people who are riding CF road racers than those CF road racers.

Ever see a six foot six guy weighing 230 lb riding a CF road racer with
23mm tires because he can't even fit 25mm tires due to narrow frame
clearances? (Actually, that friend of mine has hung his Cervelo up on a
hook, and is now riding a custom Ti Seven, and thinks it's a hundred
times nicer bike than the CF Cervelo.)

As long as what sells is faux-Tour-de-France let's all make believe we
are PRO road racers, and everyone riding one wants to be into the
shaved-leg-roadie culture, the market for anything /we/ would be
interested in is going to be pretty small. And those small production
runs make sense for certain materials... and not for others.

[RJM]

I have ridden enough CF bikes to know that I prefer steel bikes. With the size bike I need, I can get a steel bike to under 20 lbs pretty easily and that isn't even going completely weight weenie. Getting a bike down to 15 lbs won't make me like biking anymore than I already do, it won't make the ride any more enjoyable, and it won't suddenly make me want to be lance armstrong and use every ride as a race. That kind of weight difference just doesn't matter to me at all. What does matter is that the bike looks nice, will last for years, and I don't have to worry about dropping it.

 

Is anybody making a carbon fiber touring bike yet?

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:04 -0700, RJM wrote:
> I have ridden enough CF bikes to know that I prefer steel bikes. With
> the size bike I need, I can get a steel bike to under 20 lbs pretty
> easily and that isn't even going completely weight weenie. Getting a
> bike down to 15 lbs won't make me like biking anymore than I already
> do, it won't make the ride any more enjoyable, and it won't suddenly
> make me want to be lance armstrong and use every ride as a race. That
> kind of weight difference just doesn't matter to me at all. What does
> matter is that the bike looks nice, will last for years, and I don't
> have to worry about dropping it.
>
> Is anybody making a carbon fiber touring bike yet?

No, and not likely anyone ever will. Not only is touring a very tiny
niche and so not economical for the molded CF method of production,
there's also the matter of rack attachment that Calfee or Crumpton (I
can never keep them straight) mentioned in a sidebar to the BQ review.
He prefers P clamps because then if you drop the bike with a loaded
rack, the rack will slip rather than put a sideways stress on the stays
which would split the stay and would be entirely unrepairable in the
field (me paraphrasing the builder).

I believe it; as I said, I know two people who had to replace CF frames
because the weight of a water bottle split the downtube when the bike
fell over. Imagine how much more stress a rack w/two loaded panniers
would create compared to the tiny weight of a water bottle!

[Garth]

Steve, My hypothesis is for each of us, if we wish, to look at our own prejudices towards a material we may actually know nothing about ! Just becasue so and so says it was this or that .  It may be true for them... but is it true for me ?  And if your favourite frame could be 5 pounds lighter for the same price .... would you still choose your heavier one ? .. after all ... weight doesn't matter... right ?  lol :) 

For myself ... it doesn't matter up to point !  I don't want another 10 lbs. added to my Bombadil for sure !  Nor do I want to ride 1000 gram rims.  There IS a difference in feel .... and we need not "put up with" more weight of the bike than we choose to .  It's all about our individual choice.  That's why we even exist ... to choose :)

Would I like a F150 that weighed 3000-3500 lbs and had 500 HP and got 50 MPG ?   Ummm.... if I could .... I just might want it !   We're all kinda snobbish in our own ways .... and it's okay to admit it ... or not .. lol :)

[Peter Pesce]

Garth-
I think the point to be gleaned from the responses to your hypothetical is that many people feel that duplicating the geometry of a given bike in a different material does not make it the same bike, only lighter. A bike is more than the sum of the geometry angles plus weight. For many people specific kinds of  strength, durability, ineffable ride "qualities", looks, and appreciation for a particular craft of construction ALL contribute to making it your favorite bike.
You can't conclude that people irrationally hate carbon just because you've asked them a question where you think the only variable is carbon or steel.

I'm all for well-constructed mental exercises, and I appreciate your question if for no other reason than it lit up the forum during a boring afternoon at work!


Pete in CT

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:23 -0700, Garth wrote:
>
> Steve, My hypothesis is for each of us, if we wish, to look at our own
> prejudices towards a material we may actually know nothing about !
> Just becasue so and so says it was this or that . It may be true for
> them... but is it true for me ? And if your favourite frame could be
> 5 pounds lighter for the same price .... would you still choose your
> heavier one ? .. after all ... weight doesn't matter... right ?
> lol :)

And I think I explained why that can never be. Wishing never makes a
bike, production processes do. And some materials are more amenable to
a custom, one-off, limited production for a niche market than others.

