What if, as an experienced rider, what you want is something that you can 
easily modify over time, because you've been riding long enough to know 
that your riding changes over the days/years/decades, your body changes, 
and furthermore your bike is just as likely to be ridden on rocky/root 
laden singletrack as on pavement, even on the way to work?

Anyway I agree with what others have pointed out;  most of us agree on far 
more than this thread would indicate (or we wouldn't be reading the RBWOB 
list).     Count me among those who are just glad that we have both Jan and 
Grant's contributions to the current world of bicycling.    Compared to 
mainstream of the past, they are WAY more similar than is worth arguing 
about.   BQ is an awesome rag.

Now, I'd like to propose a new rule for these kinds of threads, though I 
know it would be ignored anyway:  no more comparisons between flavors of 
automobiles and flavors of bicycles.   At best it's a ruthlessly overworked 
simile, at worst it's just a bummer.


Matt


On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:30:34 PM UTC-4, Jan Heine wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:15:52 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, 
>> this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want 
>> to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred 
>> types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and 
>> money to get what they really want. Not proven!
>>
>> I am sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say is this: 
> If you know what you want, then a bike optimized specifically for your 
> preferences will usually be superior to a "jack-of-all-trades" that is 
> designed to work with many configurations.
>
> What that configuration is depends on the rider and their preferences. For 
> example, if you ride a lot out of the saddle, a front load usually is 
> superior as it doesn't have the "tail wagging the dog" feel. If you like to 
> ride no-hands at relatively low speeds, a rear load is better, because a 
> front load needs a certain speed to become stable no-hands. And then there 
> are simply preferences of what you like a bike to feel like.
>
> 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
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.


Reply via email to