Man, I hope this doesn't come off as snotty because I definitely don't mean it that way but, I'm not following your logic at all.
Why would a wider-than-currently-available rim brake rim be considered "proprietary?!" You realize don't you, that the ONLY reason 650b mountain bike wheels and tires are even available in the first place is because Rivendell alone wanted to make them happen? (That's not an exaggeration.) Even 700c road tires wider than 28mm are directly attributable to Rivendell, but now they're everywhere. Similarly and almost as single-handedly, Rivendell has kept quality 25.4 & 26.0 handlebars and stems relevant and available. Likewise, multiple forms of improved and still-evolving rim brakes are still available ONLY because Rivendell willed them into existence. None of those things are 'proprietary' in the sense that they're the only one who can use them, and many other companies and consumers do. And don't minimize the fashion-setting influence Rivendell still wields. Trends like 'gravel grinders," "monster cross," "adventure bikes," and bike packing in general can all be traced directly back to Rivendell. Not to mention ANY road bike that actually *fits*. This argument seems to be like religion in that, for people who have bought into certain types of hype and who are financially invested in a new technology, I will never be able to convince them otherwise. But, as someone who uses both, there is no question for me that canti/rim brakes are superior to discs in many ways. I'm not alone though. Recall the original concept for the joint Compass/Rawland Ravn project? It was intentionally conceived as a rim brake bike because it would be lighter and allow for a superior fork construction which would, in turn, achieve a better ride quality. They weren't able to pull off the construction at a viable price-point, but others (i.e.: Crust) have since jumped in and built slightly-lesser bikes around the tires and general concept. They just took the 'easy' route in terms of brakes. I have zero doubt that once Rivendell (or Compass or Surly, for that matter) makes a new product available, that others will either use it or copy it. Even if it makes you scratch your head when you first hear of it. That's been the case over and over and over again. (And on that note, plus size tires aren't going anywhere. They're the single best gift to bikers since gears - especially for people who don't have time or desire to hassle with the complexities or cost of active suspension.) Meanwhile, it is a foregone conclusion that most or all of that current technology, represented by the "nature of the bike industry right now" that you speak of, actually WILL become obsolete "retro standards." Cases in point: I had a disc brake bike that utilized the 22mm Hayes mounting standard, because it was the most established and promising at the time. Now, the ISS mounting standard is being obsoleted by post mount standard. Shimano is even doing their darnedest to kill the 6-bolt rotor mounting standard. Heck, they're even trying to kill the derailleur hanger, for crying out loud, in favor of that 'direct-mount' thingy. I have multiple, very nice bikes that require a suspension forks with 1" headsets, and are thus useless. Nowadays, you can't even get a good fork with 1 1/8" steerer, so more of my bikes will eventually become obsolete. Not to mention, the length and rake dimensions of forks themselves, which frames need to be designed around, change almost annually according to consumers' travel expectation whims. I have bikes designed around 43mm, 65mm, 80mm, 100mm, and 120mm travel. Nowadays, 140 & 160mm is common even on xc bikes. I have mountain bikes with 126mm rear hubs, 130mm rear hubs, 145mm rear hubs, 170mm rear hubs, 135mm symmetrical front hubs, 135mm asymmetrical front hubs, and every single one of them promised at one time to be the final state-of-the-art development, and every one of them is obsolete. Even thru-axle standards are still changing. Are we going to settle on 12mm or 15mm for the front? Anyone who thinks the SRAM-driven "boost" width standard is anything more than a flash in the pan is deluding themselves. 150mm 'super-boost' rear perhaps makes enough sense to have staying power, but only a couple of bike companies are smart enough to realize it, and they're not powerful enough to make it happen. 110mm front spacing is equally ridiculous, especially when 142mm and SRAM's own damned 150mm standard already existed AND achieve symmetrical spoke tension. And don't even get me started on bottom bracket standards, which are nowhere near settled yet. But you know what *has and will* stay relevant, available and functional through all of the other noise?!: 1" threaded headsets; 100mm/135mm QR hubs; rim brakes; and forks that don't wear out. Perhaps I think of a Rivendell as a bit too precious, but they're a big investment for me. I just can't understand why someone would intentionally want to buy ANY bike that's disposable or that is destined to become obsolete. Finally, here's one more ironic, historical piece of trivia that everyone might not be aware of, to drive home some of these points: Many of the engineering conflicts which keep the industry from going straight to the logical conclusion in hub or bottom bracket or crank standards, and which causes them to adopt all of these interim ones and overly-complex engineering solutions in the first place, is derived from an underlying and un-questioned goal of keeping the Q-factor of the cranks as narrow as possible. This despite the fact that it causes clearance conflicts, and despite the fact that the knees of half or more riders would be better served by a wider stance. Well you know who first coined that term, who equated a narrow Q-factor with "performance," and who made it unfashionable to go wider? Yup. Even where he might not want it, Grant seems to have outsized influence on bike design. I think a wider rim-brake rim - if that's even where this is headed - will find more than enough market acceptance. On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:33:24 PM UTC-6, masmojo wrote: > > I've been wanting a Hunq. For some time & I would probably be close to > pulling the trigger before 2019, but I am intrigued by this latest > development. > > I too would dig the idea of threadless 1 1/8" steerers,Disk brakes & even > thru axels on my Riv; not so much because I prefer them, but because that's > the nature of the bike world right now. > I recently rehabbed an old Raleigh Mountain Tour & everything about it was > a headache. Finding economical 650B rims for rim brakes was a trial & I > eventually gave up & bought VO's. $69. Each, but I could have gotten nice > disc brake rims for $40. :-( > If Rivendell is going to build a Plus tired mountain bike they would > either have to have a rim made (read: proprietary) or go with a preexisting > rim, most of which are disc specific these days. If Rivendell bucked the > trends in the past in favor of the the tried & true, now they would be > doing the opposite. Why create some sort of new retro standard!? > All that said I'll most likely say "here, take my money" when this mystery > bike comes out and deal with the eccentricities as they come. > That or buy a Crust. > Still, in the context of other things & other models, it's perplexing. > I'll probably be in Walnut Creek the second week of August so maybe I can > check out this mythical beast > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
