Richard Sachs Cycles

[metalheart]

The Zullo with the cherries ... I stared at that one for a long time, that is a lovely bike that showed the craftmanship that I enjoy about NAHBS

[andys]

The Zullo with the cherries ... I stared at that one for a long time, that is a lovely bike that showed the craftmanship that I enjoy about NAHBS

Thanks, the paint was a surprise but I love it. They threw in the stem because it was a show bike. Great folks the Zullos.

[Sean in CA]

I actually thought that there was less crazy rococo shit this year than the impression I got from years past. Which leads me to think, maybe it's about the focus, and what the (social) media pushes.

In the "best of" thread here, I was going to nominate Paul Sadoff for "best booth". He didn't have a bike newer than 5 years old, I think, and the only adornments were medals from racing, a PBP race plate and the type of wear that only happens when you ride the piss out of a bike. However, I didn't put it on the thread because I couldn't find a picture of it in anyone's photostream (might have been my fault for missing it). So while my eye was drawn to the proper race bikes that were all over, maybe that's not what gets the airtime outside of the halls? Or maybe this is more about a specific lack of new/newer builders with straight-up bikes and my reading comprehension is lacking.

here you go.... and here's a link to a great little write-up on Paul in the local Sac newspaper.

rl2.jpgrl1.jpg

[El Chorizo]

I went to the NAHBS event this weekend and had a great time. But I was frustrated to see other younger, inexperienced builders showing off their "bling" at price points which were completely out of touch with their skill level. "Bling" does not make the bike; nor does a cursory understanding of fitting, metal working and engineering (which only apprenticing and years of experience can overcome). It was sad to see master builders such as Steve Rex, Bruce Gordon, Roland Della Santa, etc., share the floor with these neophytes.

But, at least, the "Bike-O-Rama" aspect of the show appears to have abated somewhat.

[rabo]

Amen Richard.

Before, I eagerly looked forward to seeing the NAHBS photo posts. After about 100 pictures this time, I was struck with:
- I hate artisanal "porteurs"
- I hate artisanal "cargo bikes"
- I am starting to nearly even hate "randonneuses"

A lot of the stuff is starting to look very "I put a bird on it!" It's all a bit precious. More bikes that look like bikes that go fast.

Just looking at the pictures ,like you, I agree to some extend. The craftsmanship blows me away though.
And after all, how many people would come to a show of monochrome diamond frames?

[christian]

Just looking at the pictures ,like you, I agree to some extend. The craftsmanship blows me away though.
And after all, how many people would come to a show of monochrome diamond frames?

No, I agree to some extent. But it's just weird to me that a substantial cohort of the new framebuilding culture apparently looks primarily to Jo Routens for inspiration, rather than, say, Faliero Masi. I guess that gets to the heart of it - these builders are just not steeped in the culture of bicycle racing, so they look to other historical touchstones, and for many of them, that seems to be the French tout-integre school. Which is all good and well, but it sometimes strikes me a bit as "reaching." I mean the framebuilders I admire most have had some connection to the sport; i.e. I'm sure Zanc knows how a cross bike should handle. It seems unlikely, at best, that most of these builders ever delivered milk in pre-war France, or even knew someone who did.

But there's no denying that bicycles exist for purposes other than "to make fatigue." I even have two or three of them; I just don't see paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for them. Diff'rent strokes.

[devlin]

As someone who likes to think he is involved with 'the scene' but in reality is very much an outsider, and looking at a lot of the posted pictures, I think NAHBS has somewhat lost it's way. If it's meant to be a 'concept bicycle' showcase then I suppose it's a success. If it's meant to bring all of cycling sub cultures together then I would say it's successful as well to a point. If it is to present the finest builders and their finest machines then, to me, they get lost in the noise. It's obvious that to make an impact and to be taken notice of, many of the newer builders think they need bling and gimmicks. I find, for me, looking at the photosets the bikes that stand out the most are the tools. No gimmicks, properley proportioned and expertly built.

As someone who some days entertains the idea of being a fulltime builder, I get scared. As I see it the bikes I would build would offer nothing over what you could get elsewhere other than being local. I wouldn't have the reputation to stake a business on and without the gimmicks I would easily get lost in background. Plus as Dazza, pointed out one day when speaking to him on the phone, I have a mortgage, wife and four kids. I would love to be the new kid working under a master. Learning the skills and mastering the basics. That is something I am going to have to do in isolation.

[Zimmermanbicycle]

Well put.
It seemed to me that the show has matured a bit,not aged,but the bikes shown seemed a little less "flash" and a little more purposeful in general,not that the flash wasn't there but it seemed as though the frivolity knob had been dialed back a notch or two.
-Eric Z

[nahtnoj]

No, I agree to some extent. But it's just weird to me that a substantial cohort of the new framebuilding culture apparently looks primarily to Jo Routens for inspiration, rather than, say, Faliero Masi.

