Maelochs

Is that not the ultimate badge of dishonor? "His stuff has value mostly as a counter to equally insane ideas promoted on BF."

ofajen

Thanks for that!

Otto

Happy Feet

In regards to s24o's.

It is not objectively correct to say "the big issue with sub 24 riding is.." It would be more correct to say "In my case the big problem is...". That assertion is subject to the individual. In my case for example, it is super easy to do a variety of s24o's or s48o's routes in an ordinary weekend. I live on the side of a mountain, am a 30km ride from the tip of the Northern Cascades and am an hours drive from three major mountain passes.

Also. Using the example of carrying 80lb's of gear but balking at a 5lb axe has little relevance when discussing the idea of taking a hatchet on a s240. Using an exaggerated set of criteria people wouldn't reasonably employ doesn't discredit the activity.


Of course it is not for everyone but I doubt most things in cycling are one size fits all. For some it might work, for others not so much. There is nothing wrong with a writer putting out the idea for others to consider. In the touring sub forum it is quite common to suggest short overnight rides to people who are unsure about the idea of touring or who are testing out new bikes/gear. There is nothing unusual about the concept.


Indy is correct that the idea of s240's has been around in various forms for a long time. Almost nothing people write about is really original. I think GP might say it has merely been forgotten in the current trend (I also think the trend is coming around with many sub genres emerging). Alistair Humphreys promotes a similar concept called the "micro adventure" here: https://alastairhumphreys.com/microadventures-landing/

Happy Feet

An interesting video by Alistair that touches indirectly on some of these ideas. Like, how hard it is to have a little adventure (that part starts around 6:00).

FiftySix

I love the idea of a short range bike camping trip. There's hardly any public land in Texas, so you'd have to go to some state park or national park which is nowhere near a short range bicycle trip for most folks here. Unless, you like camping at water detention dug out areas. The ones here that aren't part of a city or county park, certainly have a fair share of "permanent" campers near them (aka homeless folks).

livedarklions

I don't think many of his ideas are insane, I just don't agree with some of them. I also think some of the "they're ruining the industry" stuff was a bit closer to the mark when he was writing it the first time.


OTOH. showing people that the "one true way" perspective pretty much sucks by giving them another version of it is a neat rhetorical tool. I come at this from the perspective of someone who's never met anyone who rides the same way I do--high gear, long distance, flat pedals, cargo shorts, and fast, so I'm used to hearing "general" rules I find completely silly..

BoraxKid

My name is not Dunning-Kruger, it's BoraxKid. Grant Petersen's takes on bicycles are nothing more than asinine ad copy, designed to help him hoodwink people into buying his overpriced, ugly steel frames fitted with inferior components, along with some norm-core, low-fashion clothes. Grant Petersen did not invent the idea of wide tires paired with drop bars, nor did he cause any market shifts with his expensive, boutique, retro-styled bikes. I know this because I built myself a city bike in 2011 (prior to Just Ride being published) after reading about all their virtues on popular internet bike sites, and then I bought a touring bike (with drop bars and 40 mm tires) in 2012 for doing longer rides. That touring bike was on its 3rd or 4th year-model iteration by then, because the trend of selling bikes with drop bars and wide tires definitely predates Just Ride. Petersen simply wrote a book to capitalize on the wave that other bike makers were already riding.


The ironic element here is that for many years, I also rode as Grant Petersen suggested: no kit and no clipless, but I also did so at higher speeds and over longer distances. I shunned jerseys and clipless really because I had to be frugal and Alton Brown taught me that uni-task items are bad. However, I've recently seen the folly of shunning all new tech as "pointless," especially where aerodynamics are concerned. I have found that wearing cycling-specific kit is much more comfortable for getting a workout, and clipless really does have a nice feel and performs better and more reliably than my platforms & Hold Fast or the toe clips and straps from yesteryear. Grant Petersen's book is fine for people that need to justify why they ride slowly, but for anyone that is comfortable in their own skin, Just Ride reads like the pointless ego embrocation that it is. If you can't see that, take the wool blanket off your head.

