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.

Reply via email to