I don't want to be a cynic, but I think it is even shallower. We're talking about builders who "came of age in the internet era" - I think the inspiration is companies like Vanilla, ANT, Bilenky. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Utilitarian bikes are great. They are the future of our urban environments. But none of these guys are going to change the world making 8 frames a year that cost $10,000 and still lose them money.

[anomaly]

It was good to briefly speak with you on Saturday. I hope you had a good time. Enjoy your stay in the area.

Nate

[RickM]

No, I agree to some extent. But it's just weird to me that a substantial cohort of the new framebuilding culture apparently looks primarily to Jo Routens for inspiration, rather than, say, Faliero Masi. I guess that gets to the heart of it - these builders are just not steeped in the culture of bicycle racing, so they look to other historical touchstones, and for many of them, that seems to be the French tout-integre school. Which is all good and well, but it sometimes strikes me a bit as "reaching." I mean the framebuilders I admire most have had some connection to the sport; i.e. I'm sure Zanc knows how a cross bike should handle. It seems unlikely, at best, that most of these builders ever delivered milk in pre-war France, or even knew someone who did.

But there's no denying that bicycles exist for purposes other than "to make fatigue." I even have two or three of them; I just don't see paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for them. Diff'rent strokes.

i know you know your stuff...but i think you are maybe perhaps selling the randonneuse ethos short..maybe to make your point..or perhaps you aren't as interested or steeped in the history of the randonneurs to know that these were serious guys who rode pretty hard, pushed bicycle technology aggressively, and had nothing to do with delivering milk. the italians..and all racers..owe them a debt in some areas...the adoption and use of the derailleur for one. i loves me a nice pure euro racing bike too..but a rando bike can look just as purposeful and focused, and is perfectly suited for it's mission. i do agree with your point, and the point others have made, about many show bikes being a tad precious. a transport bike or porteur-style bike can be a very nice bike and as purposeful-looking as any racing bike if the builder doesn't make the thing all poncey.

[RickM]

I don't want to be a cynic, but I think it is even shallower. We're talking about builders who "came of age in the internet era" - I think the inspiration is companies like Vanilla, ANT, Bilenky. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Utilitarian bikes are great. They are the future of our urban environments. But none of these guys are going to change the world making 8 frames a year that cost $10,000 and still lose them money.

Ahem....Bilenky has been in business since waaayyyy before the Interwebs. They also make way more then 8 bikes a year..and they make bitchin' shit of all stripes. Utilitarian? Any bike can and should be such...but Bilenky? That stuff is beautiful. And I am not sure how Vanillas can be blithely written off as utilitarian either. IMHO..Flanagan"s Amish-inspired design themes for the ANT bikes is a direct reaction to the garish rolling billboard schemes employed on almost all "racing" bikes.

[RickM]

Well put.
It seemed to me that the show has matured a bit,not aged,but the bikes shown seemed a little less "flash" and a little more purposeful in general,not that the flash wasn't there but it seemed as though the frivolity knob had been dialed back a notch or two.
-Eric Z

Sounds like show cars or motorcycles to me. Big deal. If some framebuilder wants to be the cycling equivalent of Arlen Ness or Ed Roth, then have at it. If noone buys the poncey crap..it'll fade away on it's own. People are never happy....ranting about the boring mass-produced product that the Trekalized shoves down their throats, but conversely ragging on builders who try to catch someone's eye. I agree with a lot of what RS writes about learning one's craft or business, but there are after all many ways to skin a cat and perhaps some these young framebuilders that everyone seems to be so ready to rip apart are just trying to do the best they can given the circumstances. Let's not help doom them and by extension the handbuilt scene by engaging in negative groupthink.

[RickM]

I went to the NAHBS event this weekend and had a great time. But I was frustrated to see other younger, inexperienced builders showing off their "bling" at price points which were completely out of touch with their skill level. "Bling" does not make the bike; nor does a cursory understanding of fitting, metal working and engineering (which only apprenticing and years of experience can overcome). It was sad to see master builders such as Steve Rex, Bruce Gordon, Roland Della Santa, etc., share the floor with these neophytes.

But, at least, the "Bike-O-Rama" aspect of the show appears to have abated somewhat.

those young 'uns will lern soon enough if they can sell at that pricepoint or not. if they can...well, have at it and i guess it sucks to be BG, if you get my point.

[zank]

Great piece, Richard. The part about wondering whether the exhibitors have a target overlaps a bit with something I've always questioned. I've always wondered what the breakdown would be of builders who bring bikes they want to sell vs. builders who bring bikes they can make.

[christian]

i know you know your stuff...but i think you are maybe perhaps selling the randonneuse ethos short..maybe to make your point..or perhaps you aren't as interested or steeped in the history of the randonneurs to know that these were serious guys who rode pretty hard, pushed bicycle technology aggressively, and had nothing to do with delivering milk. the italians..and all racers..owe them a debt in some areas...the adoption and use of the derailleur for one. i loves me a nice pure euro racing bike too..but a rando bike can look just as purposeful and focused, and is perfectly suited for it's mission.