BoraxKid

Riding that bike for more than 10 miles at a time sounds like an absolutely awful idea. Why would anyone make themselves a full sail in the wind and then endure that nonsense for longer than is necessary to reach a nearby destination? I mean, it's fine as an exercise in utility biking, but those types of bikes are not designed for long rides (at least if you care about comfort & efficiency).

c_m_shooter

The Sam Houston and Davy Crockett National forests are pretty popular bikepacking areas in southeast texas. I plan on heading down there next month or so with a small group.

70sSanO

I don’t care much one way or the other about Grant Peterson’s designs. I don’t tour and it obvious that neither do you.

You don’t have any clue about the people here who have ridden thousands of miles through all sorts of weather on those exact same bikes. What comfort and efficiency do you think is appropriate riding across states, even the country?

Do real touring in your kit first and then report back.

John

Happy Feet

It's a little sad to see how much vitriol some people can generate towards others who really have no impact upon their lives. And such a well formed negative opinion for someone who admittedly, had never heard of Grant until four days ago. You are indeed a fast study to know so much about him his products and his motivations. The question I might have is why the rush to such distain? What is achieved by it for you personally?

While you may think of him as just some guy who wrote a book in 2012, he was part of trans continental riding in the 70's, US director of marketing for Bridgestone in the 80's and is credited with developing a very popular and coveted product line while there. So... probably not riding someone else's wave.

But of course, by your account, you (anonymous poster) were doing it all before him, only farther and faster.

It says more about your own ego state than that of any of his readers.

himespau 

+1 on both accounts

abshipp 

In making sense of the upright bar fat-tire Rivendell, I find it more helpful to think of them like going for a walk or a hike in really comfortable shoes.

You're sitting up straight so it's easy to look around.

The steel frame and fat tires soak up the little bumps and make the big ones less dramatic.

Adding racks, a basket, and luggage allows you to carry some food, maybe a pair of binoculars to take a look at the little blue bird that fluttered past you or the critter across the field at the edge of the woods.

While you're not going as fast as you possibly could on a different bike, you're still going faster than you can walk so you are able to cover more ground. And when the terrain tilts down you can still enjoy that wonderful feeling of descending

BoraxKid

Suffering unnecessarily is not a virtue, it's silly. I own a touring bike and have ridden thousands of miles touring on it. What I found is that efficiency while touring is necessary in order to avoid the tour becoming a tedious slog. That's why I set my bike up to let me balance staying out of the wind with riding in a sustainable position, and why I make sure my gear and my kit don't have bits that flap in the wind. You can pretend that aerodynamics don't matter, but reality & physics will penalize you for that by giving you more resistance to pedal through and wearing you down faster over the same distance ride.

If a bike is meant to be ridden far and it's well designed, then its design will allow the rider to minimize frontal area while making use of a wide range of smartly spaced gears. A bike that puts the ride in the "sit up and beg" position with a narrow cassette and one chainring does none of those things, because it isn't designed to be ridden over long distances (even if the ad copy says it is). Just because you can take your family of four on a road trip in a 2-door pickup truck doesn't mean it's designed for that task.

StanSeven

Parts of this thread was cleaned up because they contained personal insults. Grant Petersons philosophy is controversial for certain. Argue all you want but no personal shots are other members, please.

Germany_chris

Since for some reason I can't insert multi-quotes..

While you may bat you lashes at folks who spend 1k on wheels that's half price on most high end hoops.

Yes there are classic bikes you can build to be a Riv for less but no chit's are given

No rev's aren't aimed at the LCD bike people no matter how low he goes in price they still will complain.

No $400 in racks isn't too much if your thing is riding with crap on your bike no matter how much you hem haw and justify a stiff frame and good racks are required if you want to spend more than a day or two on your bike.

No I don't care that this is GCD this is an enthusiast website the same as OCN or Blade forums I type this from a $300 keyboard and carry a $500 knife every day both are cheap to enthusiasts, many if not most are not looking for the cheapest way to do something they're looking for the most satisfying way.

I love C&V bike but nothing mass produced during the "bike boom" will have the anything close to the quality of a modern Riv especially if it comes from the US or Europe.

