maybe the frame's okay, but i sure as hell wouldn't outfit it like that. that's NOT practical for the sort of riding i do. sorry, for me deep-v's are practical, for me drops are practical, for a lot of people here who live in cities, it is practical.

anyway, the point i started this reply to make is that the frame isn't that bad, and same goes for the bridgestone frame. but did the same guy design the handlebars, the seat post, the front rack, etc.? that's where the bike becomes ugly and impractical for the way a lot of us ride, hence our (or at least my) distaste for it. factor in the cost...and man. why?

I thought we were all able to appreciate "your mom" jokes on the purely juvenile level of, "what ever it's a message board," my mistake...... and it was made before the drinking and biking, strictly a sober comment. also you're confusing useless for useful, cause get me drunk and I dance like my pants are on fire!

damn, I even censored myself in my "your mom" joke, and it still got deleted.

so yeah, to me it's all light hearted and I really don't give a damn what you say, cause I don't know you, this is all just a small distraction in my daily life, I hope you see it the same way. If we ever do get the chance of meeting I'll buy you a drink, unless you're a useless straightedger...

oh and on topic, that bike is pretty ugly. something about every rivendell I've ever seen looks like it's way too tall......

This thread is so awesome. I just want to post to it before it gets locked.

Have I mentioned the part about *****ing less and riding more?

Awesome, I tell you.

Flame on.

For realz. It may be ugly but it's still a bike. Bikes not bummers!

whoa..i thought you said bikes not HUMMERS at first and i was going to have to disagree...err..

i would have agreed totally.

oh, wait...what kind of hummer are we talking here? bad, big stupid gas guzzling hummers? or...you know...the other kind?

Someone haiku this thread, quickly.



Much depends on your swiftness!

I've heard that "slack" comment regarding seat tubes before this.
What does it mean?

As opposed to something like this is what I meant.

I've never been to this SS forum before, but I am totally taken aback at the cultish reactionary response to this bike. It's weird, because this company is being accused of being conformist, of being ugly, of being too expensive, etc., but this frame has several aspects to it that are not widely available.

1. It allows the double chainrings or flip flop hub while running a rear brake using angled track ends. As far as I know, that has never been done before. I think this confounds the conventions for the riders on this forum, but you can't see this in your normal context. This is a off-road/touring all-rounder bike, far more suited than any track/SS bike to go places besides flattish roads or urban areas. Having no brakes or just front ones might arguably be "cool" for some of you, but it is no good if you want to use it as a cross bike or off-road trails bike. Which is what most people do with it. One of their employees placed very well in the national cross SS division last year (and good overall) on this bike.

2. This goes with one, in a way. Excellent tire clearance. You can run many 29er tires with it, and with the shorter BB drop on this frame compared to their other designs, you have good off-road clearance.

3. The rack and fender eyelets allow touring and commuting, and the design allows--but does not required--you to have the bars level with the saddle.

If none of these things interest you, that's fine. It wasn't designed for you. But since there is no bike *quite* like it in production, and since it can be demonstrable either comfortable for touring and race-worthy for cross, this is a "smart" bike, as the copy reads. It might not be your smart bike.

This is a disclaimer: I have one, the green one. Every person who sees it (and I do not know any people like you) says its cool and beautiful. And it does have shellacked tape, which I did for the cool green that I got. I can take it everywhere, and I love to ride it on muddy trails. The headbadge is an evergreen tree, and I live in the forest in Southeastern NY, not in the city. I am 28, and I would NEVER do my 20 mile roundtrip hilly commute to work with bars as low as many of those displayed in this forum. It has nothing to do with physical ability; I'm in fantastic shape. The design of this bike meets my needs for winter riding and commuting and trailriding in a way no brakeless FG would. I like to ride with my dog and carry things, and wear boots on snowy days with platform pedals and not sweat about things. If I want to climb a local mountain, I can shift it manually to the smaller chainring. If those bad*ss early TDF riders could do it, I can deal with it.

I really have to agree with the other poster about the irony of charges of "conformity." While there are consumers of Riv and related products that do funny things, an outsider to this forum clearly sees a very insular and conformist community here.

There seems to be a bit of youthful posturing in this forum.

Quick question how is the chain aligned if you are using two different chainrings up front? do you have to use spacers in the back to change the chainline when you want to switch gears?

with SS the chainline isn't quite so important as with fixed. the variation is a-okay.

The straightest alignment is with the bigger ring. It is placed on the crank to align as perfectly as possible with the rear cog. When you put it on the smaller ring, it will be suboptimal, *compared* to the bigger ring. It works just fine, of course. The smaller ring works fine with my fixed cog on the other side of the flip flop hub. No spacers are involved.

But, just to be clear, it is optimized for the larger ring.

[QUOTE=SteelCommuter]I've never been to this SS forum before, but I am totally taken aback at the cultish reactionary response to this bike. It's weird, because this company is being accused of being conformist, of being ugly, of being too expensive, etc., but this frame has several aspects to it that are not widely available.

SteelCommuter, I went through the same culture shock when I, too, acquired a QB, eventually making it fixed, and then coming to this forum expecting to find a free thinking/wheeling embracement of all things fixed/SS, but instead it turned out to be a very narrowly focused and myopic core group. There are a few voices of reason, but readin through all the threads is primarily an exercise in separating the chaff from the wheat! I do find it a guilty pleasure, though...something akin to watching "Jackass" when no one else is around.