If I want to lose 5 lb, it makes more sense to lose it off me than off
the frame. And if I pursued losing those 5 pounds maybe six times, then
by gar, I could lose a few spokes off my wheels, too.

> For myself ... it doesn't matter up to point ! I don't want another
> 10 lbs. added to my Bombadil for sure ! Nor do I want to ride 1000
> gram rims. There IS a difference in feel .... and we need not "put up
> with" more weight of the bike than we choose to . It's all about our
> individual choice. That's why we even exist ... to choose :)

Yes, "Step away from that ice cream bar!"

> Would I like a F150 that weighed 3000-3500 lbs and had 500 HP and got
> 50 MPG ? Ummm.... if I could .... I just might want it ! We're all
> kinda snobbish in our own ways .... and it's okay to admit it ... or
> not .. lol :)

No, that's just plain silly, not snobbish. 500 hp, 50 mpg, pick one.
It's like the holy trinity, "Good, fast, cheap: pick any 2." Some
things you simply cannot have, and wishing for them is futile.

[PATRICK MOORE]

Interesting discussion -- the RBWlist equivalent of discussing angels
dancing on the points of pins, but interesting. (Actually, the
possibly legendary discussion of angels on pins is interesting to in
that it really bears on the different meanings -- and modes -- of
"presence:" presence of location, presence of causality, etc which, if
y'all were 13th century scholastics-in-training, would be quotidian
--yes!! -- distinctions.)

Interesting nonetheless to hear more people say that CF feels dead. My
brother has a couple of 20 year old Merlins and he likes the ride, but
his few and brief experiences with CF also indicated dead.

FWIW, my heavy-framed-'n'-forked '03 Curt weighed 7 lb for frame, fork
and headset, yet I built it up as a 1X10 to come in at just under 19
lb with the only silly light articles being a ti stem binder bolt;
unless you consider a Phil ti 113 silly light: Phil said that trackies
use them, so I'm not worried.

I myself believe that there is a point at which weight does matter,
but that, also, this point can shift considerably depending on (1) the
subjective propensities of the rider and (2) other qualities of the
bike in question. My erstwhile, fully loaded Herse randonneur was a
true tank: memory has it feeling in heft like the Fargo with the
lighter wheelset; yet it had me pushing a higher gear quite happily.
Magic pixie dust? Hallowed name resonance? Who knows, but it was a
"fast feeling" bike. (I sold it because it did not carry heavy loads
as well as I like and because I have other "fast feeling" bikes, to
wit my Rivs.

[Garth]

Steve .... If everyone on earth stopped using their imagination .... there would be no more life.  Life IS imagination .

Where does anything come from ?  Bicycles? Cars ? Buildings? etc. etc.    Someone had to imagine them into being .   They were not dropped off to us by a band of cycling aliens , were they ? ;

Our Imagination creates .... our creations do not imagine themselves into being.

As I said ... it's all our choice of beliefs ... everything.  The only thing that stops us from creating a 50 mpg 50 hp truck, a 3lb. Bomabadil frame,  or whatever we imagine.... Is not allowing our imagination to imagine the possibility.   Ask any inventor of anything .... everything starts of imagination.  Look at electricity .... it couldn't be done because all there was was lamps. Impossible most said.... here's your choice of lamps ... live with them.... lol.  Well, someone imagined .... someone played and worked with that imagination ... and the "impossible" became reality .   Rivendell Bicycles did not come to be because someone told Grant it could not be done because it did not exist ! It existed in his imagination first ... and here it is.

And that's the beauty of life .... you make your choices ... I make mine ... everyone makes their own. Life rocks !!!

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 15:59 -0700, Garth wrote:
> As I said ... it's all our choice of beliefs ... everything. The only
> thing that stops us from creating a 50 mpg 50 hp truck, a 3lb.
> Bomabadil frame, or whatever we imagine.... Is not allowing our
> imagination to imagine the possibility.

Sorry, but I think the laws of physics have something to do with it as
well.

[René Sterental]

FWIW, I still remember how in my pre-Rivendell life I had a steel Gunnar cyclocross bike that naturally came with a steel fork. Since at the time I believed carbon was better (but somehow loved how the Gunnar rode more than my high-end Specialized Roubaix), I ordered a carbon fork right away (and removed one pound off the weight of the bike) which I proceeded to use on the bike with 23mm tires.

 

Then one day, the top cap of the fork separated (it was glued to prevent the tip of the carbon steerer from being crushed by the stem) and I took it back to my LBS to have it reglued. For reasons I cannot recall now, I had to leave the fork at the LBS for about a week or so, which left me no option but to re-install the original steel fork.

