General Cycling Discussion - A thank you.

I am an ex frame builder and almost daily I hear from people I have never met but tell me their lives have been touched in some small way by my work. At least touched enough to take the time to write and tell me. Some emails are brief; others tell interesting stories of how a bicycle I built has become part of their life.

To explain why this means a lot to me; when I left the bike business 1993 I was thoroughly burned out and slightly bitter. I felt I had wasted a large part of my life. I had spent over thirty five years building bicycle frames and felt like a deserted spouse in that my customers had gone off with a new love, namely mountain bikes. I tried to get into building MTBs but my heart was never in it. There is no beauty in a mountain bike because it is the bastard child of the BMX bike, which is a bicycle pretending to be a motor cycle.

I am a now a writer and when I opened my website some two years ago to promote my then upcoming novel I made no mention of my previous career as a bicycle frame builder. After over ten years out of the business I felt no one would remember. I did write to Bicycling magazine one time but they couldn’t even grace me with a reply. I figured the entire staff of that magazine were probably in their twenties and therefore had only just reached puberty about the time I left the business.

A few bike enthusiasts and people in the business heard about my book and contacted me, some sending pictures and so I added a 'Bicycle Section' to my website. As others found my site through the various search engines they in turn contacted me and the Bicycle Section grew. I hear from people who have owned one of my bikes from new and from others who knew nothing about me but then stumbled on one of my bikes on EBay. They bought it, and then started searching information about the builder.

I’m posting this to thank those who have restored my faith in the bike enthusiast and have made me realize that the years I spent building frames was not wasted, and to any others out there who might be interested enough in my past work to check out my website at: www.ProdigalChild.net

Hi Dave, had a quick look at the site, nice.


"There is no beauty in a mountain bike because it is the bastard child of the BMX bike, which is a bicycle pretending to be a motor cycle."

Is just wrong. Tom Ritchey adapted road type geometry, then in the late 1980's elongated the triangles and inclined the toptube.
Both types of frames were in developement at the same time. As to mtb having no beauty I refer to:

Mountain Goat.
Ritchey.
Breeze.
Fat Chance.
Fischer.
Brodie.
Ibis

Many beautiful bikes. 1990, Ritchey decides to stop 'fancy' dropouts and ornate brazing? used on 'mtb's' and build racing bikes.
They are not nearly as cosmetically pleasing as early designs, brutal in fact, but they won, and factory frame design changed again.

I specific ride a handbuilt frame by T.Ritchey, I love the skill and art of welding.
My 'brutalist' racing frame is mostly stripped of paint ( 'cept the seattube) and clear coated.
A beautiful example of welding skill, and a artistic statement of structural dynamism.

The first mtb made was by Joe Breeze and was adapted from Scwinn curved frames.
Similar, my first jump bikes were Mustangs, also curve tube. The bmx moto bikes broke too. The only good moto I had features a motorcycle shok for a toptube and a hinge near the bb. Stupid, but fun. 1978?

The incline toptube often assosiated with womens bikes became a revolution in cycling and now is part of road bikes, xc, bxm, dh etc.

I do not believe bmx is a bastard motocross, (yes they had funny plastic gastanks in 1978), as much as mtb's are. As stated, Breeze did a Schwinn style, he was first (2 frames) Ritchey, built a traditional triangle more road style with horizontal level toptube. His were the first avail to public, and his design was approved for Japans factories to produce for R.Mountain and Special?

Anyway, not fond of the factory bikes, probably like one of yours!
I like the real deal, the craftmans work.
I believe my next mtb will also be a hand built, this time, custom frame. Perhaps I can help make the mtb beautiful.
My bike is a mixture of bmx, xc and mountain components.
Designed for an aggressive offroad ride, it may be ugly, rides beautifully and that's what counts!

Peace, >Jef.

P.S, you probably are aware, being a framebuilder, of most of these points.
Perhaps some other mtbers are not so I wrote 'em anyway. >j. :)

Hi Dave, had a quick look at the site, nice.


"There is no beauty in a mountain bike because it is the bastard child of the BMX bike, which is a bicycle pretending to be a motor cycle."

Is just wrong. Tom Ritchey adapted road type geometry, then in the late 1980's elongated the triangles and inclined the toptube.
Both types of frames were in developement at the same time. As to mtb having no beauty I refer to:

Mountain Goat.
Ritchey.
Breeze.
Fat Chance.
Fischer.
Brodie.
Ibis

Hi Jeff,

Well I got your attention. Of course I respect all the people you listed above. They wouldn’t still be in business if they were not doing something right. You are obviously a serious MTB rider but how many people who own mountain bikes are? About the same percentage of people who take their SUVs off road. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think SUVs are ugly too but by the number on the road obviously I am in the minority.

What got me interested in bicycles as a fourteen year old and eventually led to my becoming a frame builder was that the racing bicycle looked so light, flimsy and fragile and yet was so very strong. Somehow for me this was lost when they built bikes with fat tires and fat tubes.

