Bicycle Quarterly Reviews the Love #3

[Human Epic Jolt]

20 CM

i presume 20mm is meant here.

maybe we should switch to esperanto.

[henry g.]

sorry , just to be clear , what do you intend for lower trail bikes ? who are the pros that you mean ?
is really a 20 cm stem exists ?

Dario Pegoretti

Just dug out the article Winter 2008. The article actually compared bar width and front end geometry and wheel flop over several decades 30's, 40's until today. There are diagrams of bikes from a 1927 TdF bike to Coppi's 1949 Bianchi, and Merckx 1974 DeRosa. Seems (according to the article) trends in bar width generally matched trends in front end geometry. The conclusion if I take it correctly was that the wider bars currently used where a good match to current geometry.

[henry g.]

i presume 20mm is meant here.

maybe we should switch to esperanto.

Yes sorry for the typo.

[El Chaba]

I assume that you are asking this question to further the public discussion....because nobody knows more about randonneuring equipment than Peter weigle, andI am sure that you have had this discussion with him. I think that for most people today, the idea of a randonneur bike is appealing-not for the use in the events for which it was intended- but as a 'useful ownership' reason. For a well designed example-like something from Weigle or Goodrich- there is a certain appeal to having all of the accoutrements* custom made and permanently affixed to the bike in a way that clearly demonstartes craftsmanship and that somebody thought it out. This as opposed to bikes made for a similar purpose-such as a Rivendell..a company that openly advocates the use of zip ties As an aside on the subject of shit being attached to the bike with zip ties, bungee cords, masking tape, suction cups, etc....My uinderstanding of the bike genre is that there was a day when people used to show up at the events with said shit (lights, fenders etc) tacked on the bike in all manner of inelegant ways (history is repeating itself0 This violated the sense ofaesthetic of the fathers of the day (sort of like the cool kids lunch table here) and they made a ruling that all accessories had to be permanently fitted to the bike. this gave rise to the constructeur who was able to make such custom fittings. Part of the the appeal of these bikes is that nobody has ever done the custom fittings better....whenever a builder tries to stary far from those original designs, they look like shit. this is where Weigle and Goodrich hit it out of the park. As for the geometry of those bikes, the original makers also got that right-for their time and their roads. There is no question that an old Singer or Herse did its intended job beautifully....but their geometries changed over the years as welll to match improving road conditions So, while I understand the appeal of the genre, I don't understand the fetish of freezing the evolution of bike geometry on a 1963 Singer metric-and then applying that metric to racing bikes in 2010

how about if we try to keep questions and comment real and relevant to the thread?
some of mine are unaddressed and i'd love to hear from someone french speak to them.
at this point they are all unrelated to the OP.

what is the deal with these bicycles, these opinions that are so strongly taken, and the
folks who turn on every review when the very environment for which/in which they were
conceived no longer exists?

my comment about civil war reenactments, though harsh, still resonates atmo. i really want
to know or hear otherwise, and that these integrated bicycles are better for events than
what most people use (and have used for generations). aside from some overt embellishments
and homages (that's french...) to the past, they seem like vehicles for which events are no
longer held. who knows more about this stuff and can add to the noise?

[henry g.]

sorry , just to be clear , what do you intend for lower trail bikes ? who are the pros that you mean ?
is really a 20 cm stem exists ?

Dario Pegoretti

Just to be clear. The question was about proper range of stem lengths for the bike reviewed and it's affect on handling.

(So as not to get side tracked into a discussion about bar width and whether the pattern seen in the article was real.)

[Too Tall]

*Thanks, this is worth repeating that I personally appreciate everyone for maintaining discussions which are intimate, lively and mostly civil.
Y'all rock.
Peace, Josh

[e-RICHIE]

several have replied to my post from last night but i'll reply to this -

I assume that you are asking this question to further the public discussion....

yes - that is why i asked.

because nobody knows more about randonneuring equipment than Peter weigle, andI am sure that you have had this discussion with him.

yes - we have routinely chatted about this (the french thing) since the 90s when we'd carpool our bicycles to various shows and swap meets atmo. peter's frames are masterfully crafted, and he singlehandedly resuscitated this interest folks have in recreating a type of bicycle that was more at home in the era in which it was born. and i will add - my questions and posts have no ties to aesthetics; i am here asking about design elements, or - as some would call it - geometry.

I think that for most people today, the idea of a randonneur bike is appealing-not for the use in the events for which it was intended- but as a 'useful ownership' reason.

agreed.

<snip> ...the sense ofaesthetic of the fathers of the day (sort of like the cool kids lunch table here)

stop that.
we are all cool here atmo.

So, while I understand the appeal of the genre, I don't understand the fetish of freezing the evolution of bike geometry on a 1963 Singer metric-and then applying that metric to racing bikes in 2010

that was my point atmo.

[Human Epic Jolt]

So, while I understand the appeal of the genre, I don't understand the fetish of freezing the evolution of bike geometry on a 1963 Singer metric-and then applying that metric to racing bikes in 2010

that isn't happening though, is it?

unless somone starts winning races on a bike from 1963.

[Tom Kellogg]

14 pages? Yikes!

In Velocipede fashion, this thread has gone from reacting directly to Jan's review and side-bars Re: the Love#3 to a wide ranging discussion of bike usages, characteristics, fit, aesthetics, history, riding conditions, etc. For the most part, we have kept things civil and quite informative.

Jeff and I seem to build quite a few "Brevet" style bikes here (about 10% of our steel bikes) and most of them are actually ridden in modern Brevet events. For some reason, we don't get requests for these bikes from folks who don't plan on riding the crap out of them in any and all conditions. Maybe our prices discourage posers ... who knows. It's kind of nice for us as we end up without any "builders' guilt" for making beautiful bikes that we know won't be really used hard. The old "French" geometry does have its place. It does work beautifully on a bike appropriately equipped and used. It is NOT the answer to all of cycling any more than Marty Nothstein's sprint bike is appropriate for anything other than track sprinting.

TT and the Mods. have given us a place to vent, support each other, learn and teach. Be sure to think of them when you log in each day.

[Too Tall]

Folks, I'm closing this thread and encourage you to start a new one. The topic ran it's course and can be found in WIKI for future reference.
Peace, Josh

[Too Tall]

Link for future reference in wiki: http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum...tml#post209297