GP Notes on the Bleriot, new & current models and a Quickbeam run
CycloFiend
update on some of the recent topics we've been discussing here - everything
beyond the line are his words.
---------------
Bleriot etc:
I got tired of too many dealers de-dignifying it as a loss leader, and so
I'm just pulling the plug on the whole Bleriot program. That means that
after about late June, no dealer who doesn't have them will be able to get
them. We'll then be obligated to buy up QBP's stock, which will give us
enough 'riots for a few months, maybe even through winter.
They will not go on sale; still $750.
The QBP partnership was pleasant, I have only the best things to say about
QBP, but it was about a dozen and a half dealers that sealed the Bleriot's
fate.
We could, I suppose, continue to get them ourselves. But the original deal
was created with the help of QBP's trading company, and it wouldn't be fair
for us to tie up its time with business that no longer involves QBP. So
rather than put them in the position of "handing off" the Bleriot deal to a
competitor trading company--after they'd worked so hard on the details--I'm
just going to kill the fine bike and start fresh with another trading
company and a few more bikes, which--if all goes well which it hardly ever
does--will be ready in about January, March, May, and July of 2009.
The concepts are: Cheap Quickbeam, cheap A. Homer/Saluki, cheap Atlantis,
and cheap Mixte. The plan is four sizes each: 48-52-56-60, all with 6-deg
upsloping top tubes (like Bombadil), so each size will fit a wider rage of
leglengths/riders.
I say "cheap," but the quality will be the same as the Bleriot. Made in
Taiwan. Our lugs, crowns, bb shells, tube pick, 'ame & 'phics, all that.
Probably they'll be one-color (no cream head tube), and m-m-may retail for
$700 or a hair less (not $699.99!).
Our minimums per bike are 150. So, four sizes is about 37 each, which will
give us good depth and stock for a while.
Meanwhile, we are getting in a last run of real Quickbeams---70 of them late
this summer, in Silver with blue graphics.
Toyo's production is low and slow on the normal bikes, so we're
supplementing it with Wford A. Homers and then some Atlantis frames. Toyo
sort of expects to catch up in about 9 months, but I'm not optimistic, and
that's why we're relying on Wford to fix the slack.
Customs: Curt's on his own now, and we're training a new builder (new to
us). I know this guy, have for 25 years, he's done repairs for us for 3
years, he does NOT have his own brand and says he wants nothing to do with
it, and I actually believe him. First he'll build 30 protovelos for us--or
however many it takes for him to get his groove and get really comfortable
with the particulars of our bikes.
I'm tired of frustrations, but overall things are really good. We have a new
(second) full-time shipper; Miesha's back and here with her baby (Freddy)
and doing well. The site is getting better. We'll soon have instructional
youtube videos for various things we get asked about all the time (twine,
shellac, mounting racks, and then just fundamentals like fixing flats).
Brewster Fong
On May 14, 12:29 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Customs: Curt's on his own now, and we're training a new builder (new to
> us). I know this guy, have for 25 years, he's done repairs for us for 3
> years, he does NOT have his own brand and says he wants nothing to do with
> it, and I actually believe him. First he'll build 30 protovelos for us--or
> however many it takes for him to get his groove and get really comfortable
> with the particulars of our bikes.
>
who use to work out of a space next to the Bicycle Outfitter in Los
Altos, CA?
Anne Paulson
> Thanks for the update. I wonder if the new builder is John Tallerico,
> who use to work out of a space next to the Bicycle Outfitter in Los
> Altos, CA?
Didn't Tallerico have his own brand then?
--
-- Anne Paulson
Wheelslucas
bicycle models have a wider appeal.
The main line bicycle companies are all giving up on sizes above 60 cm
or so because of shipping.
-Bill Lucas
Santa Cruz, CA
Bill Connell
>
> The size range is unfortunate. A 63 or 64 cm would make the new
> bicycle models have a wider appeal.