But all this nostalgia is a thing of the past and I was probably wrong to say the mountain bike was a bastard child because it is legitimate, but still an ugly baby.

Best regards,
Dave Moulton.

Hi Dave

I looked at your site and you have done some really beautiful work. I don´t feel qualified to disagree with you but maybe just say that MTB´s are not completely all negative. They have advantages over racing bikes particularly for novice riders, They are more forgiving of mistakes and the riding position over short distances at least can be more comfortable. So I feel that they do make cycling more accessible for new riders at least. The main thing is to get people out on bikes and out of their cars. I think that one of the reasons that cycling during the 70s became less popular was that the racing bike (which was almost the only choice then) did not offer a good introduction for new cyclists. Maybe after 35 years you just felt like you had had enough of bicycles and needed a new direction.

Fancy lugwork is probably obtuse on the mtb.

What beautiful with mtbing is the freedom to explore and ride all terrain. I ride a race bike fast on the road, slow in the woods.

I think sometime soon i'll take welding courses to make a Chromo frame, some of my ideas are specific cosmetic\structural. I want to include gussets to the frame and laser cut out designs in them to make 'em lighter and attractive.

My Ritchey has the smallest diameter steel tubes of any mtb i've seen, all three main triangle tubes are different diameters. The seat tube has been hand ovaled where it meets the bb. Ritchey then stuck a 140mm tandem axle on it, it's an inclined 22 inch toptube\16 seat, from 1990-91. Prototype for the 1991-93 NORBA wins by Ritchey. My bikes # is under 050, P-Series.
I rescued it last year, it's beautiful compared to the Alu monsters with weld beads the size of ropes you tie up a boat with. :roflmao:

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/atb.htm Yummy stuff, wish it was a store!

>jef.

From the website link under Ibis. Carbon and Ti. WOW! Beautiful!
Dave, the 1985 Dave Moulton / Campagnolo Cobalto is also very beautiful. I really like the name engraved or cast on the bb.
I saw a Marin? in town with the name embossed on the toptube, raised maybe 2mm. Fancy!

>jef.

[QUOTE=jeff williams]Hi Dave, had a quick look at the site, nice.


"There is no beauty in a mountain bike because it is the bastard child of the BMX bike, which is a bicycle pretending to be a motor cycle."

Is just wrong. Tom Ritchey adapted road type geometry, then in the late 1980's elongated the triangles and inclined the toptube.
Both types of frames were in developement at the same time. As to mtb having no beauty I refer to:

Mountain Goat.
Ritchey.
Breeze.
Fat Chance.
Fischer.
Brodie.
Ibis

Hi Jeff,

Well I got your attention. Of course I respect all the people you listed above. They wouldn’t still be in business if they were not doing something right. You are obviously a serious MTB rider but how many people who own mountain bikes are? About the same percentage of people who take their SUVs off road. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think SUVs are ugly too but by the number on the road obviously I am in the minority.

What got me interested in bicycles as a fourteen year old and eventually led to my becoming a frame builder was that the racing bicycle looked so light, flimsy and fragile and yet was so very strong. Somehow for me this was lost when they built bikes with fat tires and fat tubes.

But all this nostalgia is a thing of the past and I was probably wrong to say the mountain bike was a bastard child because it is legitimate, but still an ugly baby.

Best regards,
Dave Moulton.

And even ugly babies can be loved.

And even ugly babies can be loved.

:eek:

If you say so....

:D

Welcome to the forums!

Koffee

Somehow for me this was lost when they built bikes with fat tires and fat tubes.

Considering they have been building bikes with fat tyres and fat tubes for probably as long if not longer than you've been alive, then you must have always hated bikes. Most of us began our love of cycling on bikes with fat tyres... even before mountain bikes.

http://www.pedalinghistory.com/Images/ShwBkFtm.gif

I think you have a grudge against mountain bikes and mountain biking because you were unable to capitalise on the trend and changes in the industry. This however does not invalidate the sport nor detract from the beauty of the equipment. To me as an engineer, MTBs have their own beauty that can equal or rival that of the finest road racer. Some of them can be ugly too but that in itself has a certain value of beauty. However, as you say, "beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder" and your opinion is your opinion as mine is mine.

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/atb.htm Yummy stuff, wish it was a store!

Ahh yes, you've pointed to one of my favourite websites. I'm sort of glad it wasn't a store as I have enough trouble buying the stuff that's available. BTW, I fail to see how anyone could deny the beauty of that Ibis. Simply gorgeous! And an original Ritchey is like an original work of art. I'm jealous. I think my aim right now is to acquire a mint-condition Bridgestone MB-1 or MB-2 with the infamous Ritchey fork design. I've also always been in love with the Mantis bikes. I had a mass-produced 1990 Nishiki Ariel.

If you want some really wild (and beautiful) frames go look at some of the 'bents. You have curved monotubes, stretched triangular, A mix of curved and straight, square tubes, round tubes, and everything in between.