Yes I can build an old bike to take big tires but some will take relocating the brake mounts, some will take new brakes, some will take funky seat posts and weird bars, and some will be perfect, but none will have a warranty.

Rivs aren't meant for the novice cyclist while I thought that a company whose cheapest frame is $1500 this fact would be obvious apparently it's not.

If you are a utility cyclist you don't need kit you ride with whatever you're wearing that's what Gp is saying.

If you think disc brakes, a composite frame, and kit to hop on the bike GP has an argument for you to listen to, we had a thread not two days after this one that asked what a someone should wear when performance isn't a priority and the answer is whatever you're wearing right now....just ride your bike

BoraxKid

As I said in my first post, I was familiar with Rivendell bikes before I heard the name Grant Petersen. I was also familiar with Surly, All-City, State, Velo Orange, and other companies that make products aimed at the same (or adjacent) markets. I was also familiar with the musings of Sheldon Brown, Bike Snob, Yehuda Moon, and other retro-grouches (real & fictional) touting the "slow bike movement." To find out that Grant Petersen codified some of that nonsense in a book, and went as far as to call very useful technology "pointless" is really nothing new. What is new, and quite silly indeed, is pretending that this simple, sanctimonious capitalist is somehow a Nostradamus of the bike world, when the things he supposedly "predicted" were happening years before he wrote his book. It's like some sort of mass-hypnosis happened where everyone pretends that city bikes weren't around in the 2010s, as though we just went straight from young hipsters on fixies to middle-aged hipsters on re-branded randonneuring bikes with knobbly tires riding over very small rocks.

Rolla

Excellent post. I guess this is the aspect that many people miss: Cycling doesn't have to maximize efficiency. Sometimes it's more fun when it doesn't.

If Petersen wants to promote that aspect, more power to him. It isn't hurting anyone, and may open a few people's eyes to the simple joys of cruising. If that's a segment of the market that Petersen chooses to market to, great. If that's how folks choose to spend their money, great. The Rivendell aesthetic and philosophy are obviously appealing to a lot of folks, and there's no question that the bikes are well made and durable. Sometimes pride of ownership comes with a higher price tag, but you can always vote with your wallet as you wish. Why any of this inspires such unhinged responses as those by the Laundry Detergent Kid is utterly lost on me, but I'm way too old for that kind of childishness.

I'll now let everyone return to the sandbox.

BoraxKid

Yes, those bikes are exactly as you described: city bikes, aka Dutch bikes aka cruisers with some unique stylings. And their upright position makes it so that you catch all of the wind on a descent and won't go too fast, which is good because going fast is scary for some people. I rehabbed an old Schwinn Speedster (including re-building the SA 3-speed hub) for exactly the type of riding you described: leisurely sight-seeing and getting groceries and whatnot. Unfortunately, I had to sell that bike because the frame was bit too small. Nice bike for what it was, though.

FiftySix

What makes you think that GP just crapped out all those ideas instantaneously in 2012? He started his bike company in 1994 and worked in the industry for many years prior to that.

Rolla

Irony is dead.

BoraxKid

You seemed to miss several important points. No one is upset that Petersen is marketing to mooks who think his bikes are pretty. People in this thread were just discussing the guy's obvious hypocrisy and some of the ridiculous statements he made. Then his stans came in and started claiming Petersen is some kind of Bike-strodamus, despite trends predating his every "prediction." I don't think anyone was getting "unhinged" or saying that Petersen ever hurt anyone. Were you replying to the right thread?

tyrion

This Petersen-designed Bridgestone MB-1 came out in 1987. He really was ahead of his time.

BoraxKid

He was trying to gain notoriety for his flailing boutique bike business, so he made a bunch of "controversial" statements into a book to help move his merch. He didn't predict anything (despite the claims of some people in this thread), he just published a book in which he regurgitated what others were already saying. Take GP off your pedestal and recognize him for what he actually is; that's the whole point of this thread. The guy is a decent businessman who found a way to keep his niche-market business alive, nothing more, nothing less.

BoraxKid

And yet there's nothing revolutionary about it, even by 1987 standards. Your emperor is naked.