My T-shirt says "Still Lugged Steel. Vindication will come. Just you wait." The answer to your question "don't you think Riv/Grant could do a really good job on a tigged frame?" is of course "Yes, they could". The follow on is "Why?". They have developed a niche market that they understand and serve well. The notion of "sell more bikes, make more money" isn't necessarily true. The bicycle business (Shimano excepted) is a tough place for anyone to make money. Differentiating yourself from the broader market (lugged frames) and selling to a smaller but more appreciative clientele (us) is highly effective. Bankruptcy courts are crowded with the bones of small companies that felt they had to grow too fast. My sense is they've got a decent small business going, they know what they're doing, and they've got a very clear identity in the market. Sometimes the best decision is to stick to what you do well and keep doing it.
dougP On Dec 10, 4:16 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I have a 1996 All Rounder (lugged), a ~1995 Ritchey (fillet > brazed) and a 1998 Gunnar Crosshairs (TIG). Two of the three were > made in Waterford WI. > > The Gunnar rides great. Handles superbly, light, stiff enough > (Reynolds 853 in those days). But it doesn't inspire. It's the > utility bike, the one I put in the trunk when I take a trip > somewhere, the one I ride in iffy weather but it's only the bike of > choice when I intend to ride a lot off road. I don't go down to the > basement and say "I want to ride the Gunnar." I go downstairs and > say "I want to ride the Riv" or "I want to ride the Ritchey." > > Neither the Riv nor the Ritchey have a superior ride to the Gunnar. > They're not exactly the same but they're all very good. The Riv is > the most comfortable bike I have ever owned and is the most adaptable > bike I can imagine- it lives up to its name. It's been a mountain > bike, a commuter bike, a racing club training ride bike, a > randonneuse and it's done them all with aplomb. The Ritchey is > pretty comfortable and is the best-handling race bike I ever had, > better than any fancy Reparto Corsa Italian job or anything > specialized for racing. I think that bike around corners, I don't > steer it. The Gunnar sort of splits the difference between them and > handles particularly well off-road. > > But the Gunnar doesn't inspire and I think that is purely about > aesthetics. The undeniable craftsmanship of the Gunnar frame is very > evident. But TIG welds just don't move me the way a finely shaped > and filed lug does or the graceful curve of a fillet. Call me > shallow and vain, it'd be true enough, but the aesthetic of TIG > doesn't do it for me. I don't think it's a worse way to stick tubes > together from a mechanical perspective- TIG frames have proven to be > effective and durable. I don't look down on TIG frames- they just > don't make my heart sing. Obviously there are many people who feel > the opposite and more power to 'em. I'm delighted that choices > remain in the world of cycling and we can all pick up something that > stirs us and makes us chafe to get out for a ride. > > As for a TIG'd Rivendell... it would ride like a Riv. It would be > functionally the same as a Riv. But it wouldn't be a Riv IMHO. A > Riv to me is not defined by frame geometry or shellac or twine. It's > defined by the overall aesthetic as expressed through the details- > the curving shoreline, the cutouts, the bar height relative to the > saddle, the fat tires, etc. etc. > > YMMV. -- 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.