'bent Brian

Ahh yes, you've pointed to one of my favourite websites. I'm sort of glad it wasn't a store as I have enough trouble buying the stuff that's available. BTW, I fail to see how anyone could deny the beauty of that Ibis. Simply gorgeous! And an original Ritchey is like an original work of art. I'm jealous. I think my aim right now is to acquire a mint-condition Bridgestone MB-1 or MB-2 with the infamous Ritchey fork design. I've also always been in love with the Mantis bikes. I had a mass-produced 1990 Nishiki Ariel.

The Bridgestone is IMO, a factory Ritchey. Same geom, different metal and of couse, not welded by Tom.
Should be as responsive, but heavier and debateably not as strong as Ritchey was using proprietary metals. Also doubtful the seattube was ovaled. This stops the bb from flexing and allows use of a smaller diameter tube.
I did post 1, I saw on ebay in BF knowing your interest in them, It did not feature the dual crown? fork.
Nice looking fork though- If I see one ever I'll let you know.

I think a post 91 Ritchey would be nicer than a Bridgestone. Post 91, he (Tom) inclined the frames, made more of a 'race' geom. The big problem is almost all 90,s Ritchey frames were raced to death.
They were the real first mtb racing bikes developed that were considered, So they got ridden into the dirt.

Mine hung on a wall in a local bike store for years, then ridden by kids.
It still has a great deal of tensile resistance in the frame, but I want a new one, The Ritchey Niti.
Very similar to my bike geom and definatly a Ritchey race geometry. 800 for the frame.

Geez, I bought a Ritch for $150, and my bike tastes went up 1000%. Now I want $1500 Ritcheys. :mad:

http://www.oldmountainbikes.com/ I'm pretty sure you've seen this site dedecated to Ritchey, I'm posting for others also, case they are interested in the bikes or Tom.
Mines no longer with info, not sure what is up with that, maybe because it's all custom bmx\xc parts.

>jef.

:eek:

If you say so....

:D

Welcome to the forums!

Koffee

Thanks for the welcome Koffee. Seems I stirred up trouble.....Didn't mean to.....Oh well!

Are you kidding Dave?

Most post are "are Trek good bikes?"
This is a great thread! Its about the beauty and workmanship in bikes.

I think it is very cool you posted, I love to argue, I only mtb though so we won't be talking often. We have a member who is a framebuilder with a company in new Zealand?

Thylacine, of Thylacine cycles. You could get his site from the members list, then link.

Oh, and just because you are a FANTASTIC framebuilder and metal artist, doesn't mean I'm not gonna disagree with you. Well, perhaps I won't shoot my mouth off as much as usual, considering you DO know what you are talking about. :D

Have yourself a great day Dave.

>jef.

I love my mountain bicycles, although my tastes in frame shape are very sturdy and geometric. I love the forwards and uprwards surge of an inclined topbar. Even the reacing bike I am angling to get has that general shape.

I think mountain bikes look very strong and capable, especialy my Roadmaster...I dont' want to say how many hours I"ve spent measuring the distances and angles of it, and finding obscure bits of beauty on a more mathematical sense. The rear forks are offset to compensate for the sprocket, making the rear wheel perfectly centered. I find that beautiful. Maybe common place. Maybe common sense. I see it as beauty.

I love to ride a big steel-frame mountain bike, go plunging down anything from highway blacktop to the middle of a trackless woods. There's a feeling of life and motion to it that I can't quite explain. The closest I can come is o say it's what it would be like to be a jockey and have the consciousness of both the horse and the rider. There is something secure and yet exhalirating.

By contrast, the spiderwebby construction of the racing bike has an entirely different thrill and feel. The bike vanishes underneath you, and it always seems to me that there's nothing else but air around me. It's more of a flight feel.

Not to mention that I"m too rough on my bikes as far as curbs, sidewalks, stairs, etc to risk getting aboard an expensive racer. I know my mountains can handle a bit of violent riding and the occasional bike-vs-automobile dispute. (My college campus has the worst drivers ever and I've been hit-and-runned several times)

Please, PLEASE tell me that book wasn't printed with that jacket design.

Please, PLEASE tell me that book wasn't printed with that jacket design.

The book cover picture was distorted on my website; it made the text look like it was drawn by a six year old.

I’ve replaced the picture; I hope this is what you were referring to. A lot of book sales come from Amazon.com and other online merchants. The book cover has to look good when it is shown as a thumbnail about an inch or so high. It was designed with this in mind by a professional who specializes in cover design.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I welcome constructive criticism; maybe you could email me.

[QUOTE=khuon]Considering they have been building bikes with fat tyres and fat tubes for probably as long if not longer than you've been alive, then you must have always hated bikes. Most of us began our love of cycling on bikes with fat tyres... even before mountain bikes.

http://www.pedalinghistory.com/Images/ShwBkFtm.gif

Reponse from Dave Moulton.

