Gunnar bike for touring



"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>>qualities.
>>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
>>hurt
>>them now.
>
> A couple random thoughts on the above...
>
> First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)

The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.

> Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> spec easily.
>
Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
sell.
 
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
> > ...
> > Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> > hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> > companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
> > is doubtful. I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> > bikes/century bikes....
>
> A whole lot more sensible idea than buying a bicycle optimized for road
> racing for general use.
>
>
Amen to that.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > SMS wrote:
> >> landotter wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> >> > also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> >> > folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> >> > even tour, by gosh.
> >>
> >> I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
> >> how good it is.
> >>
> >> On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids,
> >> and a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG
> >> BLT. She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come
> >> on my very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata
> >> 610. She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's
> >> BLT, he had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the
> >> bike.
> >>
> >> If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> >> Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> >> model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> >> Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> >> off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
> >
> > Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> > for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> > lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> > then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> > in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> > for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> > to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> > New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> > and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> > more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> > sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> > Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Why would you do all that? Nothing wrong with an 18 speed bike. Nothing
> wrong with friction shifting, or barcons even.

I distinctly did not get the impression the OP was looking for a retro
bike. Maybe he should spend more time at Rivendell University, eh?

And, friction DT shifting with a 6SP rear *does* have some serious
drawbacks for loaded touring compared to, for example, an 8SP triple
with indexed barcons. IMO, YMMV, etc., etc., etc.


> The only reason to replace
> the BB or headset is if they're shot.

On a ~20 year old bike, that's fairly likely unless the bike has low
mileage and was stored in a nice environment.



> Now, if the bike has 27 inch wheels
> that could be a bit of a problem on a tour, but most bikes of that era are
> convertible to 700c.

This is especially a problem with canti equipped frames.


> Now, there's nothing wrong with the Windsor Tourist.
> It's a heck of a deal, but I think too many people are convinced they must
> have the "latest and greatest". Bah.
>

I'm not a "latest and greatest" type (my "newest" bike, at present, was
made in 1991). And I prefer barcons to brifters, etc.

The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
solution for the OP.
 
Gooserider wrote:

> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
> is doubtful.

Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
the term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually
wen touring.

IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
with triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction
for riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't
able to do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500
with lower gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake),
then I changed it to a triple at considerable expense.

> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> bikes/century bikes.

That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
actually selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
manufacturer's web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a
better direction to take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to
expand nationwide?

> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities.
> It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt
> them now.

That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >>qualities.
> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> >>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
> >>hurt
> >>them now.
> >
> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >
> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>
> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> > spec easily.
> >
> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
> sell.

An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)

Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
sales pitch.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> solution for the OP.

No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
 
SMS wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> > solution for the OP.
>
> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.

There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
better, cult following aside?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
>>> solution for the OP.
>> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
>
> There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
> better, cult following aside?

Better assembled for one thing. There have been numerous reports of
bicycles from BikesDirect needing significant amounts of work, i.e.
wheel truing. Also, I think the Surly will probably have a higher level
of componentry than the Windsor, though this remains to be seen.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.

In general racing bikes (of any material) are supposed to feel stiff so
it's not surprising that they are designed with a geometry that makes
that happen. But remember that the earlier reputation of aluminum used
in bikes like the Vitus was that it was comfortable but excessively
flexible - what matters is primarily the design, not the material
(within limits).
>
> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> > spec easily.
> >
> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows.

And they probably switched from 20 x 700C tires to 35 x 650B ones - of
course they feel softer. But touring bikes are generally designed to
take wide tires anyway so you may as well make them use a size that's
readily available in a range of widths. Use the 35 x 700C (or even
wider) when you want the 'marshmallow' feel or put on some narrower
tires when you'd prefer a somewhat harsher but more responsive feel.

If everything else (incl. tire width) is equal then, as Mark said, the
larger diameter wheel will give a smoother ride. I use a wider tire in
my 20" wheel Bike Friday than I do on my 700C bikes to help compensate
for the smaller diameter.

> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
> sell.

I'd think that most people looking at either touring or
commuting/utility cycling would want a tire size that's readily
available. The mountain bike 26" size fits that bill and can be
obtained in a huge variety of widths and tread types.
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>> >>qualities.
>> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>> >>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
>> >>hurt
>> >>them now.
>> >
>> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
>> >
>> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
>> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
>> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>>
>> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
>> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
>> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>>
>> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
>> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
>> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
>> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
>> > spec easily.
>> >
>> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
>> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little bumps.
>> ,
>> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
>> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
>> easier
>> sell.
>
> An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
>
> Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> sales pitch.

MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all sorts.
650B could easily find a market just as all those others. Nothing
complicated about it. There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
before----remember 27 inch wheels?
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
>> hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
>> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
>> them is doubtful.
>
> Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before the
> term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> touring.
>
> IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard with
> triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able to
> do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with lower
> gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I changed
> it to a triple at considerable expense.
>
>> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
>> bikes/century bikes.
>
> That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and actually
> selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the manufacturer's
> web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction to
> take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
>
>> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
>> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot of
>> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't matter
>> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on marshmallows. Could
>> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
>
> That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.

Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >> >>qualities.
> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> >> >>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
> >> >>hurt
> >> >>them now.
> >> >
> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >> >
> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >>
> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> >> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
> >>
> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> >> > spec easily.
> >> >
> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> >> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little bumps.
> >> ,
> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
> >> easier
> >> sell.
> >
> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
> >
> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> > sales pitch.
>
> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all sorts.
> 650B could easily find a market just as all those others. Nothing
> complicated about it.

Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)


>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
> before----remember 27 inch wheels?

Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
bound to fade.

As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
more so than 27"/630 wheels.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >
> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> >> hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
> >> them is doubtful.
> >
> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before the
> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> > touring.
> >
> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard with
> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able to
> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with lower
> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I changed
> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
> >
> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> >> bikes/century bikes.
> >
> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and actually
> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the manufacturer's
> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction to
> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
> >
> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot of
> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't matter
> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on marshmallows. Could
> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
> >
> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
>
> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.

Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
nearly extinct rim standards.
 
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:08:38 -0800, Sheldon Brown wrote:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>> Sheldon, I was referring to the suitability of a Miyata 1000 for the
>> OPs needs. Spending $150-200 (plus shipping) for a bike, stripping it
>> down to frame/fork, having the frame re-spaced at a shop and then
>> fitting it with a modern drive train, etc., sounds a bit over the top
>> for his wants/needs.

> Well, I haven't read all of this thread, but the first posting talks
> about getting a custom Gunnar frame and fork, which would cost well over
> a grand.
>
> Compare that to $150-200 for an equally good and prettier frame from
> Miyata.
>
> I specifically suggested re-spacing it as a DIY activity, though it
> shouldn't cost more than US$30-50 at a shop. Still a lot cheaper than
> the Gunnar.

We should all be so lucky to have shops like yours in our neighborhoods.

In my experience, very few shops are inclined to do this kind of work
anymore, and the ones willing to try (usually the hungrier ones, and for
good reason) are not the ones that I'd trust. Most would be happier
ordering a new Surly or whatever for you.

I'm completely with you on the DIY recycled bike approach though.

Matt O.
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Gooserider wrote:
>> >> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>> >> >>qualities.
>> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding
>> >> >>on
>> >> >>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race
>> >> >>bikes
>> >> >>hurt
>> >> >>them now.
>> >> >
>> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
>> >> >
>> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
>> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
>> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>> >>
>> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
>> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're
>> >> an
>> >> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>> >>
>> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
>> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
>> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
>> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in
>> >> > either
>> >> > spec easily.
>> >> >
>> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the
>> >> same
>> >> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little
>> >> bumps.
>> >> ,
>> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for
>> >> smaller
>> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
>> >> easier
>> >> sell.
>> >
>> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
>> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
>> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
>> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
>> >
>> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
>> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
>> > sales pitch.
>>
>> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
>> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all
>> sorts.
>> 650B could easily find a market just as all those others. Nothing
>> complicated about it.
>
> Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
> the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
> wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)
>
>
650B makes more sense than track bikes, for sure. You seem to think that
650B is some elitist thing---but you can get a Kogswell P/R frameset(with
fenders, seatpost, and headset) for $540. Not exactly spendy. QBP offers
prebuilt wheels, too.


>>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
>> before----remember 27 inch wheels?
>
> Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
> bound to fade.
>
> As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
> the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
> more so than 27"/630 wheels.

