Are Richard Sachs frames not a draw anymore?

[11.4]

Seriously? Fifty-four pages? This thread, if only by its title, should be closed. It was perhaps a worthy discussion at first, though I would have had my doubts with its inherently negative and pointed title. But now, isn't it time for this to end? Every time it pops up it's a slight dig at Richard. How would we feel if it read "Are Dave Kirk frames not a draw anymore?" or if it read "Are Mike Zanconato frames not a draw anymore?" (And by way of disclosure, I've owned frames from all three builders.) We do ourselves a disfavor when we criticize our top builders endlessly like this, and a disservice to builders who have elevated the art of the bikes we ride and changed what cycling is about today. Let's agree to close this and continue some of these discussions under other titles in other threads.

[54ny77]

Totally not a draw. Esp. 54-55 cm frames, theyre giveaways at this point. PM me if you have one, I'll pay shipping. Thanks.

[ben rabin]

Originally Posted by 11.4

Seriously? Fifty-four pages? This thread, if only by its title, should be closed. It was perhaps a worthy discussion at first, though I would have had my doubts with its inherently negative and pointed title. But now, isn't it time for this to end? Every time it pops up it's a slight dig at Richard. How would we feel if it read "Are Dave Kirk frames not a draw anymore?" or if it read "Are Mike Zanconato frames not a draw anymore?" (And by way of disclosure, I've owned frames from all three builders.) We do ourselves a disfavor when we criticize our top builders endlessly like this, and a disservice to builders who have elevated the art of the bikes we ride and changed what cycling is about today. Let's agree to close this and continue some of these discussions under other titles in other threads.

Totally agree

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by 11.4

Let's agree to close this and continue some of these discussions under other titles in other threads.

No, I do not agree with you about closing threads unless there is behaviour conducted within that warrants its closure.

What you ask for amounts to censorship at worst or editorial bias, which you do not wield, at best.

The person named in this eponymous thread should certainly be able to withstand the consequence of his own actions and behaviour without anyone chivalrously coming to his rescue.

[11.4]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

The person named in this eponymous thread should certainly be able to withstand the consequence of his own actions and behaviour without anyone chivalrously coming to his rescue.

Thank you. Just made my point.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by 11.4

Thank you. Just made my point.

Huh?! Whayddaminud! Did I just trip over my own feet in what I said? I wasn't tryin' to help you make your point, lemme reread what I wrote...I'll get back to you....

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by 11.4

Seriously? Fifty-four pages? This thread, if only by its title, should be closed. It was perhaps a worthy discussion at first, though I would have had my doubts with its inherently negative and pointed title. But now, isn't it time for this to end? Every time it pops up it's a slight dig at Richard. How would we feel if it read "Are Dave Kirk frames not a draw anymore?" or if it read "Are Mike Zanconato frames not a draw anymore?" (And by way of disclosure, I've owned frames from all three builders.) We do ourselves a disfavor when we criticize our top builders endlessly like this, and a disservice to builders who have elevated the art of the bikes we ride and changed what cycling is about today. Let's agree to close this and continue some of these discussions under other titles in other threads.

Only 19 by my counter.

[cnighbor1]

Originally Posted by quauhnahuac

I see multiple in the classifieds that have been sitting for a while and drastically reduced from their original prices. not sure if the original prices were too lofty or what. a check of ebay sold listings seems to verify that even the current asking prices of the RS frames on here are a little too high, even at their reduced prices.

what's going on?

I sold two Richard Sachs 1. frame new 2. complete bicycle
Wow over a years time very little interest
Both sold to people who really didn't have a clue to what they were getting
other than complete one had Campagnolo record parts
the amazing thing was almost no questions asked
One a bike of this level of quality you would think I get a lot of questions
The new frame went for $1295 built in early 1980's
go figure

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Only 19 by my counter.

Yea, page number is a function of each members forum display settings. The only accurate measure of the thread size is the number of posts. I see seven pages and my post included, 279 posts.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Originally Posted by 11.4

Thank you. Just made my point.

Yawn.

[gemship]

Originally Posted by adampaiva

i think that is true to an extent but now there's a trend for really wide tires, wider than possible on those older frames that could fit nice 32mm tires. 35 - 40 and even bigger knobby tires on monstercross tires are not uncommon now on custom bikes at least. Especially of the gravel-grindeur variety.

True that and not to disagree but...as cool as the new trendy gravel bikes are I wonder how realistically they are put to use. I wonder if the owners like me ride a fair bit on paved roads more so to get to that point of putting those wider tires to the proper use. Then I wonder if like me said gravel bike riders are fair weather fans just getting out on a nice dry day after working outside all day. Horses for courses as they say so I can't say you are wrong but I guess when I put it all together, if I am to ride a drop bar road bike then I want to maximize my power with the least rolling resistence and so I would go for the smaller tires. Not saying thats proper or right but it works for me much like some other critics scoffing at today's trends.