unabashed plug, Crumpton

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On May 9, 4:03*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> > Just as a side note, I was talking to Nick on a ride a week or so ago,
> > IRT stay length and room between the chainstays for "wider" tires,
> > since I'd noticed that one of his customer bikes had a whole lot more
> > "tire clearance" just aft of the BB than his personal ride. The brake
> > bridge on the customer bike was quite a bit higher, also. How about
> > that, a well-regarded custom CF builder leaving room for 25mm tires,
> > mud, and out-of-true wheels? There's some progress for you! <g>
>
> Now that is a good thing. *I wonder how he managed it with prefab stay
> units?

He's good. Wins shoot-outs and awards and stuff for his work.

>*Now I find myself in Joe's position, thinking in
> regard to Nick's bikes "why bother, when you could buy almost the same
> thing on eBay for less than the cost of materials?"

You'd have to ride and compare and be honest with yourself.

> I guess it's like curly lugs. *I don't mind curly lugs, but I'll be
> damned before I'll spend a fortune and years on a waiting list to get
> a bike whose only real distinction is curly lugs. *Still, there are
> folks who do go to absurd lengths to get curly lugs (and the maker's
> mark thereof).

Curly lugs, I don't care too much but for those who do, more power.
Not a waste in my book.
>
> As for me, I don't opt in to being choosy. *I can either be choosy, or
> I can give up cycling, or I can hurt myself. *If I were 5'10" and 150
> lbs., and every manufacturer of every bike-related thing in the entire
> world made something that would work just fine for me, I suppose I
> might get distracted by minutiae. *But to my eyes, every bike with
> 73.5 degree angles, short stays, plastic forks, too few spokes and too
> little tire clearance is so interchangeable with all the others as to
> become invisible. *They all make me say "meh". *I wouldn't know how to
> pick from among them except by weight and price.

You're not picking from among them in the first place. My secondhand
Litespeed Catalyst, with 73.5's, short stays, carbon fiber fork, 32/36
spokes (unless I put the Shamals or the Trispoke on) works just fine
for me. Tire clearance isn't vast but it works with a 25-ish tire on
the back, handles very well, rides a little stiff but OK as I'm not
doing the 140-mile days of my relative youth. If I were carrying loads
or other people, well duh, I wouldn't use that bike in the first
place. So lighten up on the sour grapes already, OK? --D-y

Chalo

dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Now I find myself in Joe's position, thinking in
> > regard to Nick's bikes "why bother, when you could buy almost the same
> > thing on eBay for less than the cost of materials?"
>
> You'd have to ride and compare and be honest with yourself.

Ride it? [break, destroy, hurt self] Mmm... no. Some other time and
some other bike maybe.

I just wrote off a coaster brake hub last night. I was climbing a
little hill-- the thing went "pop" and decided it was a two-way
freewheel. This after doing the same to a SRAM 7-speed gearhub a
couple of weeks ago and crunching up a tandem cassette hub a couple of
months ago. I have better ways to risk my hide and depreciate
equipment than to reduce somebody's precious toy to the world's most
expensive and toxic kindling.

The folks who cough up phenomenal sums for bikes like Crumpton's and
treat them like prizewinning Shih-tzus can take a chance on them. I
know such folly would only end in sorrow if I were to try it. Nick
probably doesn't even have access to the ingredients to make a plastic
bike I would consider safe to ride. By the time I set it up with
trustworthy components, it wouldn't even be particularly lightweight
anyway.

> > But to my eyes, every bike with
> > 73.5 degree angles, short stays, plastic forks, too few spokes and too
> > little tire clearance is so interchangeable with all the others as to
> > become invisible. They all make me say "meh". I wouldn't know how to
> > pick from among them except by weight and price.
>
> You're not picking from among them in the first place.

Right; I'm picking around them. I could get something like that in my
size, but it would be inadvisable. Even the upgraded equivalent
(tandem fork, full spoke count wheels) would suffer from inappropriate
weight distribution, lousy ride, and excessive risk of wheel damage.

