Bicycle Quarterly Reviews the Love #3

[Craig Ryan]

Nostalgia I think
"Nostalgia is often triggered by something reminding the individual of an event or item from their past. The resulting emotion can vary from happiness to sorrow. The term of "feeling nostalgic" is more commonly used to describe pleasurable emotions associated with and/or a longing to go back to a particular period of time." wikipedia

Or even a time before our time.
It really is reenactment, and not a bad thing I suppose. I'd love a '49 Beetle, but hate to drive it work everyday.

ya i don't have any issue with speculating on past history and the food chain here.
but everything has changed.
so why would anyone cling to designs and mores that belong to earlier eras atmo?
there seems to be a lot of energy devoted to trail, and wheel flop, and nice fenders.
tell me why this is.
the roads are better.
the speeds and fitness levels are higher.
the industry makes more consistently high quality components.
etc.
why fixate on frame designs that employ details that would actually impede doing better at said events?

[Jason Musgrave]

mr. heine-
now you are just being a fucking idiot to spite yourself maybe. coppi and bartali's bar drop? what the fuck are you talking about? those guys in black and white pictures from 1948 had less saddle to bar drop because a: they were fucking midgets and you are not. b: the hoods of their stupid non-working campy levers were halfway down the handle bar c: the drops were the primary riding position. d: european roads were alot shittier then than they are now e: races and stages were generally slower, longer and dumber.

you are essentially telling fernando alonso to put a crank starter on his 2010 ferrari formula one car and really narrow non-radial tires and wear a leather bonnet with goggles 'cause that's what giuseppe ferrina did in 1948. components, courses and technology has changed- and clinging to a cartoon parody of bike design standards that never existed outside of your uninformed fantasies is stoopid and a disservice to intelligent people and idiots alike.

the pegoretti sucked for you because you set it up in a way that sucked. it's that simple.....you might be the nicest guy in the world but you are uninformed and ignorant when it comes to reviewing bicycles and disproved by 100 years of competitive cycling history.

Hey Craig where do I sign on the line for another Corsa atmo...

[Alistair]

Richard,

I have found these kinds of bikes have proven to be comfortable and reliable forms of transportation, in an urban environment. They make great commute bikes. I have never built or ridden a full on randonneuring rig, my take on it is a bit more utilitarian but still, along similar lines.
As an ex messenger who has slogged through nasty winters in Washington D.C, and a commuter here in Seattle, I find I'm always carrying something or other. I really don't enjoy driving, so I tend to carry whatever I'm buying by bicycle (within reason of course. I'll use a Zipcar for big stuff). I've tried carrying loads on rear racks and on front racks. I prefer front. In order to make that work optimally, head angle, rake/trail need to be considered. Getting it right really makes a difference and in my experience it has been Jan's work at BQ that has led to a much better understanding of how this all ties together.
Fenders/mudguards really make life better. A 9 hour day in the rain fetching packages for the suits is always going to suck, but at the end of it you and your bike are a lot cleaner/drier if you've got full fenders with good coverage. If the fenders are integrated nicely to the frame and rack and don't flap around or rattle, this is a nice bonus and if they look nice well, why not? Well considered bridge placement and braze on's can help a lot here.
You say that road conditions are better and in general that may very well be true but in the two cities I mention above I found/find them to be terrible. Wider, cushier tires, and their accompanying difference in pnuematic trail need to be accounted for in the design. As does the load being carried. Hence the energy devoted to considering the flop/trail parameters. Again, I have found that it really makes a difference.
I'm neither a fetishist nor am I into civil war re-enactment (that was harsh, but I can see where you're coming from. I did get a chuckle out of it). I think Don's evaluation was pretty close to the mark for a lot of people using these kinds of bikes. They're a form of touring bike. They work well for this application.

My 2 cents.

Alistair.

well i dunno really, and dunno if it matters.

from my vantage point, these units are/were made and designed and perfected for trials, and long distance events,
and all things in between. so, yeah - i guess no matter how you slice it, these are competition vehicles first and then
curiosities for cyclists with a somewhat historical and nostalgic bent second.

it's been shown that time has passed these designs by and they are no longer raced at the front of any fields that we
know of. and, while is a resurgence in the french trials thang, i have no idea where the standards discussed (low trail,
planing, perfectly symmetrical fenders) fit into any value system.

that kinda sorta leaves commuters and, to an extent, fetishists atmo.