650B never really had a shot here.
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Gooserider wrote:
>> >
>> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
>> >> hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
>> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
>> >> them is doubtful.
>> >
>> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
>> > the
>> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
>> > touring.
>> >
>> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
>> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
>> > with
>> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
>> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able
>> > to
>> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with
>> > lower
>> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I
>> > changed
>> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
>> >
>> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
>> >> bikes/century bikes.
>> >
>> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
>> > actually
>> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
>> > manufacturer's
>> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction
>> > to
>> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
>> >
>> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
>> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot
>> >> of
>> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't
>> >> matter
>> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on marshmallows.
>> >> Could
>> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
>> >
>> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
>>
>> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
>
> Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
> nearly extinct rim standards.

Not on smaller frame sizes, unless you want to run 559s.
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> >> >> hipsters(a market Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> >> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
> >> >> them is doubtful.
> >> >
> >> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
> >> > the
> >> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> >> > touring.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> >> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
> >> > with
> >> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> >> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able
> >> > to
> >> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with
> >> > lower
> >> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I
> >> > changed
> >> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
> >> >
> >> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> >> >> bikes/century bikes.
> >> >
> >> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
> >> > actually
> >> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
> >> > manufacturer's
> >> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction
> >> > to
> >> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
> >> >
> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
> >> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't
> >> >> matter
> >> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on marshmallows.
> >> >> Could
> >> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
> >> >
> >> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
> >>
> >> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
> > nearly extinct rim standards.
>
> Not on smaller frame sizes, unless you want to run 559s.

Sure, that's true. But *why not* use 559s? Tire and rim selection is
wide and widely available.

IMO, 650B is just another marketing niche being mined by Rivendell.
("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
shop.)
 
Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> >> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> > "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >> >> >>qualities.
> >> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding
> >> >> >>on
> >> >> >>marshmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race
> >> >> >>bikes
> >> >> >>hurt
> >> >> >>them now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> >> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> >> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> >> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're
> >> >> an
> >> >> expert, Mark, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> >> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> >> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> >> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in
> >> >> > either
> >> >> > spec easily.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the
> >> >> same
> >> >> thing---"Like riding on fast marshmallows. Don't even feel little
> >> >> bumps.
> >> >> ,
> >> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for
> >> >> smaller
> >> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
> >> >> easier
> >> >> sell.
> >> >
> >> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> >> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> >> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> >> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> >> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> >> > sales pitch.
> >>
> >> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
> >> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all
> >> sorts.
> >> 650B could easily find a market just as all those others. Nothing
> >> complicated about it.
> >
> > Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
> > the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
> > wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)
> >
> >
> 650B makes more sense than track bikes, for sure. You seem to think that
> 650B is some elitist thing---

Mr. Peterson invoked the term "elite", not me.


>but you can get a Kogswell P/R frameset(with
> fenders, seatpost, and headset) for $540. Not exactly spendy. QBP offers
> prebuilt wheels, too.
>
>
> >>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
> >> before----remember 27 inch wheels?
> >
> > Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
> > bound to fade.
> >
> > As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
> > the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
> > more so than 27"/630 wheels.
>
> 650B never really had a shot here.

Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
the marketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to market 650B here, too.
Another flop.

My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche market. And for what?
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> http://www.habcycles.com ...

According to Mark's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
(e.g. aluminium).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >
> > http://www.habcycles.com ...
>
> According to Mark's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
> Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
> NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
> 6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
> (e.g. aluminium).
>

Oh, brother.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Steel Frames: Surly, Gunnar, Soma
Replies
8
Views
848
Road Cycling
Jack Murphy
J
L
Wax your Gunnar tomorrow
Replies
0
Views
463
Cycling Equipment
landotter
L
G
Pics of my Gunnar Sport
Replies
16
Views
601
Road Cycling
Matt O'Toole
M
W
Gunnar question for A. Muzi at Yellow Jersey or others with Surgio crank
Replies
5
Views
944
Cycling Equipment
Paul Kopit
P
G
Check it out---glow in the dark Gunnar!
Replies
2
Views
422
Road Cycling
Gooserider
G
kbone
Steel Frame Advice - Gunnar Hot Dog vs. Cervelo Prodigy
Replies
6
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
John M
John M
red_cdale
Soma Double Cross vs Gunnar Cross Hair
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
red_cdale
red_cdale
N
Re: Custom Gunnar Upcharge?
Replies
0
Views
459
Cycling Equipment
Neil Brooks
N
ilovestacy
gunnar or burley
Replies
9
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
ebg 1.8T
ebg 1.8T
K
Gunnar Rock Hound
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
kokopuffs
K
Top Bottom Back