> The main line bicycle companies are all giving up on sizes above 60 cm
> or so because of shipping.
I ride a 65 myself, but really, the market for those >62 sizes is
pretty small. I'd expect a 60cm with a sloping top tube to fit more
like a 62 and be fine for many who would otherwise buy a 63 or 64. I
prefer a level top tube myself, but it'll be interesting to see how
the new models shake out.
I'm glad that i'm too poor to consider a new bike this year - i've
wanted a Quickbeam for a while anyway, but my first good bike was a
silver Raleigh, and i'm going to be sorely tempted by a silver QB.
--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN
Mike
really have grown to like about Rivs are the horizontal TTs, something
which seems pretty rare nowadays. I ride a 62 Rambouillet which is a
size under what Riv recommends yet fits fine. I'm sure a 60 in either
of the newer frames would be fine also, especially in the Atlantis
like one. Still, I would have loved to have seen a budget 62 or 63 AHH
type bike. Oh well. I'm sure they'll be nice.
No mention of the Bombadil. I wonder what's up with that.
Mike (who is hoping to purchase a 63 AHH before the end of summer).
Aaron Thomas
nicer than sloping top tubes. If they must be sloping, a modest 1
degree is okay, like on the Romulus. Maybe 2 degrees, like on the
Bleriot, but even that's pushing it, as far as my aesthetic taste is
concerned.
It is great that Riv is going to be putting out some affordable
framesets. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think they'd
have a hot item on their hands if they came out with an affordable,
Taiwanese-made version of the RB-1 or maybe the old Road Standard.
I realize that "racy"-style bikes have not been Riv's concern over the
last several years. But when I go out on club rides, my Romulus gets
continuous attention and appreciative comments from people riding the
latest carbon fiber machines. One recurrent lament I hear from various
people: "I had an old ... [De Rosa, Masi, Colnago, Cinelli,
Bridgestone, etc.] and I wish I had never sold it; steel has such a
nice ride, I should look into getting another one."
Based on my experience, my sense is that there is a potential market
out there for a lightweight lugged steel "racy" bike, even if it is
unlikely that many amateur or semi-pro racers would rush to get them.
A Taiwanese model might offer carbon-riding folks with an affordable
way to (or back to) lugged steel.
--Aaron
Bruce
The build we just saw today with the Open Pro rims represents a capable, fleet set up. You can also set the bike up with Pasela TGs for a more sedate ride that still can speed up when needed. It's a bike that should stay in the line up, imho, and a great candidate for inexpensive production (but not on that list) but as we know by now, commercial concerns and user demand are not what always drives the folks at Walnut Creek. Artists are like that sometimes.
bruce
Steve Palincsar
> Based on my experience, my sense is that there is a potential market
> out there for a lightweight lugged steel "racy" bike, even if it is
> unlikely that many amateur or semi-pro racers would rush to get them.
> A Taiwanese model might offer carbon-riding folks with an affordable
> way to (or back to) lugged steel.
>
Given what's out there in the way of "racy" bikes and the current
obsession with weight, I think trying to compete with modern carbon
racing bikes is a losing proposition.
On the other hand, those bikes are ill-suited to the sort of riding most
recreational riders actually are doing: 25mm max tire size w/o fenders,
gearing poorly matched to riders, no rack fittings so you have to
cantilever bags off the seatpost, not even a place to put a pump. What
you might call either a "light touring bike" or a "randonneuring bike"
is a much better fit, and it's a marketplace niche that is largely
empty, and certainly empty in terms of carbon frames.
Jim Bronson
> What
> you might call either a "light touring bike" or a "randonneuring bike"
> is a much better fit, and it's a marketplace niche that is largely
> empty, and certainly empty in terms of carbon frames.
I thought the Rambouillet was the light touring bike. Or even the AHH.
If you are referring to the old style French "constructeur" bikes with
not only racks and fenders but light generation as part of the
integration, then there is a cottage industry of custom builders
building those. It's unlikely the demand exists to mass produce them.