You raise an interesting point, fat tire bikes have been around for a long time in America. Not the rest of the world; this is an American thing. Fat tires are built into the American psyche like big cars. These huge SUVs built today are every bit as big and heavy as the cars of the 1950s or 1960s they’re just taller instead of longer. No one cares about fuel efficiency even though deep down they may think this is a good idea.

So the fact that fat tires make the bike harder to ride is neither here nor there; nobody cares; it’s what the people want. I really do not want to argue about this; I am no longer in the bike business so I have no axe to grind. We came over from Europe and tried to get you to ride our skinny tired bikes and we failed; just as the auto manufacturers failed to get people to drive small cars.

I have lived in this country for over twenty-five years now and love it; it’s why I’m still here. Part of what makes this the best country in the world is freedom to do whatever you want, but may I also remind you of another freedom. Freedom of speech; so be gentle with me; just because I think your MTBs are ugly, I’m not saying you shouldn’t ride ‘em.

Hey, what ever blows yer skirt up!

Are you kidding Dave?

Most post are "are Trek good bikes?"
This is a great thread! Its about the beauty and workmanship in bikes.

I think it is very cool you posted, I love to argue, I only mtb though so we won't be talking often. We have a member who is a framebuilder with a company in new Zealand?

Thylacine, of Thylacine cycles. You could get his site from the members list, then link.

Oh, and just because you are a FANTASTIC framebuilder and metal artist, doesn't mean I'm not gonna disagree with you. Well, perhaps I won't shoot my mouth off as much as usual, considering you DO know what you are talking about. :D

Have yourself a great day Dave.

>jef.

Thanks Jef,

I needed that. I guess I was whining a bit in my original post that started all this. But I never expected this to happen. It has sure given me a lot of food for thought, and the mind needs food as much as the body. So lets keep it going, but please let's keep it friendly; I love all bike riders including mountain bike riders even if I hate your ugly bikes.

You have a great day too.

Fancy lugwork is probably obtuse on the mtb.

What beautiful with mtbing is the freedom to explore and ride all terrain. I ride a race bike fast on the road, slow in the woods.

I think sometime soon i'll take welding courses to make a Chromo frame, some of my ideas are specific cosmetic\structural. I want to include gussets to the frame and laser cut out designs in them to make 'em lighter and attractive.

My Ritchey has the smallest diameter steel tubes of any mtb i've seen, all three main triangle tubes are different diameters. The seat tube has been hand ovaled where it meets the bb. Ritchey then stuck a 140mm tandem axle on it, it's an inclined 22 inch toptube\16 seat, from 1990-91. Prototype for the 1991-93 NORBA wins by Ritchey. My bikes # is under 050, P-Series.
I rescued it last year, it's beautiful compared to the Alu monsters with weld beads the size of ropes you tie up a boat with. :roflmao:

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/atb.htm Yummy stuff, wish it was a store!

>jef.

Looks like a larger version of a BMX bike to me. If it's not a bastard child, it's a close cousin. I'm not criticizing the bike or it's workmanship which is obviously excellent; just making an observation about it's appearance.

Hi Dave,

as I said in another thread welcome to the forums.

As a confirmed roadie I've been known to throw out the term
"mountain bike ugly" which I believe puts me squarely in the retrogrouch
catagory (never mind the Ergo shifting on one of my roadies).
I think Khuon has an interesting point, If my memory serves correctly
didn't the whole MTB thingy start with the likes of Ritchey, Cunningham,
Fischer et al bombing down fire roads on old balloon tire bikes?
For me, if a bike is actually ridden, I don't care what it's intended
purpose is, Sure many a MTB never sees a trail or gets off pavement
but if the owner uses it who am I to criticize? I just try to point out
they might be better served with a road bike.
Glad to hear that you are coming out of the doldrums, and that
you are finding your way back to the cycling community.
I think you'll find that alot of us older riders do remember you,
and the frames/bikes you built.
So, my next question is, do you have any plans to ease your
way back into framebuilding again? (we can only hope!).

anyhow, hope you stick around, its always nice to get
a different perspective on things, especially when the author
knows what he/she is talking about.

Marty

Hi Dave,

as I said in another thread welcome to the forums.

As a confirmed roadie I've been known to throw out the term
"mountain bike ugly" which I believe puts me squarely in the retrogrouch
catagory (never mind the Ergo shifting on one of my roadies).
I think Khuon has an interesting point, If my memory serves correctly
didn't the whole MTB thingy start with the likes of Ritchey, Cunningham,
Fischer et al bombing down fire roads on old balloon tire bikes?
For me, if a bike is actually ridden, I don't care what it's intended
purpose is, Sure many a MTB never sees a trail or gets off pavement
but if the owner uses it who am I to criticize? I just try to point out
they might be better served with a road bike.
Glad to hear that you are coming out of the doldrums, and that
you are finding your way back to the cycling community.
I think you'll find that alot of us older riders do remember you,
and the frames/bikes you built.
So, my next question is, do you have any plans to ease your
way back into framebuilding again? (we can only hope!).

anyhow, hope you stick around, its always nice to get
a different perspective on things, especially when the author
knows what he/she is talking about.