 

I did that, and on my next morning commute to work, when I reached a stretch of road that had several large ruts in the pavement that always made me nervous because I felt they wanted to catch my tire and throw me off the bike, I braced myself as usual to ride over them. To my greatest amazement, I rode over them and didn't feel a thing. I mean, all of a sudden it was as if I had suspension on my bike. No sense that the ruts were trying to throw me off the bike, no jarring as I rode over them. I couldn't believe it.

 

Needless to say, I left the steel fork on the bike and rode it like that until I sold it when I bought my first Rivendell bike. The fit and position of the Gunnar were just wrong for me, but I loved how it rode with its steel fork better than my way more expensive Specialized Roubaix. That one I sold after I fully understood that there was no way I was going to ever be able to ride it with any semblance of comfort after I had switched to the Rivendell fit.

 

So, if I was able to get an identical carbon frame to any of my Rivendells, I'd still prefer the steel ride. If I was going to go custom, however, I'd consider a Ti frame. I don't know if there are Ti forks or how they ride, but most likely I'd put a steel fork. On the other hand, between a custom lugged steel frame and a regular welded Ti frame, I'd think I'd end up going for the steel lugged frame. That is, assuming I found a custom builder that gave me the option... :-)

 

The same experience happened to me years ago when living in Venezuela. I had an aluminum Titus dual suspension frame that rode wonderfully, but fear of riding it on the street made me get a cheaper hard tail. Unknowingly to me at the time, I found a great deal on a Jamis Dragon hardtail steel frame and proceeded to build it. In case you haven't guessed it, the bike I ended loving more for its ride was the steel hardtail (with tubeless tires) instead of the fancier dual suspension bike (also with tubeless tires).

 

So I learned my lesson twice: steel bikes ride like no other bikes for me.

 

René

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I agree with Steve, and share his wholehearted disinterest in CF.

Riding a bike, for me, has nothing to do with eking out every milligram of performance. A customer lady asked me last week if I was a "racer". My response was an entirely unplanned and unrehearsed: "Nope, I ride my bike for transportation, recreation, and adventure." I think that about sums it up. Because these endeavors usually don't benefit much, if any, from a couple pounds either way, CF holds no appeal for me. If it happens someday that CF frames become as tough and versatile and inexpensive as a Surly Cross-Check, I might reconsider, but then again, why bother?

[Joe Bernard]

I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. Lugs. You can try to spec a CF frame to duplicate a Rivendell all you want, but you're still not gonna get pretty lugs and contrasting creme panels. No CF for me..I'd miss the lugs, and I don't trust that thin plastic. I watch a lot of Formula One auto racing, and I've seen a lot of CF cars wreck: that stuff snaps into lethal shards. Nuh uh.

 

Joe Bernard

Vallejo, CA.

[Garth]

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”
― Albert Einstein

[Peter Morgano]

I have read the book too and dont take it as describing that CF fails more often, its just that when it does it is catastrophic and sometimes deadly. Steel, Aluminum and Titanium all fail too but its just that when they do it is somewhat predicatable and less sudden, giving the rider time to compensate or dismount the bike before something dangerous happens.  Also to Grant's point steel can be fixed if it fails while CF cannot. As i mentioned earlier I rode a "vintage" LOOK KG96 for a long time and had no issues but if there was an issue I would not have seen it until the bike collapsed under me, different from my old Peugot which developed a small then increasingly larger crack around the BB to let me know it was time to hang it up.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:47 AM, blueride2 <rlh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think CF bikes have their place in the world of cycling, and I certainly subscribe to "live and let live" as it applies to cycling. It should be "ride and let ride". The point is ride what you have, and try to have a good time doing it.Who can deny that riding in a pace-line at 20+ mph isn't a hoot? Not me, that's for sure. A good lightweight CF bike makes this a lot easier, than say a 26 pound steel bike.No, what is upsetting is the near total dominance of CF bikes in the market today. If riders could own just one bike, most of us, would be better served on a steel bike. More versatile for sure.

I'm in the middle of "Just Ride" and find it a very enjoyable and interesting read. I do think Grant's off-base somewhat on the durability of CF frames. Having owned several CF bikes over a 10 year span, I haven't had a lick of trouble with any of them. No exploding or cracked frames, I even crashed one of them. Look at the millions of CF forks out there. If there was an issue with these forks self-destructing, the liability issue would quickly drive manufacturers out-of-business. Face it, CF bikes are here to stay.

A well designed CF frame will last a long time. Hell, at times, I even ride CF wheels. Oh, the horror of it all!

