I agree that quill stems are a niche that Riv fills, more or less exclusively, which is no small thing. Obviously, the quill stem has a modest-sized but loyal following, and Grant would be smart to keep filling this niche, as long as it exists, all by himself.
On the other hand, think about demographics. I'm 35 - most cyclists my age or younger have little or no nostalgia for quill stems and threaded steerers, and, in fact, may think a quill looks funny or archaic compared to more familiar threadless systems. If you're over 50, then you probably came of age as a cyclist in the quill stem era, and are not planning to change. But if you're over 50, your bike purchases are likely to slow down in the next 10-20 years, if they haven't already, while people my age and younger are just ramping up the new bike spending. Obviously, this is loose speculation, and individual situations vary. But I think it's safe to say that the number of people who prefer quill stems, and are willing to pay extra to get a frame that takes a quill stem, is shrinking, not growing/stabilizing. I have no stats to back this up, just a limited view from my own knothole. Of course, Riv already makes a bunch of frame models that take a quill stem. If one frame model out of eight stepped outside the lines a bit, in the interest of cutting costs, making the frame sturdier without a double top tube, and being more accommodating to a much wider variety of contemporary stems, bars, and headsets (more versatility!), I imagine that the result would be broader appeal and new customers. That particular model with the (for example) disc tabs and 1-1/8" threadless steerer might not be the "retro-grouch" ideal of many on this discussion board, but there are lots of other options for the purists. And there's no reason whatsoever that such a frame couldn't adhere to underlying principles, like good tire/fender clearance, higher handlebars (it can be done with good design in a non-ugly way), and, of course, lovely lugged steel with a cool paintjob. I started following Riv when there were basically two models: the heavy duty Atlantis, and the lightweight Rambouillet/Romulus/Redwood. It seemed easy to distinguish the two, and I had one of each for awhile. I have enjoyed seeing the proliferation of new models, but frankly, it starts to get a little bewildering to me - imagine how the casual observer must feel when trying to make sense of it! The Hillborne was supposed to be a halfway compromise of the Atlantis and the Hilsen, I think, but those two models weren't altogether dissimilar in terms of tire clearance and general capabilities (the Hilsen moniker replaced the Saluki which was billed as partway between Atlantis and Rambouillet). The Bombadil is the new heavy-duty workhorse offroader (which was the Atlantis role, previously), but the Hunqapillar splits the difference between that and the Atlantis. Do I have that right? How much difference is there to split? There have been discussions of what sets the Roadeo apart from the Hilsen, but it seems the differences are minor. It gets hard to see where one model stops and the next begins. Now to add yet another heavy-duty touring bike to the mix? Is there really a hungry market for a slightly less fancy version of the Hunqapillar that won't cannibalize Hunqapillar sales? Or should this new "budget" model be a substantially different bike that reaches out to a whole new crowd without competing with existing models? I'm sorry for rambling about all this. Sometimes it rubs people the wrong way that I say stuff that isn't 100% Riv cheerleading (I've been told by two other list participants to put a cork in it over the years), but I'm not trying to damage Riv or criticize anybody for liking what he or she likes. I enjoy the sharing of different ideas. Amazing that there's so much to discuss (ad nauseum) about these machines! On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:25:54 PM UTC-5, ted wrote: > > It may be a cost saver as you suspect, but I hope they never go that > route. > I value the easy upping and downing of a quill stem, and not being > bound to earlier choices by having cut a threadless steerer tube. > Threaded forks and quill stems are one of the differentiators that > make RBW a company I am glad is in business. > Other companies are already making good bikes at lower price points, > so if you want to choose a bike made with some more economical methods > (e.g. threadless, tig welded, ...) choose one of them and be happy. > (naturally we are overlooking the threadless option on the Rodeo, > which seems