Marty

Thanks Marty,

It is good to get a roadie into this. Not that I ever intended to start a roadie verses MTB rider thing. I agree with you; the main thing is you’re all riding a bikes.

This is not the first time my mouth, or in this case a comment on a forum has got me into trouble. I lost many a customer because I wouldn’t bend to their way of thinking. I would always say, “I respect your ideas, but just get someone else to build it.”

This was the problem I had with the mountain bikes. I built my first one in 1985; it had a 73 degree head angle and I had to lie and tell people it was 72 degrees because everyone was building MTBs with 69 degree head angles at that time. Which might be great for barreling down a mountain side, but the bike will handle like a wheel-barrow in every other situation.

I rode cyclo-cross for many years in England before I came to America, so I did know something about riding in the dirt. I believed, and still do that a mountain bike does not need fat tires. This is just an opinion, and opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody has one, but when an opinion is based on a lot of experience. (Well I’d better stop before I dig myself another hole.)

I could have carried on building MTBs and it would have been good business practice to do so, but as an artist; to do something I didn’t believe in would be to sell my soul to make a buck. There is a thing called artistic integrity; I believe I have it.

As for getting back into frame building; I have neither the money to invest nor the inclination. The same rush I used to get from looking at a frame I had created, I now get from my writing. With bike frames I sold them and they were gone, with my book I get to sell it over and over again, and the great thing is after I’ve sold it, at the end of the day it’s still mine. (Copyright is a wonderful thing.)

The other thing is Russ Denny who was my apprentice for eight years before taking over my business in 1993 is doing a fine job and can do everything I could do. In some aspects, filet brazing for example he was better than me. You can find Russ at: http://www.russdennybicycles.com/

If you want some really wild (and beautiful) frames go look at some of the 'bents. You have curved monotubes, stretched triangular, A mix of curved and straight, square tubes, round tubes, and everything in between.

'bent Brian

Are you talking about recumbants? Don't even get me started on that!

I see beauty in all kinds of bikes, not just for their physical attributes, but more so for what they symbolize. I grew up on various single, 3, and 10 speed bikes and then fell in love with BMX riding and racing. Naturally that evolved into a passion for mountain biking. I have fond memories of my BMX bikes. I currently have a Cove Handjob (an elegant, agile mountain hardtail) and a Surly Crosscheck (my "do it all" roady). Both are "form follows function" machines and neither is interchangable with the other-they're purpose built. I spend more time on my "road" bike as I commute daily, however, my passion is off road. My mountain bike takes me to places that my road bike can only dream of. Places that I love, like the woods, where I can breath cleaner air and see things like: trees, dirt, streams, and sometimes wildlife. That's what I really love about it, I always feel like a kid riding through streams, over log jams, bunny hopping things, and blasting down a hill with my wheels slipping and sliding in loose soil-or, especially, getting airborn off of a job or drop. I just don't have as much fun on any other type of bike. While I might prefer certain types of riding over others, I'd be loath to criticize someone's choice of bicycle so long as they're doing what they love and getting excercise. I know the whole "roadie/mtber" debate, those who love dirt and those who love pavement. Having experience with both disciplines, I'll tell you one thing, I feel that mountain biking is much more physically challenging and requires more skill than road riding. A good mountain rider earns more of my respect than "roady" anyday. While I might cringe at someone riding a heavy, clumsy mountain bike for longer road rides, I'm just glad they're riding at all at do my best to encourage them.

OOOPS! Sorry if I touched a sore spot be mentioning 'bents (i.e.recumbents). It is just that when looking for my new bike (a recumbent) I was amazed at all of the frame geometries, configurations, construction, etc, and some were in my humble opinion, works of art. All bikes are unique in one way or another and each has its purpose. In each type you can find "beauties" and "beasts". I figure beauty in in the eye of the beholder. I was a former "roadie". I now ride a 'bent. Each to whatever works for him.

'bent Brian

OOOPS! Sorry if I touched a sore spot be mentioning 'bents (i.e.recumbents). It is just that when looking for my new bike (a recumbent) I was amazed at all of the frame geometries, configurations, construction, etc, and some were in my humble opinion, works of art. All bikes are unique in one way or another and each has its purpose. In each type you can find "beauties" and "beasts". I figure beauty in in the eye of the beholder. I was a former "roadie". I now ride a 'bent. Each to whatever works for him.

'bent Brian

Response from Dave Moulton.

No you didn't touch a sore spot, but I had to smile; don't you think I'm in enough trouble with the MTB riders without getting into recumbents. Let's save that one for another day after all that's my real name I've got posted there and people might find out where I live.

I think we are all now in agreement; it doesn't matter what you ride as long as you're riding.

OK, cool. NOW LET'S GO RIDE! YAHOOOOOO!

'bent Brian

You raise an interesting point, fat tire bikes have been around for a long time in America. Not the rest of the world; this is an American thing. Fat tires are built into the American psyche like big cars.