Having said that, I love steel bikes too. The ride quality just can't be beat, except maybe for Ti bikes, but I've never ridden nor owned one so I can't comment.

Richard

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/uTY3iqhZUHUJ.

[Cyclofiend]

On Jul 2, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Garth wrote:

Steve, My hypothesis is for each of us, if we wish, to look at our own prejudices towards a material we may actually know nothing about ! Just becasue so and so says it was this or that .  It may be true for them... but is it true for me ?  And if your favourite frame could be 5 pounds lighter for the same price .... would you still choose your heavier one ? .. after all ... weight doesn't matter... right ?  lol :) 

There are a couple of things to consider. 

First, if you make the frame and fork out of CF, I think you would be hard pressed to remove 5 pounds vs a modern steel frame.  There just isn't that much difference.  To remove 5 or 10 pounds from a bicycle setup means you have to pursue minimizing weight in componentry as well. 

Second, from working in the bicycle industry and the fishing/outdoor industry for a while, I've seen many, many, many Carbon Fiber failures - a number of which I've experienced firsthand.  The issue is - and always will be - the nature of the way CF fails.  In my direct experience, it fails catastrophically and with no warning.   It folds.  It splits. It severs. It cracks.    (And Aluminum tends to fail in a similar fashion, though in my experience it at least gives more warning if you actively look for surface cracks.)  Once it takes a direct impact, you no longer trust it.

Way back in pre-history.  A Person Who Knows told me that the best bike is the one that gets you home. (It wasn't GP, by the way). I've kept that nugget in the back of my brain since then.  Even when I was getting transfixed by lighter and lighter bits, that kept getting more and more fiddly and idiosyncratic.  When I realized I was spending more time coaxing my bikes to work than riding them, I started to reassess the idea of weight meaning everything.

My bikes (well, all but my old soft-nose mtb which I don't really ride that much) are steel because it is the best material for me, the way I ride and my piece of mind when I'm rolling down the mountain at speed.    Yeah, there are places you can focus on to sensibly remove excess weight, but the times that really matters (as has been pretty well documented) are pretty much when the road points upward. 

- Jim / Cyclofiend.com 

[PATRICK MOORE]

Video of Ur-Rivendell (look at the saddle and post!) beating CF.
No-retention pedals 'n' all! Whoo hoo!

http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/video-100yearold-bike-vs-tour-de-france-bike.html

The hefty blondes must be the control group. Dunno about the loudmouth
in the suit.

They are speaking Welsh.

[Brewster Fong]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:03:55 AM UTC-7, Peter M wrote:

Also to Grant's point steel can be fixed if it fails while CF cannot.

 

Why does Grant continue to propagate such falsehood. Of course CARBON FIBER FRAMES CAN BE REPAIRED. Grants continued insistance that it "can't be fixed" makes him look petty and shows that he has no other way of degrading the material to sell his supposedly *superior* steel frames. Note, it can actually be easier and cheaper to repair carbon!

 

Btw, for those of you who don't believe it, CF can easily be repaired and there are several builders who do it. Here's one of the best:

 

http://www.calfeedesign.com/repair/

 

For photos go here:

 

http://www.calfeedesign.com/repair/repair-examples-photos/

 

Good Luck!

[Peter Morgano]

I have seen calfees work and it is top notch but I would never ride a repaired cf frame. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/cmZ-oaFdKZAJ.

[René Sterental]

Can we drop the carbon vs. steel discussion? Unless discuss carbon vs steel helmets... :-D

 

There doesn't seem to be much enlightment in this topic...

[Peter Morgano]

Poor aluminum doesn't even get to be part of the feud, haha.

[charlie]

I'm not sure if he said CF can't be repaired......but it is definitely easier to find someone to repair a steel frame in nearly every major city and probably many rural areas too. Brazing or silver soldering it a fairly common skill among many rural dwellers......I even learned it in shop class in high school. CF wasn't invented then and without specific knowledge and specialized materials you are kind of left with a broken bicycle until you can get your frame to a CF repair place. I think this might be Grants perspective more or less and that does make a case for steel over most other materials.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Repairability is usually irrelevant. Often when a steel frame breaks or gets crashed, the repair/repaint bill rivals the cost of a new frame. Most people don't go through with it, in my experience.

In any case, the percentage of broken frames of any material that get repaired is tiny.

[charlie]

True but I suppose I'm talking about a tourist in a foreign country or even in America with perhaps a busted dropout or something of that nature...even a cobbled repair on a tube using a 1/2 or full tube sleeve is possible in an emergency that would allow one to finish a tour with perhaps a rattle can paint job on the road until the frame can be properly worked on if one so chooses. I wouldn't pay to have someone else repair a $1000 dollar frame but I would repair a $2000 Atlantis or a custom for sure. The point I'm making is that it can more easily be done by more people across the country.