to be a rare concession to gram counters, inner racer > aversion to otherness, and broader selection of available stems) > > I don't mean to be scolding. I just like what RBW does, and I would > rather they stay with it than get more like other companies. > > On Sep 6, 4:45 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I have been scolded for discussing such heresy in the past, but the most > > obvious cost savings I can think of for Riv frames would be to switch > from > > threaded to threadless steerers. With threadless, one fork fits all > frames. > > With threaded, each frame size takes a different fork. This means extra > > forks must be stocked in each size for warranty replacements, etc, plus, > I > > assume, making 4 or 5 different forks in smaller quantities is more > > expensive than making one fork in a larger quantity. Obviously, I don't > > know how the threaded-fork penalty compares to the other costs in frame > > production, but I wouldn't be surprised if it adds $100+ to each > frameset > > at the retail level. I don't have experience with 2TT or diagonal tube > > frames, but I do have experience to suggest a 1-1/8" threadless system > > feels MUCH sturdier under load than does a bike with a 1" threaded > system > > on otherwise similar frames. > > > > As for disc brakes, I prefer the way hydraulics feel and self-adjust, > but > > sometimes sacrificing the drop bar is too much, so I go mechanical. The > > good ones all work, when set up properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:29:35 PM UTC-5, dougP wrote: > > > > > This thread started out talking about a "budget Riv...". I realize > > > it's hard to see how a few extra tabs, etc., to handle discs could > > > impact the cost too much, and of course Rivs come with plenty of ways > > > to hang on racks & fenders. However, I heard Dave Moulton speak > > > (years ago when he was still building frames) and he made the point > > > that it was difficult to justify to his customers the additional cost > > > for adding various eyelets, rack mounts, etc., that tourists demand & > > > racers don't. More fiddly bits can really up the cost a surprising > > > amount. > > > > > If Grant decided to add disc brake fittings, I would expect it to be > > > on the $2,000 frames, esp. the Atlantis & Bombadil. I've only ridden > > > disc braked bikes a couple of times and was impressed. My Atlantis > > > now has V-brakes (replaced Tektro 720 cantis) which I like a lot but > > > would go for a disc brake option. Braking changes a lot when you load > > > up the bike with its own weight & go whistling down long hills. > > > > > Of course, Riv went thru a big inventory reduction end of last year, > > > so I wouldn't look for them to embrace stocking yet another kind of > > > hub, brake, levers, etc., plus the frame redesign work to offer > > > discs. In any case, it's always fun to speculate The Next Big > > > Thing. > > > > > dougP > > > > > On Sep 6, 10:29 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > It's certainly true that there's seldom, if ever, a "screaming need > for > > > > discs". But we're pretty far down the road past "screaming need" for > ANY > > > of > > > > the gadgetry we chat about in this forum. I personally know a number > of > > > > people who do not consider worthwhile any bike innovation that isn't > > > > included on a 1950s English 3sp. I've ridden old 3-speeds plenty, > and I > > > see > > > > the charm, but occasionally I think the technologies developed over > the > > > > ensuing half-century have earned a place in my 21st Century > > > bicycle-centric > > > > life. > > > > > > IMO, a sturdy, fat-tire Riv with capability to handle BOTH > > > > cantilevers/v-brakes and discs would be a neat thing - sort of a > > > prettier > > > > functional-equivalent to the Surly Troll or Ogre. I think it would > > > broaden > > > > the appeal to potential customers who appreciate Riv's aesthetic > > > stylings > > > > and general approach, but aren't committed to using the same types > of > > > parts > > > > mountain bikers were stuck with 25 years ago. Obviously, the true > retro > > > > connoisseurs will scoff at the superfluous disc brake tabs they'd > never > > > use > > > > in a million years, but the scoffers will be offset by those who'll > > > embrace > > > > the added versatility. I count myself among the "embracers of > > > versatility", > > > > by the way. > > > > > > I'm not saying disc brakes are 100% necessary at all, but some > > > concession > > > > to modernity and, more importantly, diversity in the product line, > would > > > > seem to be a good thing for Riv. Otherwise, it seems like we'll have > > > > another heavy-duty Riv frame that competes for the same seemingly > > > limited > > > > pool of customers who are considering the Atlantis, Hunqapillar, > > > Bombadil, > > > > Hillborne, etc. Something as simple as disc tabs would be a standout > > > among > > > > the excellent, but overlapping frames that are already available, > and > > > > would, I think, make a splash among a whole new pool of potential > > > customers. > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:04:45 PM UTC-5, Matthew J wrote: > > > > > > > Seems to me for a budget bike that is almost certainly would be > > > heavier > > > > > than the upmarket Rivs, discs will mean extra weight and expense > with > > > > > little benefit for most riders. > > > > > > > Most people ride on pavement or hard pack trails and then usually > when > > > the > > > > > weather is fine. In those conditions, decent rim brakes provide > all > > > the > > > > > stopping power any rider will ever need. Some ride on pavement in > > > inclement > > > > > weather where discs have some advantages over rims. But not so > much > > > that > > > > > there is a screaming need for discs. > > > > > > > Discs are markedly better off road and on long distance adventure > > > > > touring. Neither Riv's niche. > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:42:00 PM UTC-5, Jim Thill - > > > Hiawatha > > > > > Cyclery wrote: > > > > > > >> It seems moderately necessary to point out that there's nothing > > > specific > > > > >> to a frame that's made for hydraulic disc brakes that is > different > > > than on > > > > >> a frame made for cable disc brakes. Therefore, IF Riv makes a > bike > > > for disc > > > > >> brakes, which seems only a tiny bit likely IMO, there's no need > for > > > any of > > > > >> us to be forced into one type of brake or another. > > > > > > >> I like hydraulic brakes. I've been using several models of Avid > > > > >> hydraulics for about 3 years now, and I've never had one single > > > problem > > > > >> with them. They are, for all practical purposes, self-adjusting > and > > > never > > > > >> seem to make any superfluous noise. It is true, however, that > using > > > > >> hydraulic brakes does limit brake lever options. Think of the > > > hydraulic > > > > >> brake/lever as a single unit, rather than the mix and match > > > experience of > > > > >> cable-actuated systems. This is a mix-and-match-centric group, I > > > realize. > > > > > > >> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 9:37:17 PM UTC-5, Montclair BobbyB > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> Or hydraulic brakes... I've been riding both cable and hydraulic > > > disc > > > > >>> brakes for years, and I'm here to tell you, hydraulic Shimano's > (the > > > older > > > > >>> style) are the bee's knees... I've never had issues with busted > > > brake lines > > > > >>> or poor performance... They're easy to maintain and super > > > dependable, way > > > > >>> more dependable than rim brakes! And even the best-adjusted > > > cable-actuated > > > > >>> disc brakes can't come close to the hydraulics. The price has > come > > > way > > > > >>> down on hydraulic brakes... there are few reasons left to go > with > > > cable > > > > >>> discs... I've been running them on my mountain bikes for years > in > > > all kinds > > > > >>> of rought weather conditions (including ice and snow). THEY > STOP in > > > all > > > > >>> kinds of weather! > > > > > > >>> I'd love to see a disc version Rivendell...although I fear it > would > > > > >>> require a beefier fork (for the forces applied to the lower > section > > > of the > > > > >>> fork). This might be a challenge to make a beefier fork that > looks > > > > >>> elegant. Then again, I'll bet it's possible to preserve the > beauty > > > in a > > > > >>> disc version.. Wes Williams (for example) makes a beautifully > curved > > > 29er > > > > >>> disc fork (the Willits WOW). I love the look of rim brakes, > but > > > > >>> performance wise there's simply no contest between rim and disc > > > brakes. > > > > > > >>> Peace, > > > > >>> BB > > > > > > >>> On Monday, September 3, 2012 5:53:11 PM UTC-4, James Warren > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> I would like it if this bike were made ready for disc brakes. > > > > >>>> Mechanical ones.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > -- 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/-/P8M2bAG0GtwJ. 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.