[QUOTE=Zonker]sometimes we just like to have a li'l fun and get rowdy! we jus' playin'! happy everything to everybody!! it's all good!! all cyclists are heroes!! (except for mtb's )

I'm not going back and re-reading every post, but for the most part I don't think negative responses to this bike are cultish or reactionary. For my own part, I simply don't like the dual chainring setup. That "versatility" runs counter to the simplicity I look for in a fixed gear or single speed bike. The frame is very nice if rather expensive, and I might like to have something like that for a more utilitarian bike, but then I have utilitarian bikes with gears and everything. What we do or don't like is a matter of taste though. We either like it or we don't, and apparently a lot of people here don't care fr the Quickbeam. There's nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with you or Zonnker loving yours. Of course you love your bike after all you bought it, and presumably spent a lot of dough on it as well.

If anything, the reactionary responses here have been from Quickbeam lovers, not quick beam haters. You seem very defensive. Just because we don't like your bike doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your bike, or anything wrong with US. we like what we like.

Also I think the tone of the responses might have been different if Zonker had said "look at my new Quickbeam" instead of "Look at Rivendells new Quickbeam". Folks here are generally sensitive about not hating on other people's bikes, but when the topic of a new bike from a manufacturer comes up, it's considered fair game to discuss what you love or hate about it. It's a bike for sale, so "I wouldn't buy that" is a fair response.

Quickbeam, two speed-- no
Orange, makes my vomit grow
Just give me the cash.

Yeah, cause riding around on track bikes is the pinnacle of functionality.

Sigh... you know you're RIGHT! The Quickbeam is the coolest bike I've ever seen! A single speed with more than one speed! Why has no one ever thought of that before?! Why it's revolutionary! Before you know it ALL bikes will have more than one speed! Why would anyone want only one speed annyway?

Yeah, this sounds like some backpedaling to me. You should read those posts, especially if you're going to respond. I have no emotional investment in this, because I'm happy with my bike and so are my friends. But as an outsider, I'm giving you a bit of commentary, and you can take it or leave it. But don't go trying to flip the situation, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. My response was not at all defensive, it was expository.

The frameset was around $800-$900, fairly inexpensive for a new lugged bicycle with custom dropouts. A Gunnar Street Dog TIG frameset is not much less. Both are excellent framesets, handmade by well-paid people in their respective countries. Since the brazing of a lugged frame takes substantially more time than the average TIG weld, this price is reasonable. It doesn't compare to the low cost of a conversion, of which I have a few. I have a $100 Centurion in great shape, although it's not as versatile.

Whether people here like it or not, the SS and FG market will undergo changes and not remain static. The people are sticking to what was "pure" at the point in which they became familiar with the culture can do so, but they will be seen as insular and reactionary if they make snide comments. On the other hand, I'm far more interested in good and exciting ideas and in putting more of my friends on bikes.

Oh is that all it costs? Never mind everything I said about price. How can they possibly make it so cheap?

see:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/te...c06c60&ei=5070

I was going to make an obnoxious, snarky post, but I think maybe I'll do a thoughtful one instead, because there are a lot of good points that can be made as it relates to the "Riv aesthetic"and such:

First off, I don't think that either camp can really level completely unironic charges of being "cultish" or "conformist" in their build habits or componentry choices. I don't ride fixed, as I live in a hilly area of a hilly area, but I pay attention to Fixed Gear Gallery and this forum because I really love the way most of you build up your bikes and personalize them. Having said that, I'm an unapolagetic drinker of the Rivendell Kool-Aid, since I have been cycling long enough to become "opinionated" about equipment, components, etc.(ALL cyclists are this way, without fail, after a few years, which is why I tend to hesitate to apply this term to cyclists, unless it's Jobst Brandt. )

So, yeah, I won't criticize you for spending tons on Deep V's and Miche Supertype components, because I would think about it when I was typing my credit card number into Riv's website, as I purchased a Nitto rack and Hoss saddlebag to haul bunnies around in, and it would make me feel ironical, ya dig? (BTW, I had a dream last night that I was picking baby bunnies out of the grass and feeding them to a wolf pack I'd befriended, is that weird?) Also, a lot of our choices seem downright identical, since most fixie riders and Riv head stress practicality AND beauty in their choice of bikes, and generally have an aversion to what the marketing boys decide are the "must haves" this month, (but I would like to add, we STILL end up spending a large chunk of our paychecks on bike ****, no?) And everyone should bow down to Phil Wood hubs.

About Grant P. I think the industry needs more cats like this. When I saw the Quickbeam, I also said "WTF?" and I still don't find the two chainrings up front all that desireable, or anything. But, you know, that dude has been launching lead ballons like the Moustache bar, the Atlantis, etcetera for a few decades now, and landing on his feet. So he comes up with ideas like colored tires and multi-geared single-speeds, as well as keeping the Brooks saddle, friction-shifting torch burning, so what? It's better than another inevitable round of carbon fiber road bikes with 13 cogs on the rear cassette, all titanium, with rear wheels dished so badly they need re-trueing after every ride, and of course the compatible $500 STI to go with it. More Sheldon Browns and Grant Petersons would be a positive thing, in my book.

Anyway, we can both agree on one very definite thing: road bikes as they are popularly envisioned do not meet the needs of all cyclists, so "niche markets" like retro-grouches and fixie riders spring up, who both appreciate beautiful, functional bikes. There ain't nothin' wrong with that, either.

I'm guessing you don't have much of a concept as to the obscene amount of time, effort and energy it takes to fabricate a lugged bike frame by hand.

The Quickbeam costs the same (maybe a bit less) than a Cinelli Olympic, which is made from the cheapest 2x butted steel tubeset Columbus offered at that time (Thron). The Quickbeam costs substantially less than the Cinelli Supercorsa Pista, which is made from the least expensive steel tubeset Columbus currently offers (Zona). I have no idea what tubeset the Quickbeam is built from, but I'd be shocked if they used anything lower quality than Thron or Zona. Obviously, the Cinellis and the Quickbeam are apples and oranges, but the point is that quality, handbuilt, lugged bikes are expensive.