In a message dated 3/19/06 3:02:51 PM, classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.or g writes:
>
> We have just about beaten this tired old horse to death, with some folks
> abhorring those extended head tubes and others, like myself, not being
> bothered by the look of them and even liking the functionality of them.
Joe
> Stark presented a link to a very nice bike with an extended head tube
> http://rivendellbicycles.com/
> http://rivendellbicycles.com/
> I'd like to mention something that hasn't yet been touched upon, I believe
.
> Those of us who ride smaller bikes often have the esthetic value if the
> lugwork around the head tube diminished by the fact that with such a small
> head tube there usually isn't enough room for the lugs to develop fully to
> please the eye because this space is "cramped". Note how on this bike t
he
> full pattern and flow of the head lugs has been allowed to develop and
> imagine how it would have looked if they had been compressed into a normal
> head tube length. Hope I am articulating this well enough, It's a tough
> thing to explain my thoughts fully, but very small bikes often seem
> disproportionate and suffer to my eye by the head tube being too short to
> allow the bikes design to be represented fully.
> I think this bike does this very nicely.
> Tom Sanders
> Lansing, Mi
>
>
Good point, Tom. I ride an even smaller frame than you do and it's painful
to look at some of the fancy-lugged bikes in my size, especially if they als o have large head badges. Sometimes, they are more than cramped, they're butchered... bits of the lugs or headbadge get nipped off, or they substitut e a smaller decal or head badge.
As long as we're airing our complaints, I have to say this about Rivendells (from a purely visual viewpoint). When Grant was at Cirque a few years ago , he spoke at some length about his "alternative" riding position and it made a lot of sense, and not just for us folks whose backs aren't what they used to
be. Still, I think his method of acheiving this end may leave a bit to be desired. While I do not find the extended head tube hideous (I'd prefer it not be there, but frankly I don't find it too objectionable), what I do react strongly to is his increased use of the sloping top tube. For me, this is where the bike crosses the line into "hideous" territory. There is an elegance a nd implied stability in a bike whose top tube is parallel to the ground and no matter how many moodern bikes I look at, the sloped top tube is a feature I just cannot get used to (even when it is only a few degrees, as on some Rivendells).
Frankly, there's gotta be a better way to acheive the more upright riding posture that Grant suggests, besides the sloped top tube, extended head tube , ridiculously long stems, or non-existant seatpost extension on a taller than
normal frame. To me, all these are inelegant solutions (visually). I think what we are really looking for here is perhaps a modification of the only item left... the handlebars. I'm not sure why so many of us seem reluctant to m ess with the traditional dropped bars, but if you're really looking for a more upright riding position without monkeying with the frame or installing a goo fy-long stem, it sounds like this is the way to go. I've seen some very appealing upswept bars, designs both vintage and modern, and I'm wondering why so many of us would rather return from a long ride with sore backs than consider their use (and I must ask this question of myself as well, since at this point, al l my bikes have dropped bars).
Bob Hovey
Columbus, GA