You can read about them in Bicycle Quarterly, Jan Heine is certainly a
champion of the constructeur bike for brevet riding.
-Jim
Mike
with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been
truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet
was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike. The
big difference between these Rivendells and the bikes mentioned above
will be the lugs, hopefully a 1" threaded fork, and an all arounder
capability. What really intrigues me is the Atlantis style bike. I
hope it has similar clearances and load capabilities, that would be
great. As I mentioned previously I'm a bit bummed about the sloping TT
but maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the slope won't look so drastic.
The slope on the Bombadil prototypes isn't so bad, especially for an
all arounder type bike. And they will be designed so that the bars can
be placed at saddle height or above. My Surly Cross Check is a great
bike and I like it a lot but it's not designed like a Rivendell. It
has clearances for big tires and braze ons for fenders and racks but
the headtube is a bit short for getting the bars up where I want, it's
not really designed for that.
I hope they have prototypes soon and pictures. I've been collecting
parts over the past year for an AHH but maybe I'll just hold out for
one of these.
Mike
David Estes
DE
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Ryan Watson
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Mike wrote:
>
> I think if someone wants a steel road bike that is "racy" they can go
> with a Surly, Soma, or Gunnar. I don't think Rivendell has ever been
> truly interested in making that kind of bike. I think the Rambouillet
> was referred to in one of their catalogs as a "zippy" road bike.
The Terrafirma that was reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly is a good example.
They found it to be very fast and zippy, racey, etc.. because of it's
skinny, flexy tubing set. I would love to see Rivendell do a bike like
that. A nice light, flexy road bike with Riv style, geometry, and
clearances would be sweet. I'd buy a flexy Bleriot in a
second! Unfortunately, at least as far as I know, Grant
specs all the Rivs with too-stiff OS tubing. I've never understood why.
Back in the Bridgestone days, he used to sing the praises of thin,
flexy tubes much like Jan Heine does today. (see p.34 of the 1992
Bridgestone catalog).
Ryan
Bill Connell
> I'd say Waterford has that market nailed down. Richard Sachs if you want to
> wait four years and $4k later.
I disagree with the notion that only a couple of builders serve the
steel racing market. There are a LOT of custom builders around the
country who would happily build a lugged steel racing frame, probably
more active builders now than in the last 20 years. RS and the other
handful of top & popular builders aside, there are a great many who do
excellent work more in the $1500-2500 range with waits of just a few
weeks or months.
David Estes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
James Warren
-James
-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike <mjaw...@gmail.com>
>What really intrigues me is the Atlantis style bike. I
>hope it has similar clearances and load capabilities, that would be
>great. As I mentioned previously I'm a bit bummed about the sloping TT
>but maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the slope won't look so drastic.
>The slope on the Bombadil prototypes isn't so bad, especially for an
>all arounder type bike. And they will be designed so that the bars can
>be placed at saddle height or above.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>>
Aaron Thomas
production and price issue. I am certainly aware that there are many
custom builders out there, and even some larges-scale companies like
Waterford and IF. But at 2k or better for a frameset (and this
includes W'ford), they're effectively out of reach of most people,
especially folks who may be weekend warriors on carbon, but who are
curious and intrigued by the old school steel ride and aesthetic, yet
may be wary of dropping a couple of hard-earned bills on what for them
is an unknown entity.
For this reason, I had in mind a quality, lugged bike with RB-1 or
Road Standard-like geometry (which can take a 28mm tire), but made
available at the Bleriot's price point.
I entirely concur with Ryan's comment on the tubing. A friend of mine
has an old RB-2 and that thing has explosive acceleration and climbing
power compared to my Romulus, despite somewhat comparable geometries.
I can only surmise that there's some difference in how the tubing
transfers output. But I've reached the limits of my knowledge in this
regard....