[Steven Frederick]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:47 AM, blueride2 <rlh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Who can deny that riding in a pace-line at 20+ mph isn't a hoot? Not me, that's for sure.

I certainly can-I find pacelining in turn tense and tedious.  Not unlike driving now that I think of it.

SteveF, East Lansing, MI

[RJM]

This year I have been doing quite a bit of club riding, which seems to be just paceline riding. I have to say I don't prefer it and agree with Steve F that it is tense and tedious. It is also the reason why most clubs that I have tried to participate in lose beginning members or people who don't want to ride like they are preparing for a race. It is a shame that most of the club rides are geared towards pacelining.

 

Paceline riding is a race technique and good for getting more speed out of a group of riders, but why it has to be what "road biking" is all about is beyond me.

[Addison Wilhite]

The flip side for me is the local club (with a bunch of great people mind you) that go out for 20 - 50 mile rides depending on the weekly/monthly schedule on their website and proceed to stop, regroup, stop regroup, stop and eat, regroup, eat some more, etc.   It's not that that isn't an enjoyable thing at times.  But if I have a free weekend morning to put in 30-40 miles I typically don't have 4 hours that I'm willing to spend on it.  I don't need to paceline ride but the slow meanders can drive me nuts as well.

Regards,

--
Addison
http://reno-rambler.blogspot.com

[Will]

Several years ago I snagged a small tree clipping which got sucked into my front fender. The fender (plastic) collapsed into the fork crown and I went over the bars. Knocked my head, helmets are helpful, but relevant to this, I bent both fork blades and deformed the top and down tubes slightly. Took the bike over to Yellow Jersey in Madison, WI. They fixed it. Realigned the frame, rebuilt the headset (had to be removed to facilitate the cold bending). Cost: $112.

Bike rides true. I can no-hand it.

So I dunno. I think if folks find the right shop (must have table jig) they can restore moderate damage a lot more cheaply than going new.

Grant is right about steel. 

[pb]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:26:08 PM UTC-7, Brewster Fong wrote:

 

Why does Grant continue to propagate such falsehood. Of course CARBON FIBER FRAMES CAN BE REPAIRED. Grants continued insistance that it "can't be fixed" makes him look petty and shows that he has no other way of degrading the material to sell his supposedly *superior* steel frames. Note, it can actually be easier and cheaper to repair carbon!  

 

I appreciated Brewster's comments.  When I was a Reader subscriber, I was always saddened and alienated when Grant would assert that certain things were stupid, inferior, a fraud, a lie, a hoax, blah, blah, blah.  I always wished that he would figure out that it's sufficient to be different and to promote an alternative.  It's not necessary to make derogatory comments -- facts, as one sees them, are more persuasive.  I think that "Xxx may be popular, but we feel that yyy is a desireable alternative -- or more desireable -- for the following reasons" is much more more appealing to me than "Xxx is a big fat lie". 

 

I've got bikes hanging in the garage that range from full-race (no more carbon frames, as it happens, titanium instead, but certainly carbon forks) to classic and neo-classic steel, to a rather tasty classic townie conversion with rubber pedals.  I enjoy and appreciate all of them.   

 

Shrug.

 

pb, who thoroughly enjoys riding in fast pacelines, and who also thoroughly enjoys relaxed and aimless solo cruises

 

 

[Peter Morgano]

While I dont agree with Grant on some stuff (see helmets) I admire his passion. All too often those who run a business can be worn down over time by the tide of criticism and in an attempt to appeal to the biggest audience possible and wind up sounding like some politician who cant just take a stand on something.  I would rather have someone I vehemently disagree with than some syncophant who doesnt want to step on anyone's toes.  And as for the hating on CF I do remember reading that GP knew someone who lost thier life due to a snapped CF fork so maybe it is a bit more personal to him than just cost and other superficial concerns.  Again, I rode CF, and a SS conversion at that but as a bigger guy I was glad was glad to see it go rather than worrying if that next pothole was going to be my doom or not.

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/Kb5p-HLQamUJ.

[Mike]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 12:40:50 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote:

While I dont agree with Grant on some stuff (see helmets) I admire his passion. 

Agreed. 

I loved Just Ride. And yeah, I didn't agree with all of it but there's an energy and enthusiasm to it that is infectious. I'm really grateful I fell under the Riv spell as it got me out of a rut with cycling. At the same time that I was discovering Riv I was also discovering randonneuring which also helped save cycling for me. I feel I've found a middle ground between wannabe racer and unracer. To be honest, there are plenty of days where I'm kitted up and hammering but there are also days when I'm on platform pedals and noodling around on mixed terrain. I don't have to choose one over the other, I can maneuver between the two. 

