SS/FG is not a religion. it is NOT zen. it isn't a "concept". it's just a way to set up your bicycle.

please, mattface, get off the "THATS NOT A SINGLESPEED LETS PUT A DERAILLEUR ON IT!" horse.

i'm past the fact that we're all looking for something to hate, and rivendell is an easy one.

i'm sick of everyone trying to prove how different or rebellious they can be by taking a big **** on something that someone else loves.

i hope that this is the last post in this thread. go ride your bikes. go ride your 2x1s, your 1x1s, your fixed gears, your 3x9s, your mountain bikes.

Well put.

I think there's a lot of confusion between what it means to have a practical bike and what it means to have a versatile bike. I am all about versatility and that's why I like the quickbeam (you can do anything on it!).

I love the orange and the angled track ends are a great idea (no adjusting the brake pads, hooray!).

Guess you need to be totin the art supplies around in a Chrome to be unique.

That pic from Arrested Development is priceless

Not trying to be unique. I like what I like. You like what you like. I don't think Quickbeam lovers are wrong to love it, so why do they seem to care that I don't care for it?

For the record:
1. I don't dislike Rivendell at all. and as for Jobst, The XO-1 is one of my favorite bikes of all time.
2. I know it costs a lot to make a quality frame, but I will never consider $800 inexpensive. I fully appreciate the quality that goes into a Quickbeam, but I'll never consider buying a frame that expensive unless I'm absolutely in love with it.
3. Chrome bags look nice, but they're a tad expensive

this thread officially smells like farts.

Quickbeams are the most revolutionary design in single speed history. Anyone who says otherwise shut yer yap, and go back to sucking yer mommas teat. You are beneath contempt.

what's revolutionary about it? It's still just two triangles with wheels. it's a four speed bike with out derailers. canteleivers suck, if it had disc mounts, then it'd be a different story. just because it has features you like, doesn't mean it's better than bikes I like, just different.

Prices are an interesting topic, and I certainly am not anyone to say what you should spend. The geared and so potentially OT Bridgestone XO-1 (no flames, please), designed by Petersen, in 1993 was priced a little above $1100 (the XO-3 was $650 b/c of cheaper materials/parts). That was 13 years ago. Regarding on-topic current SS/FG, a Surly steamroller frameset is around $410, so I figure it costs with nice components around $700-900. The Redline Monocog and the coming 9-2-5 are around $500-$600 new, complete. Those are all good bikes. Not too different in price, really. Getting a used bike is the least expensive way to go, but it depends upon a previous buyer and market for that bike. It also depends on finding one, which means finding either one on-line and buying sight unseen or being in an area which has used ones around. Sometimes, that is the case, most times it is not.

Apparently, enough people seem to think that $1200-$2000 is not too much to spend on a frameset, because there are more and more framebuilders out there. It's actually beginning to make certain US-made frames look downright a steal at $600-$700. For something that will last you your whole life, that's not too bad. Building good bikes can't be great business, because they last so long

Now I'm wondering if there has been a Redline 9-2-5 threads yet. Hmmm...

Hey mattface, just to let you know...I have the 2004 geen model, saw they were coming out with a new one, and I knew they'd been discussed here before, so thought I would throw out a link to the 2006 model pics to see if there was any interest. I'm an obvious enthusiast and I do realize it's not to everyone's taste. I certainly don't mind thoughtful debates about the perceived pluses or minuses, in fact I enjoy them. (I can, however, do without the sophomoric "that's gay, that sucks, makes me want to vomit" remarks). I don't quite understand the "grandpa" bike comments and the several about moving it to the 50+ forum...there are at least three of us here in their 20's and 30's that own and enjoy them. Note to all: We will all one day be over 50! (if vices, reckless behavior, acts of God, etc. don't do you in first!)

Yeah, you're right, that sort of comment is uncalled for, but this IS the internet after all. You'll have that.

I'm glad you showed us the latest model. I like the green better than the orange. Orange bikes are hot, but I've got a thing for green bikes. I hope the orange bike lovers out there don't take offence at my stating a color preference.

I'm not so sure why I got sucked into the debate so wholeheartedly either. I do think the dual chainring feature is dumb, but then it's as easy to remove the second chainring from a Quickbeam as it is from any road crank. I kind of thought this thread had died a peaceful death, but steelcommuter resuscitated it.

I dig the front rack/trunk action. Yeah, the steez is not for the hippo, but I'm not one to argue with comfort.

And old thread but I just saw the quickbeam yesterday for the first time and wanted to echo the above comments. I've been riding my ss commuter for a couple months now and I love it. But, when I want to go riding up the steep hills at griffith park I've got to take of the 15t cog and put on the 18t. No big deal, but if I want to ride my ss up those hills there's no other way. The quickbeam is a ss dream machine, to me, as far as practicality goes. Not because I'm on the fence about ss bikes but because I'd like my main bike that I ride all the time to be ss, and sometimes that means I have to change the cog. Having a bike with no derailleurs to f- with and yet 4 choices of gearing in situ is just about perfect.

I love not having derailleurs (or any kind of cable-operated gears), but that means sometimes my ss isn't practicle. If I could afford it the QB would probably be the perfect #1 main bike for me.

Yeah, kind of granpa-ish, but I think utility has it's own aesthetic.