Interesting that you think that. The last time I checked, Amsterdam was not located in America...

http://www.amsterdam.info/pictures/bikes/images/bikes.jpg

And how would you explain this 1974 Raleigh Tourist?

http://www.de-flux.org/raleigh/raleigh1.gif

It seems to me that you have a very narrow view of what a bicycle should be or what and how cyclists should ride.

Dave, my mtb IS ugly...Really. It makes ME look good.

And you build BEAUTIFUL bikes, that means you are entitled to give an opinion, and it should be respected.

Being a sculptor, I care what other artist and scultors think. Critics and persons uninformed as to this craft, I put little weight to their comments.

Since you made very nice cycles, you, are a persons able to judge craftsmanship in ways a layman cannot.

I totally defend your right to say mtb's are ugly. You didn't ask for an agreement, it's your opinion, and an informed one.

If you posted to find like minded individuals, they will probably pm you as they are afraid the mtbers will retaliate and then it'll degrade to bike gangs, and turf wars. :roflmao:

Dave, my mtb IS ugly...Really. It makes ME look good.

And you build BEAUTIFUL bikes, that means you are entitled to give an opinion, and it should be respected.

Being a sculptor, I care what other artist and scultors think. Critics and persons uninformed as to this craft, I put little weight to their comments.

Since you made very nice cycles, you, are a persons able to judge craftsmanship in ways a layman cannot.

I totally defend your right to say mtb's are ugly. You didn't ask for an agreement, it's your opinion, and an informed one.

If you posted to find like minded individuals, they will probably pm you as they are afraid the mtbers will retaliate and then it'll degrade to bike gangs, and turf wars. :roflmao:

Response from Dave Moulton.

You didn't have to say that, but I'm sure glad that everyone is starting to lighten up. That's the problem with the world today; everyone takes their beliefs way too serious. That's why we have terrorists trying to kill us. Let's all join hands and sing "I want to buy the world a Coke."

Interesting that you think that. The last time I checked, Amsterdam was not located in America...

http://www.amsterdam.info/pictures/bikes/images/bikes.jpg

And how would you explain this 1974 Raleigh Tourist?

http://www.de-flux.org/raleigh/raleigh1.gif

It seems to me that you have a very narrow view of what a bicycle should be or what and how cyclists should ride.

Response from Dave Moulton.

If I have hurt your feelings or offended you in any way I appologize. I was just having fun with this and was not out to insult anyone.

Dave,

Thanks for opening up the discussion. I truely appreciate a good debate/arguement.
One thing I think you will find here is that while opinions can be strong,
and the discussions can get heated, there is very little true animosity. One of
the things I truely appreciate about BikeForums is the amount of respect I see
towards other members.

I've seen Russ' work, very nice.
Now, I'm going to avoid the whole carbon fibre/aluminium/steel is real can of
worms, but wonder what are your opinions on modern geometry (for road bikes!)
and thoughts on modern builders (not by name tho, don't wanna alienate anyone).

Marty

Dave, the smiley etc icons are sometimes useful when joking or being lighthearted, guess you could say they replace expression or body launguage.
I have to use LOTS of them, my 'canuk' deadpan humour can seem harsh without.

Forum posting (my first) takes a little getting used to, not for the timid, if in the 'opinions' area of discussion.

I have very much enjoyed this thread and chatting with you. Nobody seemed upset, heck, most serious posters are looking to debate, discuss.

I think you should start a new thread, we need more fuel.

Respectfully, >jef.

" I want to buy the world a Coke..."

Bike gangs and turf wards sounds like fun!


Provided we use funnoodles and water guns instead of tire irons and uzis....

Seriously, riding around in a big empty feild or parking lot...or even better, a park with entough differnt terrian to suit everything from the fragile but agile racers to the powerful but clumsyfooted mtbs...whacking at eatch other with foamies and sniping with squirtguns sounds like more fun than I"ve had in years!

If I have hurt your feelings or offended you in any way I appologize. I was just having fun with this and was not out to insult anyone.

I am not offended nor have you hurt my feelings. I oftentimes will be quite blunt and sometimes flippantly blunt. For that I apologise. I guess my whole intention was to balance out the argument of MTBs being ugly with keeping more of an open mind. My door swings both ways, my helmet sometimes goes visorless as well as sport the plastic duck bill, sometimes my butt is covered using lycra and other times baggies, the bike underneath me will sometimes be a lightweight road machine and other times a dual-suspension rig, my feet are sometimes resting on chunky studded platforms and other times attached to clipless Speedplay pedals. What I'm trying to say is that all types of bikes and all forms of cycling offer a value whether its recumbants with full fairings, beach cruisers ridden in flip-flops and a gaudy Hawaiian shirt, freeride rigs with really low saddle heights, 6" of suspension and ridden by what looks like casting call rejects from old American Gladiator episodes or sub-16 lbs. road racing bikes pedalled by folks sporting less clothing than the models in the latest Victoria Secrets catalogue. The bicycle is the most efficient manmade machine in the world. Unicycle, tandem, BMX, XC, triathlon, touring, bighit, dj, road racer, full suspension, hardtail, full rigid, carbon fiber, traditional lugged steel, aluminum, titanium, etc... The breadth and depth of the choices, technology and forms of cycling is quite large and we should celebrate that. I would hate to be limited to only one specific type of bike and only one way to ride it.