[Dazza]

Much of the interest may be traced to a time when the bike was used in a very different way. Tough times where a person would ride his bike with bags, extra gear, and maybe even spare wheels to a race or event. They would travel the 100 miles or whatever one day, race the next, then ride home over a long week-end. Probably because folks didn't own cars. Their race bikes had to double as their transportation, so it had fittings for fenders and lights etc. I don't see how trail or bar height mattered, or that they thought about it beyond it was what it was. The modern brevet, double century, PBP, may all have their roots back to this time?

yes agreement from me
because that is what they had to do then
with what they had then
and could afford then
Not much of that applies to us 10 years into the 21 st Century
and as Richie said any thing else today is like "civil war reenactments"fun in it's own way
comtemporary warfare it is not. and if you want to ride a rando/brevet event that way then all is sweet
and you get a bike to reflect that

as for a commuter or what ever, design and build the bike for that use
and make it fit correctly

[JohnHemlock]

ya i don't have any issue with speculating on past history and the food chain here.
but everything has changed.
so why would anyone cling to designs and mores that belong to earlier eras atmo?
there seems to be a lot of energy devoted to trail, and wheel flop, and nice fenders.
tell me why this is.
the roads are better.
the speeds and fitness levels are higher.
the industry makes more consistently high quality components.
etc.
why fixate on frame designs that employ details that would actually impede doing better at said events?

My dream car would be some classic designed by Harley Earl, even though it clings to designs and mores from a bygone era. Or maybe a '57 Coupe deVille. My dream guitar is a 1962 Gibson SG, with antiquated components. I guess it's just some form of atavism, return to simpler times and all that rot. Fixation on design is probably entirely not related to performance, unless emotion is a quality of performance. Which it is for most.

[bironi]

I hope all can get a good sleep without visions of bars too high, seats too low, etc...

Think of high mountains and twisting descents on a bike that fits like a glove.

[EricKeller]

There is probably a good conversation to be had about low trail rando bikes. I posted in the first couple of pages about low trail geometry, and I generally like it. I dunno if this is the place to discuss it, because it seems beside the point.

[dpcompt]

mr. heine-
now you are just being a fucking idiot to spite yourself maybe. coppi and bartali's bar drop? what the fuck are you talking about? those guys in black and white pictures from 1948 had less saddle to bar drop because a: they were fucking midgets and you are not. b: the hoods of their stupid non-working campy levers were halfway down the handle bar c: the drops were the primary riding position. d: european roads were alot shittier then than they are now e: races and stages were generally slower, longer and dumber.

you are essentially telling fernando alonso to put a crank starter on his 2010 ferrari formula one car and really narrow non-radial tires and wear a leather bonnet with goggles 'cause that's what giuseppe ferrina did in 1948. components, courses and technology has changed- and clinging to a cartoon parody of bike design standards that never existed outside of your uninformed fantasies is stoopid and a disservice to intelligent people and idiots alike.

the pegoretti sucked for you because you set it up in a way that sucked. it's that simple.....you might be the nicest guy in the world but you are uninformed and ignorant when it comes to reviewing bicycles and disproved by 100 years of competitive cycling history.

not exactly diplomatic. just an observation.

[JackB]

Thanks for the wrong size frame jerk man. I've waited two years for my 55cm big leg Emma and I'm fucked. You and the other esteemed builders on this forum have built me the wrong sized frames. I never needed spacers or had two inches of seat post showing but i feel I've been hosed. According to some of the other influences here I think dario built my new big leg Emma for a five foot five inch version of a good friend of mine. Please send me a 58cm in barbed wired white frame that fuckin looks so awesome in the 55 sized frame that used to fit me on Monday.

Thanks

[dpcompt]

I might have a fetish for my commuter bike that allows me to ride home from work at 10:30 pm. Au revoir.

the term fetish seems to have a little prejudice. i know that the many of this site are past or current racers, but there are many riders that not only love to ride but appreciate a finely crafted bicycle. and for me, i would not enjoy any of your high saddle, low bars setups. i couldn't ride for more than around the block. but, i do enjoy the customizing by steve hampsten and steve rex that allows me to enjoy riding on club rides and an occasional century. it would not be possible with any of the positions recommended by many on this forum. reality check, while its obsurd that the peg could feel right setup like the one in jan's article, its equally absurd to think that other designs may not be better for club rides or centuries. check out weigle's bikes.

[vjp]

I have to say, this is getting fairly ridiculous.

Why so insecure? The bike was the wrong size to be tested in a concise manner I absolutely give you that, but the over the top reaction and comments is fairly pathetic. I love to nerd out on bikes and I consider Dario a friend but some of you need to get a grip.

vjp

[TMB]

I have to say, this is getting fairly ridiculous.

Why so insecure? The bike was the wrong size to be tested in a concise manner I absolutely give you that, but the over the top reaction and comments is fairly pathetic. I love to nerd out on bikes and I consider Dario a friend but some of you need to get a grip.

vjp

C'mon Vic,

Say it ain't so.

Nerd out?! Nah.

[Dustin]

Bring me Gelfling Heine! He will pay for his francophilia.

