Re: [CR]Extended Headtube / Riv Lugs

(Example: Framebuilders:Brian Baylis)

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:19:45 -0600
From: "Mark Stonich" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Extended Headtube / Riv Lugs
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>

Warning; Absolutely no minds are likely to be changed by this discussion. So if your time is valuable, feel free to move to the next posting.

At 3/18/2006 10:19 PM -0800, Joe Starck wrote:
>Look at the photo of the head lugs and fork crown.
>Your words above cannot possibly follow.

Joe, I think the photo illustrates *my* point. Which only shows how much individual's perceptions of beauty varies. (And also that every baby is beautiful to his or her parents.)
> Ol' Grantersen has a beautiful bike there, with the cream
>head-tube rings as well as all other spots well-chosen
>to accent in kind.

There is so much beauty on that bike, the curves I find awkward (The "6" and "9" on the sides of the head tube) and the fork crown, stand out like a pimple on Charlese Therons nose. I wouldn't care on a lesser bike.
> As for the crown, that cream wing,
>ever visible by the rider -- is a gift to the rider --
>the crown is not just a part to ogle over from angles
>that don't matter; the "Joe Starck touch" on the side
>of that crown, wherein I turned the stock-cast common
>oval into another swoop and touched it all off with
>three little discs exemplifies simple perfection.

Nice flowing shapes, but to my mind nothing about them says "Fork Crown". And, I don't see any connection with the lugs.
> I thinned every lug on every Riv I made -- where the lug
>needed it -- and I'd say a thinner lug than what you
>see isn't desirable. Bikes for men need a certain
>amount of masculinity, and bikes like this Riv have
>the right amount. Thinner lugs evoke psychic frailty;
>and all else can never compensate for that.

Here's where we differ greatly, probably because of my engineering background. To me thick lugs = stress risers and/or unnecessary weight. The lugs I find closest to perfection are Chris Kvales. Any more metal in the lug than his, is there for decoration, to showcase the brazing skills of the builder or for convenience of manufacture. Convenience being a relative term, Chris' methods are about as "Inconvenient" as humanly possible.

Instead of "psychic frailty" thin lugs and small fillets tell me that the builder has great confidence in his skills and materials.
> And so, when critiquing Riv aesthetics and build quality, it's
>wee-minded to a pea to praise Curt(or me) & Joe Bell
>without an equal salute to unique and desirable things
>that is Riv/Grantersen as evidenced in the bikes.

That is one point on which we can agree. However no one gets everything right, all the time. (And of course we all judge "Right" differently) In his own way Grant is "pushing the envelope" to benefit us all. But while I like extended head tubes (I built my 1st one in '81) and I'm thrilled that I'll soon be able to get good, long reach brakes, that doesn't mean I can't say that SpeedBlend tires strike me as just plain silly.

I merely suggested that a couple of pros might be able to design better looking lugs.
> Joe Starck
>Madison, WI USA
>(Automatic Addendum: There's really nothing in it for
>me to defend Rivendells; I can't say I'm friends with
>Goodrich, Petersen and Bell,

I am a friend of Curts, and he understands that I occasionally see things differently than he, or Grant, does.
> I just speak up on occasions like this to correct, in this case,
> Mark Stonich.)

Do you really think anyone can "Correct" anothers sense of aesthetics?

Mark Stonich;
Minneapolis Minnesota