I've often thought that Grant and other designer/builders often create bikes based on their own favored or available riding areas and climates. My own riding is nearly 99% on pavement and rarely do I venture off road. Even so, I enjoy my wide tires and long wheelbases with room for fenders and racks. Living here in Washington State makes me aware of proper fenders and clothing for wet weather. It does me little good to hear of how great certain clothing performs in mild California when I live in a state where you can take a shower out in the rain on a warm day, literally. My own terrain is very hilly as I live in the foothills of Mount Rainier so I definitely need a bike with a wide range of gearing and the ability to climb well. I could care less how light a bike is to a point as I am more concerned with durability and longevity. Being a "clyde" I need a frame that will take my weight and not flex too much, causing ghost shifting or cracking. In fact, I'd rather see a little room for rust to form and still have a decent tube thickness left over for safety. Thank God they aren't salting the roads in winter up here......yet!!! I suppose if I lived in Belgium and had to ride on cobblestone every day I'd want a bike with suspension and wide tires. I've noticed that some of the builders in my area make commuter style bikes with all the normal trimmings as Grant does but they substitute disc brakes because of the wet weather. If you try to ride year round in city traffic in this climate you'll soon grind your expensive rims into concave death traps. Its very interesting to hear of other riders wishes regarding bike designs and why they need/want certain features.
On Jan 18, 7:10 pm, Andrew Karre <andrew.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the next big contribution BQ could make to the cycling > discourse is to delve into the "local" aspects of frame and bicycle > design. I don't have any experience or evidence to back this up, but > might it be the case that the terrain for which Singer, Herse, et. al. > were designing their bikes was more homogeneous than what the BQ > readership encounters? Correct me if I'm wrong. I know France has > diverse weather, roads, and topography, but did the constructeurs' > designs and the routes of the tech trials reflect this? > > For my part, I read every BQ article with great fascination, but when > Jan talks cornering performance, for instance, it just doesn't have a > lot of resonance for me as a brevet rider in Minnesota, where the > majority of corners are flat 90s amongst corn fields (Tim's evil > Wisconsin route excepted). Show me a bike with geometry optimized for > wind, and we'll talk. Similarly, his Gran Bois urban bike, while very > interesting, would be of dubious utility five months of the year here. > And then there's the discussion of clothing. I commute by bike year > round in the Twin Cities so I think I have some authority on this, > given our 120 degree temperature range, and I can say I have never > learned anything useful about winter riding from Grant or Jan. My > point isn't that their advice is bad--not at all; it's quite good, I > imagine. It just doesn't scale to Minnesota conditions, just as our > choices don't make any sense in the Southwest, etc (where they must > wonder why we're all so obsessed with good fenders). > > It seems to me like frame building and bicycle design should be > encouraged to evolve regionally--not just out of a desire to support > the home team, but out of a desire to ride truly optimized bicycles. > This is exactly what doesn't happen with mass produced bicycles (all > bikes are optimized for crits or the Tour or both), so BQ would be > increasing its already good works by taking on this issue. > > On Jan 18, 5:59 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:04 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > >> Curious, since, among the more mass marketed race-style bikes, > > >> stiffness (especially in the BB area) is one of the primary selling > > >> points. > > > > Right. I've seen comments like "it's impossible to have too much > > > stiffness" and stiffness has been one of the big selling points since > > > the 1970s. One of the biggest contributions BQ has made, I think, has > > > been to call this into question. > > > And it's a good assumption to question. Stiffer = better is an > > article of faith and seeming common sense, but there's not really > > much data to support it. Sean Kelly's favorite racing bike was the > > Vitus 979; he won hundreds of pro bike races on those. If more > > flexible = worse, he'd have been losing those races and would have > > switched to a different frame. But it seems to me that there's an > > equal danger in going with the other article of faith, that frame > > flex and "planing" (I really wish he'd picked a more suitable > > metaphor) is a benefit. > > > The main difference that I can tell between the various standard and > > OS tubed bikes I've ridden over the years is that my OS frames don't > > have as much derailleur rub and ghost shifting. My stiffest bike (a > > Ritchey) is also the best climbing bike I have ever ridden, just the > > opposite of Jan's experiences and Steve's. It is probably a matter > > of "horses for courses." What works well for me might be execrable > > to the next person. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
