Brewster Fong Seriously? I didn't say I'm afraid of Carbon Forks. I didn't say anything bad about carbon. Did you even read what I posted? I said that when people gripe against carbon, I take it as concern for the well being of cyclists.
I've ridden a carbon frame and a few carbon forks, and have never had a problem. I'm explaining how I don't take it personal when somebody talks bad about carbon. Apparently you do take it personal, because you insult me as a paranoiac for something that I did not write. Regarding the finances of designing and developing three models of custom forks all made in low volume, I am merely guessing that Rivendell has not recouped its investment. Good Luck! On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:51:54 AM UTC-7, Brewster Fong wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:03:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote: >> >> I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular. I >> appreciate it because of my perception of the motive. In my opinion, those >> who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon >> forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that >> hit the pavement will drop. Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a >> noble motive. > > > Oh boy, the paranoid are out today! Its interesting that with the > Internet and *World Wide Web,* we really don't hear that much about all the > "number of skulls that hit the pavement." As Andy Muzi of Yellow Jersey.org > and as a bike owner not only sells, but sees tons of CF forks, stated: > > "I was among the wailing fork Cassandras ten+ years ago but > you'll have to admit that 'failed cheap carbon fork' doesn't > happen with statistically significant frequency nowadays. By > that I mean you, as a service tech, may or may not have seen > one. One! And surely not a few every week. The first > high-volume runs of them are now well beyond warranty and > we'll assume the usual clumsy abusive riders own these as > own everything else." > > Bottom line - there are tens of thousand, no strike that, hundred of > thousands or more CF forks on the road. Guess what, very few reported > problems....However, if you're paranoid about CF, then stay away; far far > away! > > Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of commitment, putting his >> money where his mouth is, and losing money on selling steel forks to those >> that will take their carbon forks out of circulation forever. > > > Really, Grant is losing money selling his steel forks: > http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/carbonomas.htm > > At $200, I seriously doubt Grant/Riv is losing any money?! In fact, his > fork sure looks alot like the Surly Steamroller fork here: > http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=6990 > > > When somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I take it >> the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 is >> stupid". She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that >> there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes >> that person would be content *not* riding that motorcycle on 880. >> > > Yes, something we agree on: stay off of 880, whether you're on a bike, > motorcycle or car! Good luck! > >> >> On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: >>> >>> I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product >>> supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is >>> stupid. >> >> > On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:03:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote: >> >> I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular. I >> appreciate it because of my perception of the motive. In my opinion, those >> who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon >> forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that >> hit the pavement will drop. Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a >> noble motive. Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of >> commitment, putting his money where his mouth is, and losing money on >> selling steel forks to those that will take their carbon forks out of >> circulation forever. >> >> When I hear somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I >> take it the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 >> is stupid". She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that >> there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes >> that person would be content *not* riding that motorcycle on 880. >> >> On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: >>> >>> I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product >>> supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is >>> stupid. >> >> > On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:03:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote: >> >> I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular. I >> appreciate it because of my perception of the motive. In my opinion, those >> who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon >> forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that >> hit the pavement will drop. Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a >> noble motive. Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of >> commitment, putting his money where his mouth is, and losing money on >> selling steel forks to those that will take their carbon forks out of >> circulation forever. >> >> When I hear somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I >> take it the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 >> is stupid". She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that >> there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes >> that person would be content *not* riding that motorcycle on 880. >> >> On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: >>> >>> I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product >>> supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is >>> stupid. >> >> > On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:03:39 AM UTC-7, William wrote: >> >> I appreciate Joe and Grant's passion about carbon forks in particular. I >> appreciate it because of my perception of the motive. In my opinion, those >> who rail hard against carbon forks believe strongly that if 100% of carbon >> forks were replaced today by steel forks, that the number of skulls that >> hit the pavement will drop. Wanting fewer skulls on the pavement is a >> noble motive. Grant has taken that to the American conclusion of >> commitment, putting his money where his mouth is, and losing money on >> selling steel forks to those that will take their carbon forks out of >> circulation forever. >> >> When I hear somebody like Joe or Grant say "carbon forks are stupid", I >> take it the same way as I do when my wife says "riding a motorcycle on 880 >> is stupid". She's making a blunt statement borne from the feeling that >> there's a good person that will be injured (or worse), and she just wishes >> that person would be content *not* riding that motorcycle on 880. >> >> On Friday, July 13, 2012 9:39:55 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: >>> >>> I make no apologies for my "divisiveness" about CF forks. Any product >>> supporting the front wheel of a bicycle which snaps instead of bending is >>> stupid. >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/8YPiQ67NjwYJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