Cycling is huge and there are all kinds of people out there enjoying it on their own and basically living the Just Ride ethos who have probably never heard of Grant or Rivendell. There's others like myself who found stuff like that to be refreshing and revitalizing in spite of initial skepticism. 

When I was finishing the Cascade 1200k last week I was riding with guys on contemporary road bikes. Nice CF ones. Part of me started thinking, maybe I need to approach CF with a more open mind, maybe there's a place for one of those bikes in my stable since I'm riding strong and feeling enthusiastic about cycling. Today when I was finishing up a short fast(ish) ride I went by two bike shops and was looking at CF bikes--"endurance" and "distance" models with lower BB heights and longer stays. No way. Or at least not today. No way would I choose a bike that wouldn't fit at least a 28 and a fender and there's no way I'm riding wheels with less than 32 spokes. Maybe I'm missing out but it's just not for me. My CC with Jack Browns, a WTB saddle, bars a few CM below the saddle and indexed BE shifters are go fast enough for me. I may consider STI shifters later in the year but certainly not now. 

Tomorrow I'm looking forward to getting back on my Hilsen which is currently set up with platform pedals and racks and doing a mixed terrain ride through Forest Park. Maybe I'll bring along Just Ride and read it at a cafe mid-ride. 

--mike

[Joe Bernard]

I post frequently on a cable news blog, and every few weeks someone will respond to my statement about this or that with "That's just your opinion!" Uh, yeah..most people don't need to be reminded that I'm voicing my opinion when I say something on a blog. As Grant has stated many times - including this week - he writes about things from his POV. He's not pretending that everything he says is an irrefutable fact, or devoid of all hyperbole. If his Blug turns into and endless series of IMOs and YRMVs, I'll stop reading. I don't need caution stickers all over the opinions I read.

 

Joe "carbon fiber forks are stupid" Bernard

Vallejo, CA.

[Peter Pesce]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 10:27:52 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

"...Today when I was finishing up a short fast(ish) ride I went by two bike shops and was looking at CF bikes--"endurance" and "distance" models with lower BB heights and longer stays. No way. Or at least not today. No way would I choose a bike that wouldn't fit at least a 28 and a fender and there's no way I'm riding wheels with less than 32 spokes...."

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't a CF 'cross bike work in this case? 

-Pete in CT

[Mike]

On Friday, July 6, 2012 6:58:22 AM UTC-7, Peter Pesce wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't a CF 'cross bike work in this case? 

-Pete in CT

Yeah, that would be an option but most of them seem to have fairly short HTs making it hard to get the bars where I'd want them although most of them tend to have fender eyelets. The idea of a CF bike was just a passing interest. It's not something I'm gonna get. Just not impressed. 

One thing that is nice is that there are so many options for inexpensive all-road steel bikes with nice clearance. The fit on my CC isn't ideal but it works. All-City, Salsa, & Surly are all offering good all-road bikes. Salsa has some new bikes coming out including a "gravel grinder." All-City has some nice bikes. Surly is great and I'm curious if this will be the year they release a disc brake cross bike although disc brakes aren't something that really interest me.

I'm watching the tour as I respond to this and there was a pretty big pile-up of riders. Lots of them standing around waiting for new bikes and wheels. You gotta wonder, if they were on steel bikes more traditional wheels (28s as opposed to CF deep dish) would they weather cashes better? Would they be that much slower? I sorta doubt it. I think Grant has talked about it how it would be neat if the riders didn't have support cars easily available to them and had to fix their own flats. You'd see different equipment for sure.

--mike 

[Beth H]

I read it and liked most of it. I think Grant goes to some places I wouldn't, especially in the areas of food and helmets.

But I found it mostly informative and entertaining.

Reading it, I was reminded of how blessed I am to live in a city where living car-free and relying on a bicycle for primary transportation is actually possible -- and how far behind Portland so many cities remain in developing human-scale infrstraucture.

I've tried nearly everything -- from Randonneuring to racing -- and these days I find I am mostly content to ride my bike for transportation and pleasure at slower speeds. Much of what's in the book applies to folks who want to Just Ride. In the landscape of too many books and magazines exhorting us to pour ourselves into lycra, strap on the heart-rate monitors and emulate elite racers at every opportunity (so that bike shops can sell more carbon-fiber racing bikes and recoup their investments on all that R & D -- sorry, that's my bike industry cynicism at work), Just Ride is a breath of fresh air.