Dave,

I've seen Russ' work, very nice.
Now, I'm going to avoid the whole carbon fibre/aluminium/steel is real can of
worms, but wonder what are your opinions on modern geometry (for road bikes!)
and thoughts on modern builders (not by name tho, don't wanna alienate anyone).

Marty

Marty,

I am so out of touch with the bike biz I have no idea what people are riding now. I’m sure there are fashion trends as there have always been. Lance is the rider of the day so I’m sure everyone will want to ride what Lance is riding; just as it was Greg LeMond and Eddy Merckx before him. The problem with this is; what works for Lance will not work for everyone else and a certain rider’s success is due to his physical ability not his riding position or equipment.

I never followed fashion; I had pretty much established what worked for me by the mid 1970s then stuck with it until the end. I would advise any frame builder to do the same because if you bend and build what the customer wants and the result is a bike that handles or performs poorly; that person will sell the bike and then you have a bad frame out there with your name on it. Whose reputation will suffer?

Dave Moulton.

Well Dave, if you are looking to get back into frame building, would you like to try out your frame building with me? I could always use another frame, dood.

:D

Actually, I have to say, I don't have an interest in riding a Trek. I went to Italy and went to some framebuilders, and I decided to get a DeRosa. I love the bike, it rides like nothing I've ever ridden before, and I have to give props up to Ugo and Cristiano for building me a good bike that feels like it was born for me to ride.

I could always use another custom made, tho. Let me know if you're up for it. ;)


Koffee

Well Dave, if you are looking to get back into frame building, would you like to try out your frame building with me? I could always use another frame, dood.

Koffee

Sorry Koffee, my frame building days are over. You could always look for a used one on ebay; it seems to be a buyers market right now. Recently I saw a custom ‘dave moulton’ Campy equipped go for $380.

Or you could go to Russ Denny http://www.russdennybicycles.com who was my apprentice for eight years and took over my business in 1993 when I left. Dave Jordaan a cycling coach with an elite stable of athletes in Irvine, CA in an email to me said this:

“Athletes and teams that I come into contact with know what I think of all the "boutique" bicycle frames out there. Russ has definitely 'inherited' your art. Whenever I can bypass the BS of professional teams (and that is not often) and get my athletes on a race-bike built by Russ they have about 10% (or more) horsepower. I do not know why -- it is just so.”

You can find Dave Jordaan at: http://www.bicyclecoach.com/profile.php?id=cybercyclecoach@aol.com

Oh Dave, your bike building days are so over that I had no illusions that you'd actually build me a bike. But I was teasing and thought I'd coax you out of retirement. Kind of like Michael Jordan or something. :D

I look forward to reading your posts.

All the best.

Koffee

Oh Dave, your bike building days are so over that I had no illusions that you'd actually build me a bike. But I was teasing and thought I'd coax you out of retirement. Kind of like Michael Jordan or something. :D

I look forward to reading your posts.

All the best.

Koffee

If I got paid like Michael Jordan I might think about it.....Maybe Hanes needs a new spokesman!

Hey, if you can pull it off, go for it! :D

Koffee

Well thank you; I’m glad you are not offended. I just felt we were on a path of going back and forth trying to prove each other wrong, and I didn’t want to go there. I joined this to renew old friendships and make new ones not to make enemies.

I do respect the opinions of others; even the ones who ride ugly bikes, :D and would fight for your right to slide down a mountain in a stationary bike on skis if you so desired.

So let’s shake hands (If we can reach kati-corner across the US from the South East Coast to the North West.) electronically at least, and move on.

Having ridden for over 30 years of which 20 years were spent with the bike industry (see profile) I remember your frames as well as those of the other fine craftsmen who dedicated themselves to turning out something that was unique and beautiful. I believe at one time you were running ads on a regular basis in the original "Velonews" and perhaps some other publications as well.

Having tackled a number of projects that require a high degree of craftsmanship, including building a frame, I can appreciate more your intensity for the many frames of unquestioned quality that you built.
I can also understand why you stopped building frames. The evolution of the cycling industry priced out most of the small production builders. There was a point for most framebuilders where the realities of economics simply outweighed the passion for what they did. This is regrettable and the unfortunate consequence of what we call progress.

In my present role as a financial advisor, I examine the trends that are most prevalent in the global economy. One of the biggest trends is the global oversupply of labor and factory capacity. While this has resulted in an ever growing stream of products that are affordable and plentiful, it hasn't necessarily resulted in a higher degree of overall well-being.