But the same things that make such bikes unusable for me, make them
marginal for practically everyone. Isn't that the point-- to sport a
bike with bird bones and stiletto heels that isn't really cut out for
life on the mean streets? It proclaims that you ride bike only for
leisure, not practical matters.

Chalo

Tom Sherman

Chalo Colina wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>> Just as a side note, I was talking to Nick on a ride a week or so ago,
>> IRT stay length and room between the chainstays for "wider" tires,
>> since I'd noticed that one of his customer bikes had a whole lot more
>> "tire clearance" just aft of the BB than his personal ride. The brake
>> bridge on the customer bike was quite a bit higher, also. How about
>> that, a well-regarded custom CF builder leaving room for 25mm tires,
>> mud, and out-of-true wheels? There's some progress for you! <g>
>
> Now that is a good thing. I wonder how he managed it with prefab stay
> units?
>
> I used to hang out occasionally with this guy at Dead Baby Bikes
> events:
>
> http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/
>
> Joe would occasionally become visibly irritated and perturbed that I
> would spend so much time and expertise making ordinary bikes, as
> opposed to some ungainly feet-forward abortions. He thought it was a
> waste of my effort. Now I find myself in Joe's position, thinking in
> regard to Nick's bikes "why bother, when you could buy almost the same
> thing on eBay for less than the cost of materials?"
>
If one reads Joe's published rants, it becomes obvious he would
certainly qualify as out side the main stream of cycling.

> I guess it's like curly lugs. I don't mind curly lugs, but I'll be
> damned before I'll spend a fortune and years on a waiting list to get
> a bike whose only real distinction is curly lugs. Still, there are
> folks who do go to absurd lengths to get curly lugs (and the maker's
> mark thereof).
>
I would rather have a bicycle with plain lugs. Ornamentation for the
sake of ornamentation is unattractive.

> As for me, I don't opt in to being choosy. I can either be choosy, or
> I can give up cycling, or I can hurt myself. If I were 5'10" and 150
> lbs., and every manufacturer of every bike-related thing in the entire
> world made something that would work just fine for me, I suppose I
> might get distracted by minutiae. But to my eyes, every bike with
> 73.5 degree angles, short stays, plastic forks, too few spokes and too
> little tire clearance is so interchangeable with all the others as to
> become invisible. They all make me say "meh". I wouldn't know how to
> pick from among them except by weight and price.
>
Sorry to say, but I doubt that there is much money to be made in
bicycles for those who are in the 99.9th percentile in both height and
weight.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On May 10, 2:36*am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ride it? *[break, destroy, hurt self] *Mmm... no. *Some other time and
> some other bike maybe.

Not meant in that manner, whatsoever. "You'd have to ride one suitable
for you, compare to similar others".

> I just wrote off a coaster brake hub last night. *I was climbing a
> little hill-- the thing went "pop" and decided it was a two-way
> freewheel. *This after doing the same to a SRAM 7-speed gearhub a
> couple of weeks ago and crunching up a tandem cassette hub a couple of
> months ago. *I have better ways to risk my hide and depreciate
> equipment than to reduce somebody's precious toy to the world's most
> expensive and toxic kindling.

I've never actually met you, intros and all, but I do remember a brief
encounter at the old South Austin Bikes, actually not too long past
the time when I swapped out some plumber labor (venting for bathroom
fixtures IMS) for a tubular tire or two with Jim Keene and (I think)
Al, or maybe Joe. Anyhow, even my paltry 182 lb. racing weight of old
pushed the envelope of equipment made for a population where 165lbs.
is "big".

> The folks who cough up phenomenal sums for bikes like Crumpton's and
> treat them like prizewinning Shih-tzus can take a chance on them. *I
> know such folly would only end in sorrow if I were to try it. *Nick
> probably doesn't even have access to the ingredients to make a plastic
> bike I would consider safe to ride. *By the time I set it up with
> trustworthy components, it wouldn't even be particularly lightweight
> anyway.

