On Aug 8, 8:44 am, Kelly <tkslee...@gmail.com> wrote: > After reading the post by Jan my first > thought... (notice thought .. not accusation) was WOW I thought Jan and > Grant were friends I wonder why the attack on Rivendell. The seersucker > double top tube thing and oversized tubing wasn't whatever and rivendell > uses oversized tube so then.. etc.
Kelly, It was not my intention to "attack" Rivendell. Grant and I are friends. I rode a Rivendell for many years. I totally respect Grant's vision, and I think he has done many wonderful things for cycling. However, I think it is fair to say that his focus is not on performance. Some of Grant's bikes perform very well, but generally speaking, Grant is not all that concerned about it. For example, when he introduces a new feature, whether double top tubes or a mixte frame, he doesn't go out and test these features against a reference bike to see whether they are faster or slower. As I said, he isn't worried about that. He isn't doing those features to improve performance. I think that is a very valid viewpoint, and I agree with Grant that many riders would be better off if they worried less about speed and performance. (I once met at a restroom who was desperately trying to get her bike computer to work again. It seemed that without the computer, she could not continue her ride. I helped her align the sensor and magnet, and she was very grateful. I felt like saying to her: "Just Ride!") As valid as Grant's viewpoint is, I also think that there are other viewpoints that are equally valid. Some riders like to go fast. There is nothing wrong with that, either. There is a reason why I have retired my less-performing bikes - they weren't as much fun to ride. At Bicycle Quarterly, we've spent a lot of time to figure out what makes a bicycle fast. It's not that we are worried about speed - I don't even have a computer on my bike. It's just that when you are going fast, and the bike just flies and eggs you on to go faster and faster - for some riders, that is great fun. And faster tires, a frame that works perfectly with your pedal stroke, a riding position that allows you to maximize your power output, all contribute to making cycling more fun in that scenario. Currently, these two viewpoints often are seen as mutually exclusive. I would like to bridge the two. Racing has had bad influences on cycling, but competition also has moved cycling technology forward in many beneficial ways. Racing bikes may not be the ideal bikes for most riders, but a performance bike can take many elements from racing bikes, as well as others from sensible bikes, to create something that can bridge the gap for those riders who like to go fast, yet want a "sensible" bike. And for those who don't care about speed, there are other bikes. And for those who want to look like a pro racer, there are options, too. I don't think either is right or wrong - it all depends on your preferences. Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly http://www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.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 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.