Actually, what got me to go from a fairly serious rider to a real bike nut was my discovery of randonneuring. As a long-time ultralight backpacker, the whole ethos of self-sufficiency and the right, integrated tool for the job really appealed. If I had more money, there would definitely be a Weigle or Mariposa in the basement. So I have the utmost respect for the French constructeurs et les constructeurs moderne Americaine et Japonnaise (e.g. Weigle, Kone, Toei). My frustration with many of the NAHBS bikes is that they're not a tool for the job at hand; they're art for art's sake, in the form of a bike. It's like some of the builders are steeped in the aesthetics of randonneuring, but not the function. Perhaps that's true on the race bike side of it too, but it's less obvious.

i do agree with your point, and the point others have made, about many show bikes being a tad precious. a transport bike or porteur-style bike can be a very nice bike and as purposeful-looking as any racing bike if the builder doesn't make the thing all poncey.

Yes, perhaps I should have left it there. A modern porteur with a simple powder-coated finish, a stainless rack, a SON with LED lights, hydraulic disks and a hub gear is something that really excites me. An $8000 porteur with squiggly stainless chameleons on the chainstays just isn't the same. Especially if the steering geometry isn't sorted. A two-keg beer bike just annoys.

I guess I would look at it this way - if I were building a daily-riding utility bike today, I would want it to be better than a Raleigh Sports built with modern tubes, modern brakes, alloy rims, etc. This is not a trivial task; the Raleigh Sports is a pretty highly evolved beast, even with its material deficiencies. I would apply the same criteria to racing bikes, randonneuses, porteurs.

[Rico]

Actually, what got me to go from a fairly serious rider to a real bike nut was my discovery of randonneuring. As a long-time ultralight backpacker, the whole ethos of self-sufficiency and the right, integrated tool for the job really appealed. If I had more money, there would definitely be a Weigle or Mariposa in the basement. So I have the utmost respect for the French constructeurs et les constructeurs moderne Americaine et Japonnaise (e.g. Weigle, Kone, Toei). My frustration with many of the NAHBS bikes is that they're not a tool for the job at hand; they're art for art's sake, in the form of a bike. It's like some of the builders are steeped in the aesthetics of randonneuring, but not the function. Perhaps that's true on the race bike side of it too, but it's less obvious.

Yes, perhaps I should have left it there. A modern porteur with a simple powder-coated finish, a stainless rack, a SON with LED lights, hydraulic disks and a hub gear is something that really excites me. An $8000 porteur with squiggly stainless chameleons on the chainstays just isn't the same. Especially if the steering geometry isn't sorted. A two-keg beer bike just annoys.

I guess I would look at it this way - if I were building a daily-riding utility bike today, I would want it to be better than a Raleigh Sports built with modern tubes, modern brakes, alloy rims, etc. This is not a trivial task; the Raleigh Sports is a pretty highly evolved beast, even with its material deficiencies. I would apply the same criteria to racing bikes, randonneuses, porteurs.

Well said.


Although the French constructeurs charged a pretty penny too. But things like the headlight switch integrated in the stem was both art and function.
Form should follow function.
If the art/skill doesn't really have a function and there's too much of it you end up with a Poseur ride.
And it can actually generate disdain rather than the intended prasie or admiration.

[Tom]

I thought Picasso was pretty cool with the whole Cubism thing but didn't totally get it until I saw his early realism and that's when I got that he wasn't putting both eyes on the same side of the head because he didn't know how not to.

[echelon_john]

To your point, Mike, I've always wondered how it would change things if the Sunday of NAHBS was "Auction Day," when all the bikes that weren't pre-sold to customers before the show would go up on auction on the show floor with call-in bidders allowed.

A lot of builders seem to put show bikes up for sale later; this would enable them to capitalize on the publicity and attendance at the show to move them quicker. It would also, perhaps, have an influence on the dynamics of what is brought to the show that might be a positive, and provide some real-time feedback on market value.

Just a crazy idea, but one that interests me.

Great piece, Richard. The part about wondering whether the exhibitors have a target overlaps a bit with something I've always questioned. I've always wondered what the breakdown would be of builders who bring bikes they want to sell vs. builders who bring bikes they can make.

[EricKeller]

No, I agree to some extent. But it's just weird to me that a substantial cohort of the new framebuilding culture apparently looks primarily to Jo Routens for inspiration, rather than, say, Faliero Masi.

The equivalent bikes to the ones that Masi made are now carbon (with notable exceptions, of course). I saw the writing on the wall for steel racing bikes back in the early '80s. On the other hand, there is a fairly large cycling community that doesn't connect with racing bikes at all, and they have money too. Of course, a lot of them are just as happy with a steel electra townie, so there is a business sustainability problem on that side as well. But there are a lot of people that want to go car-free or car-light and have plenty of money to buy bikes with. It seems to be a market that is doing ok for a lot of builders.