Aaron
On May 15, 8:04 am, "David Estes" <cyclotour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David Estes <cyclotour...@gmail.com>
James Warren
At least in the areas of chainstay and head angle, I would think those geometry differences would be significant. I wouldn't rule them out as causes of differences in the ride characteristics, but I too have now reached the limits of my knowledge...
-James
Doug Van Cleve
I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
Regards, Doug
Ethan
there was an Orange 64cm QB in the homeless frames section. Shoulda
jumped on that while I had the chance and my tax refund sitting in the
bank. Just hard to justify 2 Rivs in one year!! Plus I already HAVE a
single speed (nothing special just an IRO Mark V). Oh well. I really
liked that orange guess I better jump on the silver ones when they're
available.
The market is tough right now and although I'm not happy about the
sizing options on the less expensive versions of bikes I think it's a
good thing in terms of Riv getting into a more mid-range cycling
market which a lot more people will be able to afford or be willing to
shell out the cash for.
Ethan
Mike
with the sloping TT they may be too low? Hmm. I wonder, does the
sloping TT impact the reach to DT shifters?
I like the idea of solid colors.
Murray Love
Howdy folks.
I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
Regards, Doug
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1991/pages/bridgestone-1991-14.htm>
The RBs were non-OS, with the exception of the '90 RB-2, which was intended to bridge the RB-1/RB-T gap and had longer chainstays and an OS downtube. I had a '92 RB-1, which used a relatively thinwall Ishiwata non-OS tubing mix and was much more flexible than all but the most thinwall (.7/.4/.7) OS tubes. Holy cow, did that bike ever feel responsive and fast, and in terms of subjective ride characteristics beat the pants off every OS road bike I've ever owned ('93 XO-3, Surly LHT, Kogswell P, Kogswell P/R). The Kogswell P was very close to the Rambouillet/Romulus geometry and tubing, btw.
If I recall correctly, GP addressed the rationale for using OS tubes in an early RR, but I could be misremembering. Even more tentatively, I seem to remember that he felt that it was one fight that he just wasn't prepared to pick at the time, either with the industry at large or with customer expectations. (This was the early 90s, when OS steel road bikes were the big new trend, and everybody was hopping on the stiffer-is-better bandwagon.) Remember also that he was having lugsets made specially for Rivendells, and he had to make an exclusive choice for one or the other. So, while it's easy with the benefit of hindsight to opine that the whole OS-steel trend was misbegotten for all frame sizes below (say) 64cm and any wall thicknesses above (say) .8/.5/.8--and I strongly believe this is the case--it was completely understandable at the time.
As far as impact resistance goes, I don't believe OS framesets are superior. To the extent that they are thinner walled (and remember that the other major justification for OS was that you could lighten the frame by moving to thinner-walled OS tubes), they will be easier to dent and perhaps buckle than equivalent non-OS tubes.
Murray
Victoria, BC
Lesli
me. Any 50cm QB frames in the works? Would love to purchase one to
replacement my rust chipped fixie commuter
Also, sorry to hear that Curt Goodrich has left the Rivendell fold.
LL
On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Murray Love" <murray.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Howdy folks.
>
> > I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
> > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
> > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
> > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
> > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
> > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
> > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
> > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
> > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
>
> > Regards, Doug
>
> Well, it's not quite so simple as that:
>
Bill Connell
> Also, sorry to hear that Curt Goodrich has left the Rivendell fold.
I don't think Curt left, i think Mark Nobilette did, probably to focus
on his new Herse bikes. Nobilette was brought in to build the first
Legolas (Legoli?), and from one of those RRs, was going to pick up
part of the custom business too. I wonder who the new guy will be now
though.
Aaron Thomas
This is very interesting. And thanks for posting the link to the
catalog piece on frame stiffness.