Most of us, unlike the craftsman or artisan are involved in a line of work where we do not see the relationship between the start and end of a product. Unlike the craftsman, we don't have that intimate connection with our work from beginning to end and the priceless pleasure of being able to influence that process at every point. Instead, we are told what to do, when to do it and the timeframe in which it should be done. Not an ideal environment for a creative process. Simply put, the best results come from an environment where you value what you do and your work is valued by others. The fortunate craftsman or artisan already lives in this world.

There is a school of economics that states that as automated processes and factories free us from the type of labor in which we have to participate to "earn a living", then we will be free to spend more time at what we really want to do.

I appreciate your patience reading this and I will continue to cheer on those courageous individuals like yourself who endeavored to put their own footprint in the world because they believed in their ability to create something that was useful and beautiful.

Dave Moulton, WOW a blast from the past!! I felt like you and got burned out! 17 yrs riding and 10yrs racing Pursuit racing. I am starting to come back but at my own pace. I do miss it. Welcome back.

I wish I do get a chance to ride one of your frames.

S/F,
CEYA!

Thank you Tom,

As I have stated here in other postings; when I left the bike business in 1993 I felt I had wasted a large part of my life. Now I realize, and comments like yours re-enforce my feelings that I was indeed fortunate and blessed to do what I did, and to do it for so long. We all search for a reason to be and a purpose in life and some of us don’t even realize we are doing it now.

Best regards, Dave Moulton.

Jeff,

I found this picture of the Fuso MTB I built in 1985. This was a light weight bike built more on the lines of a cyclo-cross bike that the other MTBs being built at that time. One of the trends I didn’t follow was the brake under the chainstays, behind the BB as everyone was doing back then. I always felt it was a mud trap in this position and the braze-on brake pivots were being pulled from the frame by the action of applying the brake. In the conventional position shown here the brake is pushed onto the braze-on and against the seat stays.

This frame built in Columbus SL was not really up to the punishment some of you guys inflict on a bike. I only built 50 of them and I would be interested to know if there are any still around.

I found this picture of the Fuso MTB I built in 1985. This was a light weight bike built more on the lines of a cyclo-cross bike that the other MTBs being built at that time.

Although a lightweight frame may not stand up to bombing downhill runs or 5-foot hucks, a light well-built nimble frame in the hands of a rider with skill who picks clean lines can tackle almost any terrain. While there are riders out there who legitimately push the envelope and require a very beefy frame, I have a feeling many riders are riding overbuilt frames simply to compensate for lack of desire (or skill) to ride clean lines.



One of the trends I didn’t follow was the brake under the chainstays, behind the BB as everyone was doing back then.

Good. That was a really dumb trend.



I always felt it was a mud trap in this position and the braze-on brake pivots were being pulled from the frame by the action of applying the brake. In the conventional position shown here the brake is pushed onto the braze-on and against the seat stays.

And history has proven you right. Luckily that fad went out of fashion by 1990. Unfortunately there were new stupid fads that krept up. But in their defense, when an industry is new and things are still being felt out, people will try anything. If a good design is really good and can survive the light of day then it will eventually last and if not, then it's dodo-time.



This frame built in Columbus SL was not really up to the punishment some of you guys inflict on a bike. I only built 50 of them and I would be interested to know if there are any still around.

Any rider who intentionally attempts to outride the limitations of their skill and/or their bike is not a good rider.

How the U-brake was born: Richard Cunningham, who was associated with Wilderness Trail Bikes was also a builder of aluminum frames. When he tried to attach a cantilever brake to the aluminum seat stays, he found that the stays flexed to an unsatisfactory degree under moderate to heavy braking. Since the chainstays were beefier and offered a more substantial anchor for a mounted brake, he decided to put the brake there. For this purpose, he invented the forerunner of the U-brake, called the roller cam brake, later manufactured by Suntour.

In those days, any number of the mass production brands were looking for any edge that would set their bikes apart from the competition. It was common practice for product designers affiliated with the larger companies to nose around the small custom MTB shops in Nor Cal to see what these guys were coming up with. As a result, a product designer with Diamondback noticed the brake mounted under the chainstay and thought this would be a dandy way to differentiate Diamondback MTB's from the rest of the competition. As it turned out, he was right, and Diamondbacks were selling briskly. At the time, I was working at Specialized and although we knew that the U-brake (like straight forks later on) was not an improvement, our bikes were sitting in the warehouse because we didn't have this feature. As a result, specifications were changed mid-year since the public was voting with their wallets.

This whole thing could have been avoided with a better engineered seat stay on Richard's aluminum rig...

This whole thing could have been avoided with a better engineered seat stay on Richard's aluminum rig...

As a fan of RC and his Mantis bikes and also having owned and ridden the Nishiki Ariel designed by him, I followed his comments over the years. As I recall, he once said that the U-Brake idea was one of the biggest design mistakes ever made. I also remember the infamous Suntour roller-cam.

That's very interesting Tom; I never knew the history. I just remember it was a bear to work with. One thing a frame builder always needs to consider when creating something new. Ask yourself this, “Will it sell frames or am I creating a monster that will come back and bite me.”