Some of the Crumptons are being raced. Large pack crits (over 100
riders at one Driveway crit recently) and RR's. *I* would probably go
the pampered route but then that's why I ride a secondhand Catalyst
with the decals already removed. Which actually, I bought cheap to
race and not have a ton invested, in case it got Crumpled. No worries
IRT stone chips, rust, clear coat dings, etc., and it doesn't show
dirt too bad, either.

> But the same things that make such bikes unusable for me, make them
> marginal for practically everyone. *Isn't that the point-- to sport a
> bike with bird bones and stiletto heels that isn't really cut out for
> life on the mean streets? *It proclaims that you ride bike only for
> leisure, not practical matters.

In talking to Nick (and reported conversations, etc.) he's done the
"push it to the edge" thing IRT weight, with "experimental
prototypes" (my words). His SL (lightest offering) isn't nearly as
light as it could be, in the interest of a long lifespan at intended
use. And, while they might not want to take their beautiful (opinion)
new Crumptons on one of the 140-mile dirt road rides of yore, at least
a couple of the local Crumpton owners are members of the old
Freewheeling gang of go-for-the-dirts-on-Sunday riders. One is a
'crosser (8th and 10th at ancient Nats), the other is a fairly recent
Texas age-degraded Crit champ. Meaning: besides the eye candy aspect,
their bikes are used for racer stuff-- group rides, racing. Point
being, farbon works well for that-- a recent road race, Cold Spring I
think, was held on a nasty chip-n-seal road (did I already mention?),
where one Crumpton owner reported being surprised at the lack of hand
trauma during (and after!) the event-- compared to what would be
expected on his old steel bike. IOW, this is avocation (or lifestyle
<g>) not lawnchair kkleisure, or posing.

It comes down to tools for the job IMHO. If I had the discretionary
bux (not with young kids still in the house), easy choice. For now, I
scrounge <g> and that's OK, too.

At the risk of re-repeating, the object was to win the comparison. So,
congrats to the little guy, for once <g> in this modern corporate
world, and he's a local, too. --D-y

Andre Jute

On May 10, 8:36*am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > Now I find myself in Joe's position, thinking in
> > > regard to Nick's bikes "why bother, when you could buy almost the same
> > > thing on eBay for less than the cost of materials?"
>
> > You'd have to ride and compare and be honest with yourself.
>
> Ride it? *[break, destroy, hurt self] *Mmm... no. *Some other time and
> some other bike maybe.
>
> I just wrote off a coaster brake hub last night. *I was climbing a
> little hill-- the thing went "pop" and decided it was a two-way
> freewheel. *This after doing the same to a SRAM 7-speed gearhub a
> couple of weeks ago and crunching up a tandem cassette hub a couple of
> months ago. *I have better ways to risk my hide and depreciate
> equipment than to reduce somebody's precious toy to the world's most
> expensive and toxic kindling.
>
> The folks who cough up phenomenal sums for bikes like Crumpton's and
> treat them like prizewinning Shih-tzus can take a chance on them. *I
> know such folly would only end in sorrow if I were to try it. *Nick
> probably doesn't even have access to the ingredients to make a plastic
> bike I would consider safe to ride. *By the time I set it up with
> trustworthy components, it wouldn't even be particularly lightweight
> anyway.
>
> > > But to my eyes, every bike with
> > > 73.5 degree angles, short stays, plastic forks, too few spokes and too
> > > little tire clearance is so interchangeable with all the others as to
> > > become invisible. *They all make me say "meh". *I wouldn't know how to
> > > pick from among them except by weight and price.
>
> > You're not picking from among them in the first place.
>
> Right; I'm picking around them. *I could get something like that in my
> size, but it would be inadvisable. Even the upgraded equivalent
> (tandem fork, full spoke count wheels) would suffer from inappropriate
> weight distribution, lousy ride, and excessive risk of wheel damage.
>
> But the same things that make such bikes unusable for me, make them
> marginal for practically everyone. *Isn't that the point-- to sport a
> bike with bird bones and stiletto heels that isn't really cut out for
> life on the mean streets? *It proclaims that you ride bike only for
> leisure, not practical matters.
>
> Chalo