Best I can tell from the catalogs, my friend's RB-2 is from 1993. I'm
not sure what tubing it has, but it sure is fast, responsive and
sprightly on climbs, compared to my otherwise beloved Romulus. That
RB-2 scampers up hills and if you want to dart quickly in any
direction, whether on flats or hills, it goes there.
These days, is anyone making any frameset comparable in tubing gauge
and geometry to the RB-1 at any price point?
-Aaron
>
>
>
> > Howdy folks.
>
> > I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
> > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
> > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
> > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
> > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
> > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
> > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
> > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
> > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
>
> > Regards, Doug
>
> Well, it's not quite so simple as that:
>
Steve Palincsar
The comment was "Curt is on his own now".
Doug Van Cleve
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Doug Van Cleve <dvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Howdy folks.
> >
> > I recall Grant railing against too stiff, which I take to mean
> > intentionally built to be stiff, but don't recall him ever being a
> > proponent of intentionally flexy. He frequently mentions impact
> > resistance and such, bikes built to be as flexy as possible would give
> > that up. IMHO it doesn't seem like something Grant would do. Also, I
> > am a BQ subscriber and I think Jan is doing some great work, but his
> > opinion on frame dynamics is just that -- an opinion. Many
> > knowledgeable folks don't agree with all of it and it isn't the only
> > way to make bikes that ride well/are fun to ride...
> >
> > Regards, Doug
> >
>
> Well, it's not quite so simple as that:
>
> <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1991/pages/bridgestone-1991-14.htm>
>
>
> As far as impact resistance goes, I don't believe OS framesets are superior.
> To the extent that they are thinner walled (and remember that the other
> major justification for OS was that you could lighten the frame by moving to
> thinner-walled OS tubes), they will be easier to dent and perhaps buckle
> than equivalent non-OS tubes.
>
> Murray
> Victoria, BC
Generally this is true, but GP tends to go for heavier than average
tubing as a rule so I don't think it applies to the "normal" Rivendell
designs. I recall reading that the Legolas was built as light as he
was willing to go and he considered/s it a race bike...
Doug "generally won't bottom post" Van Cleve
Murray Love
Murray,
This is very interesting. And thanks for posting the link to the
catalog piece on frame stiffness.
Best I can tell from the catalogs, my friend's RB-2 is from 1993. I'm
not sure what tubing it has, but it sure is fast, responsive and
sprightly on climbs, compared to my otherwise beloved Romulus. That
RB-2 scampers up hills and if you want to dart quickly in any
direction, whether on flats or hills, it goes there.
These days, is anyone making any frameset comparable in tubing gauge
and geometry to the RB-1 at any price point?
-Aaron
Fortunately these bikes are pretty easy to come by on CL, eBay, garage sales, on mailing lists like iBOB, or even in thrift stores. Unfortunately their prices have become a little inflated due to the fixie trend, but you can still find good deals. The other alternative is to go custom: framebuilders can still buy non-OS lugs and tubesets no problem, and it's easy enough to find one who doesn't mind building non-OS.
Murray
Victoria, BC
Lesli
understanding is that Mark is going to continue to build for Riv and
that they're going to be bringing on a second builder.
Wonder what the waitlist looks like?
LL
Dan
mean Mark left so Curt is on his own now building Riv customs or it
could me that Curt stopped building Riv Customs to concentrate on his
own bikes.
Steve Palincsar
> I wasn't sure what was meant by "Curt is on his own now." It could
> mean Mark left so Curt is on his own now building Riv customs or it
> could me that Curt stopped building Riv Customs to concentrate on his
> own bikes.
>
The latter.
Bill Connell
I agree with Dan; it's ambiguously worded, it could really mean either
one. Guess i should have asked Curt when i passed him on the way to
work earlier this week.
Brad
an vested interested as I am "on the list".
Brad
Philip Williamson
Especially in light of the "doesn't want his own brand" mini-rant that follows. It's Grant, so it's rant-lite, but still.
Try shouting "hey, Curt, where's my Riv?!" See what he does.
Philip
