I think there is less difference between Grant's ideas and *Bicycle Quarterly* than many surmise. We both want versatile and durable bikes that are fun to ride and look nice. Whether it's a fully integrated 650B randonneur bike or a Homer Hilsen, both machines allow you to ride in places where 99% of commercially available bikes will be compromised.
>From a technical perspective, I also agree more with Grant than most people realize. Grant's vision is a versatile, affordable bike, which can be modified to suit. If you want plastic fenders one year, wooden fenders the next, a front rack today and a rear rack tomorrow, then Grant's designs provide a platform that can handle it all. It's sort of like a separate-frame 1950s car, which can be equipped with a sports car body, a convertible body, a sedan body or a pickup body, all on the same chassis. Grant's bikes can do that. They can be ridden by a variety of riders, equipped with a variety of tire sizes. They are a modular platform for experimentation. They don't lock you into a single way of riding, like a narrow-tire racing bike would. Compared to the 1950s car, a modern car's body is load-bearing, so you can't change it easily. The suspension is designed for a certain tire size, so you shouldn't put on wider tires or bigger wheels without changing the setup. Even the seats are specific, and putting in different ones would be difficult. The fully integrated constructeur bike is similar. It is optimized for a certain rider, a certain tire size, a certain load and even a certain fender style. The integrated design still can be very versatile – you can take a modern BMW M3 on a race track or commute in it to work. Our second tester Mark has ridden his 650B randonneur bike in brevets, commuting, in pacelines with racers, and on camping tours. The difference is that you achieve that versatility within its original design. Mark's bike works well with a handlebar bag and front low-riders, but a rear rack would not work well at all. His bike handles with precision under a rider who has a light touch on the handlebars, but would not work for somebody who grips the bars with more force. Its geometry is optimized for 40 mm tires, but with 32s, it wouldn't be so much fun. On the plus side, its performance is superior to that of the "adaptable" design, which by definition cannot be optimized for a single setup. On the down side, a constructeur bike is much more expensive, because everything has to be designed specifically for the bike. So it's really about choice: If you want something that is affordable and can grow with you as you experiment with new ways of riding and new ways of setting up your bike, then a Rivendell is an excellent choice. If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without equal. Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