Heavens above, Chalo, you're like two grumpy old reactionaries rolled
into one. People are using these Crumpton bikes to distinguish
themselves from the mob of cyclists. It's a legitimate purpose. If it
keeps a small craftsman going, that's a good thing, and if it puts
caviar in his mouth that's even better, because it creates space below
him for others with a less boutiquey, more craftsmanlike outlook.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/...E%20HUMOUR.html

Ryan Cousineau

In article
<tedbennett-3D748B.18074409052008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>
> > Hm. What about a one-stop commuter nexus in a downtown core? Valet bike
> > storage, on-site showers and lockers, bike shop with same-day service
> > for repairs, and (oh, why not...) a bit of coffee service? The trick
> > would be getting a central enough location that you had a viable
> > customer base, but such a business would have a chance of being a
> > game-changer: actually creating bike commuters by virtue of easing some
> > of the pain.
>
> Check. Bike Central here in Portland.
>
> http://www.portlandonline.com/trans...c=34813&a=58381
>
>
> Ted

A NON-profit? I want to make some money, here!

Thanks. I'll look into it.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Chalo

dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>
> I've never actually met you, intros and all, but I do remember a brief
> encounter at the old South Austin Bikes, actually not too long past
> the time when I swapped out some plumber labor (venting for bathroom
> fixtures IMS) for a tubular tire or two with Jim Keene and (I think)
> Al, or maybe Joe. Anyhow, even my paltry 182 lb. racing weight of old
> pushed the envelope of equipment made for a population where 165lbs.
> is "big".

Hmm, whaddaya know? I worked there a couple of different spells. The
last time was in 1994, and that stint ended when I snapped a Deore XT
crank spindle off trying to surge out into traffic on South First,
resulting in me breaking my face. I was rather lean and fast then, no
heavier than about 260 lbs. or so.

A few years later, I remember just by chance being Joe Kunesh's last
customer on his last day of business before he packed it in. I had
special-ordered a Sachs front drum and when I went to the South
Congress shop to pick it up, I learned that there would be no more
stopping by South Austin Bikes. I don't think I ever saw Joe again,
or Al either for that matter.

> Meaning: besides the eye candy aspect,
> their bikes are used for racer stuff-- group rides, racing.

That's as it should be. I think the weight budget for most CFRP bikes
contains an allowance for inattention that probably doesn't apply to
the work of a single craftsman with his name on the downtube. If the
level of finish is any indication, all details in Nick's bikes are
just so. Weight for weight, that would make his bikes at least more
predictable than factory bikes if not outright stronger.

I think of plastic bikes as little airplanes for the road. That is,
they are both strangely strong and very demanding about what they'll
tolerate. They are the opposite of old-style steel bikes that may not
be especially strong but are so tough that small localized failures
can pass unnoticed.

> It comes down to tools for the job IMHO. If I had the discretionary
> bux (not with young kids still in the house), easy choice. For now, I
> scrounge <g> and that's OK, too.

I have had the liberty to spend pretty much all the money I wish on
bikes for a few years now. My stable has grown greatly in size but
not in median cost. I scrounge a lot-- not primarily to save cash but
mostly to acquire some of the parts that were too good (or heavy, or
big) to remain on the market. For instance I came up with a handful
of 185mm Primo Powerbite cranks and BBs for $89/set some years back.
I bought them because they were my first choice irrespective of
cost.

> At the risk of re-repeating, the object was to win the comparison. So,
> congrats to the little guy, for once <g> in this modern corporate
> world, and he's a local, too.

Momentum magazine or BCQ should host a shootout like that. I imagine
the entries would be a bit more inspiring (to me).

Chalo