I think one of the critical questions that wasn't asked during the rSogn design dicussion (IRRC, as the discussions were pulled down), is "why change the Sogn?" That being said, the new bike sounds really cool.
I've sat at two dinners where it was discussed how people have broken their standard-diameter tubed frames off-road. With a standard- diamter Ebisu on the way, I took note. Even Grant warns against some rough riding on the OS Roadeo (and Riv always overbuilds in terms of strength). There's a reason, I think, why the Bomba has that cross-tube. The last thing you want to think off-road is that something may break and you've got a 5 hour hike to the next water. On Dec 17, 7:56 pm, John Speare <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Esteban <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Remember when the original Sogn came out, right around the same time > > as the Bombadil? There was some discussion that the Sogn is what "riv > > should have made," with its clearance for Neo Motos and evocative of > > the XO-1. But on a Riv, a lugged bottom bracket limits tire > > clearance, so we get the Bomba maxing out at Quasi-moto and one very > > strange much-discussed custom at the SDCBS with a fillet-brazed bb > > with seemingly oodles of clearance, rejected by its owner, > > graciousness form Grant, and a repaint that was the bicycle version of > > a director taking his name off the credits of a film. Whoever ended > > up with that one is stoked. > > > The Bombadil is an absolute winner. In my mind, the gold-standard for > > do-everthing-adventure-tour-commuting hauler. I'm not gonna speculate > > why Rawland walked away from the original design, which Mr. Pacenti > > had a strong hand in. Besides single-eyelet front forks, there were > > no flaws that I've ever experienced (or heard of) on the original > > Sogn. It rides like a gun - true fun. > > I really like the Sogn. It's been nothing but fun since I got it. I've > not ridden a Bombadil, but my guess is that it rides like a Riv -- > I've owned an Atlantis and a QB and they were both great stable, low > bb, high trial machines. I can't get the double top tube thing to work > for me though and I don't care about lugs as much as I used to... so > I'll likely not go after a Bombadil. > > > > > I think a lot of folks bought it as an extra bike to build a truly-all > > surface all-rounder. When the frame came to my door for $400, I was > > able to hang nice parts on it. But there were no flaws - and I've > > spoken with other people who got the "flawed" powdercoat frames and > > found no issues whatsoever. It will be one of those industry > > mysteries. Perhaps those who paid the original $700 might be more > > troubled. They still got a rad bike - more versatile than anything > > else non-custom out there. > > I have one of the $500/flawed powder coat Rawland frames -- and I > agree, it's a rad bike. With Noodles and Quasi-motos I can't believe > how much fun I've had on this bike. The more lively front end makes > for a great roady-type feeling and handles wonderfully for me on > trails. I can always amaze my mountain bikey friends by turning on a > tiny radius with the Rawland -- something that's really hard on a > typical slack/low rake mountain bike. > > > > > I participated in the rSogn development, which was fun, although > > rather confusing at times and things seemed to change (and keep > > changing). When it came down to it, I liked this red one just fine > > and it takes singletrack like its on rails with the high-trail > > design. > > The original Sogn? I think I'd call that more mid-trail. It's more > around 55 isn't it? with Quais's? -- and takes inputs more like a road > bike, whcih is why I love it so much. You can correct in mid-turn and > live to tell the tale. > > For me, I didn't ultimately see a need to go for the new > > > one. I hope it turns out to be a great bike. I'm not saying this > > because I'm selling it - I'd be happy to keep the bike (this also > > seems to be common among people who've got the red Rawlands). > > The proposed rSogn is a bit different, but the differences are in very > critical areas, IMO. The current/red Rawland is a great bike, but it's > hugely honking on the OS steel side of things. Way over built. Which > is great for abusing and mountain biking, but I'd argue that it's over > built for most uses. > > The rSogn will use standard diameter/gauge tubing and will be better > suited for more traditional rando riding than trail/tough stuff > riding, though it would handle that kind of riding fine too I'm sure. > The "standard" set up is also specifically low trail/front load > design. There's a lot to like about the new design and if I didn't > have a bike nearly identical to the proposed rSogn, I'd be all over > it. > > > > > As I've been discussing with friends, bikes are bad investments - they > > are only worth 1) what you get out of riding it; 2) what someone will > > pay for it. > > Totally agree. Bikes are only investments in how they provide > value/happiness for the buyer. I always loose my shirt on every single > bike thing I sell. I guess that's why I have a garage full of bike > stuff. > > -- > John Speare > Spokane, WA USAhttp://cyclingspokane.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.