Beth in PDX

[pb]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:09:14 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:

 

"carbon fiber forks are stupid"

 

Your approach and your passion, as someone else called it, fit well in the contemporary landscape of confrontational divisiveness, and are effective not in furthering the conversation, but in terminating it.

 

Peter Bridge

(Who believes that most facts are subjective, and who misses the courtesy, good humour, and wit of William F. Buckley Jr.)

 

 

 

  

[Mojo]

From Bicycle Times

 

http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/book-review-just-ride-grant-petersen

 

[rlh...@gmail.com]

Perhaps it's personal with him, I don't know. I also admire the passion, and strong opinions, based on facts, can be refreshing. I know Rivendell sells some fine bicycles at reasonable prices. I just picked up a Homer and spent about a half-hour just looking at it. It's really quite stunning. The lug work, headbadge, and paint all work together to produce one fine piece of eye candy. I'm almost too scared to ride the damn thing! I said almost.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

-----Original message-----

[cyclotourist]

I needed to pick up a copy today, and was very pleasantly surprised to see my local B&N had two copies on the shelf! Pretty cool considering I live in BFE Inland California.
They also had two copies of Jan's "Competition Bicycle."

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Steven Frederick <stl...@gmail.com> wrote:

From none other than BIKE magazine, one of the best mtb mags. out there...

http://www.bikemag.com/news/reviewed-just-ride/

Steve

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

**
“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.”

[hobie]

Havn't read the book yet. Though I really appreciate what Rivendell is about. All of us on this list are big fans correct? Mark at Riv rides fast lightweight Rivs for racing as does Kris Kostman,don't know if he races anymore but he rides a Rodeo. I have defintly noticed a difference in my overall performance by shaving some weight off of my bike, Saluki 650b, plus me actually riding more. I raced in the early 90's on a carbon fiber Kestral and it was a very fast bike but not very versatile. Versatility was not my concern then,attitude was! Fastest bike I ever owned and raced was a Yamaguchi track bike made of steel.  Most people don't race,lets face it. Would they be more comfortable on a Riv? The answer is yes. The Bleriot was an attempt to get people back on lugged. I think Grant was just a bit early on that one. It might have caught on now though. RIDE ON FELLOW RIVS!!!! 

[Joe Bernard]

I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is stupid.

[PATRICK MOORE]

I've been riding the '99 gofast which of all my three bikes probably
gets the least use (since most of my riding is "get-to-there" riding),
and I find every time that any thoughts of converting it into a more
utilitarian steed vanish when I find myself climbing hills that I
usually walk (72" '03 fixed) or gear down to ~30" (Fargo) to climb
(and this with the 75" fixed!) and find myself pushing the higher gear
as fast as lower ones against winds and inclines.

My legs are sore today from the last few days' of pushing that 75"
gear, uphill and against wind, harder than I had anticipated doing.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM, hobie <moho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Havn't read the book yet. Though I really appreciate what Rivendell is
> about. All of us on this list are big fans correct? Mark at Riv rides fast
> lightweight Rivs for racing as does Kris Kostman,don't know if he races
> anymore but he rides a Rodeo. I have defintly noticed a difference in my
> overall performance by shaving some weight off of my bike,

[William]

I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular.  I appreciate it because of my perception of the motive.  In my opinion, those who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that hit the pavement will drop.  Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a noble motive.  Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of commitment, putting his money where his mouth is, and losing money on selling steel forks to those that will take their carbon forks out of circulation forever.  

When I hear somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I take it the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 is stupid".  She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes that person would be content not riding that motorcycle on 880.  

[Scott Henry]

Well, If thats how you are measuring things, i've had two steel froks bend.  One aluminum fork come unglued.

I've never had a carbon fork bend, break, snap or do anything other that work 100% perfectly.

 

I've had plenty of all three type going back to my first EMS fork in the early 90s.

 

Guess how stupid that is.

 

I like bikes.  It just seems around here that you can either drink the koolaid or enjoy bikes, very few of you can seemingly do both.

 

Scott

[Brewster Fong]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:03:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote:

I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular.  I appreciate it because of my perception of the motive.  In my opinion, those who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that hit the pavement will drop.  Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a noble motive.  

Oh boy, the paranoid are out today!  Its interesting that with the Internet and *World Wide Web,* we really don't hear that much about all the "number of skulls that hit the pavement." As Andy Muzi of Yellow Jersey.org and as a bike owner not only sells, but sees tons of CF forks, stated:

"I was among the wailing fork Cassandras ten+ years ago but 

you'll have to admit that 'failed cheap carbon fork' doesn't 
happen with statistically significant frequency nowadays. By 
that I mean you, as a service tech, may or may not have seen 
one. One! And surely not a few every week. The first 
high-volume runs of them are now well beyond warranty and 
we'll assume the usual clumsy abusive riders own these as 
own everything else."

