I went mountain-biking today on my curved-fork MB-4. (I could never adjust to a straight fork.) I received several friendly compliments from the large group that rode. "Cool, it's old-school." (It's not old-school, since I've had it since '91, and it was pretty new-school when I bought it.) It was called "a classic" and "vintage". That was all very nice, but I just find it strange, because to me, it is just my bike. When I bought it in 1991, I had read the Bridgestone catalog, and I wanted this MB-4 with its good geometry and Ritchey Logic tubes and reliable thumbshifters to just be good and to last. And now it's 2008, and the bike has been everything I hoped for - it's great and long-lasting. Yet, those are the qualities that get it branded as old-school or retro in 2008. People's attitudes about consumer products are weird and full of contradictions.
Or is that people are not satisfied unless, in the back of their mind, they know that the stuff they buy will have to be shoved aside and replaced soon? Well, to bring this post on-topic, I'd be very excited about a Rivendell mountain bike that reproduced the 1991 Bridgestone MB-4 - an affordable and relatively light lugged steel mountain bike that has the best behavior for steep climbing on dirt of any bike I've ever ridden. Of course, I wish this for the benefit of others, because I hope not to replace my own MB-4. http://sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1991/pages/bridgestone-1991-16.htm -Jim p.s. This morning's ride was to celebrate the opening of a bike shop, a Specialized Concept shop, so Ned Overend was on the ride with about 22 people. I know I was the only one with a steel bike and rigid fork and thumbshifters, and I believe I was the only one without full suspension. Someone was taking photos, and I really hope my purple (I've had it painted) MB-4 gets in the local paper "accidentally" positioned right behind Ned. On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:34 PM, tarik saleh wrote: > > ActuallyI was going to pull up a photo of a retrotech for exactly what > I would buy instead of a bombadil, but the pereira popped up on flickr > as I went to go look for a picture and that bike was far more riv like > than the retrotechs. I have no issues with straight forks. I think > curved forks look exceptionally dumb on mountainbikes, but that is > just me. > > > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, David Estes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Nice... Beautiful fork crown! >> >> I've been eying the Retrotec, but can't quite get past straight fork >> blades... >> >> http://flickr.com/groups/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pool/ >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM, tarik saleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM, David Estes >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> Basically it's between the Bombadil and Rawland models. If you >>>> want the >>>> fatties (which I would/do) you have to go w/ Rawland... >>>> >>> >>> David, >>> Yep, I agree. Here is how I would fix the bombadil: >>> http://flickr.com/photos/pereiracycles/3049901395/ >>> >>> Tarik >>> >>> -- >>> Tarik Saleh >>> tas at tariksaleh dot com >>> in los alamos, po box 208, 87544 >>> http://tariksaleh.com >>> all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> David >> Redlands, CA >> >>> >> > > > > -- > Tarik Saleh > tas at tariksaleh dot com > in los alamos, po box 208, 87544 > http://tariksaleh.com > all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