[Archibald]

it's been shown that time has passed these designs by and they are no longer raced at the front of any fields that we
know of. and, while is a resurgence in the french trials thang, i have no idea where the standards discussed (low trail,
planing, perfectly symmetrical fenders) fit into any value system.

that kinda sorta leaves commuters and, to an extent, fetishists atmo.

Don't ask me, I drive a '67 VW bus.

[bellman]

wouldn't it be great if mr heine could just come right out and say; 'I had a deadline to meet and I rushed it a little. my bad, sorry guys'? probally needs to, probally won't happen. I feel like this is fairly close to the truth. It reads this way from the start and the responses from him while indeed admirable in thier intent seem weak and lacking in conviction. I think its time to walk away from this one fellas.

[Archibald]

"It's only eight tubes welded together." - Dario Pegoretti

9 really. 11 if you count the bridges. 14 including the fork. 96 if you're Jeff Jones or Sir Alex Moulton.

[jimmythefly]

ya i don't have any issue with speculating on past history and the food chain here.
but everything has changed.
so why would anyone cling to designs and mores that belong to earlier eras atmo?
there seems to be a lot of energy devoted to trail, and wheel flop, and nice fenders.
tell me why this is.
the roads are better.
the speeds and fitness levels are higher.
the industry makes more consistently high quality components.
etc.
why fixate on frame designs that employ details that would actually impede doing better at said events?

I think that's a bit trickier to parse out. We might also ask why charity century riders and weekend dawdlers cling to designs and mores that belong in the crit or peloton? I believe it has to do with the way we perceive what a particular bike is useful for and might excel at. People want to go fast and get their century ride over with, they see that racers go fast, therefore they should get a racing-style bike.

For me, I look at the designs and mores of rando bikes not because I'm a randonneur, but because I like carrying a light load quickly-ish over mixed surfaces. It so happens that this is not what current top-finishers of PBP do, but it is what was once done (and still is for many more local randos if I am to believe the photos).

The kicker that joins these two is what's left unsaid, and I think many times un-cogitated upon. It's not just that I like carrying a light load over mixed surfaces quickly. It's also that I do it in varying weather, unsupported. Also, and I think this may be key, I want to set my bike up as a perfect compromise of my desires and needs, and NOT have to alter it day-to-day or throughout the year(too much).

That means I trade off weight and aerodynamics for puddle protection. That means I trade off skinny tires for being able to watch traffic knowing I won't pinch-flat while riding over RR tracks. I trade off gravel traction for pavement speed, I trade off-road ability for the simplicity of a rigid frame. I trade the inexpensive ubiquity of battery lights for a dynohub set up that is always there and bolted on tight. I make trade offs by using disc brakes. Etc.

Now, how can I have those and still go fast and feel like a kid again? It turns out rando-esque bikes are what I like. For me. Where I ride.

[Round]

the frame is a 60 cc, the length of the top tube is 58.5, head tube length is 21 cm, the top tube
is lowered to 58, this measure is suitable for a person with an inseam of 94 cm.
maybe a 57 stock frame with 18.5 head tube would have gone better.
Obvious that this measure is completely wrong for Mr. Heine, but I think the most interesting part of his thoughts is about geometry.
I find a kind of obsession with this point, I always thought that geometry is only a part of the frame and should be seen in a wider context that includes experience, quality of construction, choice of materials adaptation to the person who will use the bike, chosen by certain utility that it will describe the tube etc.etc, the love is designed to be a frame to race in the complete sense of the word, what interests me is to build a frame to be fast as possible from a to b with the same engine. The question is whether a frame built under the thought of Mr. Heine is faster than that from A to B , maybe on the PBP it is, but I have customers who not intend to embark on this exercise.

For The Record Stephen Gamper finished second , riding in a love at the XXAlps Extreme (2005) 2273km , 6 days three hours 44 minutes ,56 000 vertical meters , 46 alpine passes.
The frame was custom in size but the geometry in terms of angles and rake were "Italian".

Ultracycling: XXAlps Extreme (2005)

[henry g.]

There was an excellent BQ article about how bar width correlated historically to frame geometry. Pros who rode lower trail bikes used narrower bars and those who rode higher trail bikes wider bars. Different geometries require different set ups to handle properly.

Stems seem to have a similar pattern. Bikes like the Singer usually sport shorter stems along with narrower bars while bikes like the Love #3 typically are set up with stems 20 CM or so longer. Every one seems focused on saddle to bar drop which can vary widely depending on rider anatomy and still work for a given bike providing it's within an acceptable range. Wouldn't the difference in leverage and the shift in weight front to back of a to short (or to long a stem) have a potentially larger impact on handling? The stem on that Love#3 seems very short for that type of bike.

[Round]

. Pros who rode lower trail bikes used narrower bars and those who rode higher trail bikes wider bars. Different geometries require different set ups to handle properly
typically are set up with stems 20 CM or so longe.

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