Bottom line - there are tens of thousand, no strike that, hundred of thousands or more CF forks on the road. Guess what, very few reported problems....However, if you're paranoid about CF, then stay away; far far away!  

Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of commitment, putting his money where his mouth is, and losing money on selling steel forks to those that will take their carbon forks out of circulation forever.  

Really, Grant is losing money selling his steel forks:

 http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/carbonomas.htm

At $200, I seriously doubt Grant/Riv is losing any money?!  In fact, his fork sure looks alot like the Surly Steamroller fork here:

http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=6990 

When somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I take it the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 is stupid".  She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes that person would be content not riding that motorcycle on 880.  

Yes, something we agree on: stay off of 880, whether you're on a bike, motorcycle or car! Good luck!

On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:

I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is stupid.

[Peter Morgano]

I like bikes. It just seems around here that you can either drink the koolaid or enjoy bikes, very few of you can seemingly do both.

Scott

 

 

Its like you know us...oh wait, you don't.  So stop being so condescending.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[Scott Henry]

Nope, I don't personally know too many people on this list.  I have only met a few so personally so I have to judge the group based upon what people here post.  

 

I'll say that without a doubt, there are many bicycling fans here but ,OVERALL, the group is very focused only on one type of bike.  Its just weird to me that here and on the iBob list there are many people who only consider bicycles that fit into the Riv stereotype.  Now on the old serrota list (now The Paceline Forum) and even on velocipede salon they tend to appriciate all bikes.  Those two groups most definately cater towards the faster crowd but they also apreciate and enjoy the Riv type of slow, heavy, comfort bicycles.

 

As for what started my intial post, who here has had a carbon frame/fork break, fail or bend? 

OK, now who here has had a steel frame/fork break, bend or fail?

 

As for me, I will keep riding all types of bicycles not just those of one small type.

 

Scott Henry

Dayton, OH

come see me

[Peter Morgano]

Well I dont want to call this a troll post like they would at BikeForums but come on this is the Rivendell owners bunch so I would say they are focused on one type of bike, mainly Rivendells. While most of us own other bikes coming to this list and expecting people to rave about thier CAAD10 would be pretty silly.  Oh and my bike is neither slow nor heavy, I am slow and heavy, but it sure is comfortable.  

[Kelly]

Not sure where you got slow comfort bikes from.

As for talking about rivs.. It is the Rivendell group ... So do you complain on the Ford group that they don't like Chevys. Probably.. :)

Actually I have many bikes in the garage... Steel aluminum, and carbon.

I've had two carbon frames break, one carbon fork, two carbon stems, one seat post break.

Haven't broke the others yet

I am not afraid to ride carbon , just not fond of the way it fails.

I'm an obnoxious opinionated jerk.. And blame it on women in general.. What's your excuse.

Kelly

[Scott Henry]

Absolutely this is a Rivendell list.  And I own a Quickbeam and I bought the book (and give it a moderate review).   But I also have a Cannondale CAAD 6 too.  And a Trek OCLV and a Kogswell P and a Schwinn unicycle and tandem and many more, my favorite is my Handsome Speedy.  They are all bikes and and I enjoy riding them all.  Not one of them is bad, even though quite a few aren't steel.

 

None of them have even exploded underneath me will I was riding.  Not even the race bikes which have been crashed numerous times.

 

We are forgetting the title of the book.  "Just Ride"    He didnt title it "Just Ride : only if your bike looks like one that I sell"

[Scott Henry]

I have no problems talking about Rivs, I do it routinely. 

I have a problem talking bad about carbon because someone told you not to like it.

 

A bike is a bike.  Ride them all.   Don't talk anyone out of riding anything.

 

And personally, I like obnoxious women. 

Scott

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/kqbSXfogzrsJ.

[William]

Brewster Fong

Seriously?  I didn't say I'm afraid of Carbon Forks.  I didn't say anything bad about carbon.  Did you even read what I posted?  I said that when people gripe against carbon, I take it as concern for the well being of cyclists.  

I've ridden a carbon frame and a few carbon forks, and have never had a problem.  I'm explaining how I don't take it personal when somebody talks bad about carbon.  Apparently you do take it personal, because you insult me as a paranoiac for something that I did not write.  

Regarding the finances of designing and developing three models of custom forks all made in low volume, I am merely guessing that Rivendell has not recouped its investment.  

Good Luck!