The Ride, The Aesthetics

[dbrk]

The last week has raised interesting questions in my mind about the relationship between "the ride" and one's own very personal notions of aesthetic appeal. The situation I encountered in my head and heart when my recent Crown Jewel showed up simply brought this to the fore. In sum, a decision that IF made to enhance the ride (in their opinion, not necessarily in mine) caused a pretty noticeable (actually very, if you are keen on such things) change in the appearance of the bike. I am of the view that the ride and the appearance may be distinct and separable concerns but they are both of equal merit when discussing a "custom" bike (be it bespoke or true custom, made-to-order). I'm going to crib a little here from something I wrote elsewhere.

It is my view that when a builder makes a design choice that affects the aesthetics of a bike that they must convey that clearly as part of the outcome. As an example, not only does IF literature clearly and unambiguously state that they use the foco stays (rather than others, like the Reynolds), but that a choice to use other than their stated choice (Foco, ovalized, etc.) would effect the aesthetics and the presentation of the bike. This may not have even occurred to them. If this incident causes that relationship between ride and aesthetics to be part of IF's conversation with customers then it will have served a very constructive purpose. The Reynolds stays give the bike a decidedly different flare---not a bad one at all, just not the one I was after.

I can hear the silent voices, including my own!!!, saying that dbrk wanted a poser bike rather than the best ride that IF thought that they could provide. Heck, it is the merit of that view that has caused me some consternation and feeling that I am laying too great a burden on IF to make the bike I wanted aesthetically. After all, I have always contended that they acted in utmost good faith to produce the best, stated, desired ride. But the fact is, whether builders or riders like it or not, the tubing choices made create a _whole_ bicycle that includes its aesthetic appeal. There is no reason why one must or should come at the expense of the other. To wit, you change the aesthetics you change the bike as much as when you change the ride characteristics. If you don't think that that is true then ask yourself why anyone would ride a Sachs rather than a Romulus since both ride brilliantly though the work and paint and appeal is quite different (as is the price!). My point is that we are fooling ourselves if we state with some sort of TheRideTheRideTheRideFIRSTABOVEALLONLY while the rest is JUSTPOSING attitude that aesthetics is a poor, nay, foolish long second place. That's just not true. People who love bikes care about how they look. At least some people do. Every opinion on this matter is a posture of one sort or another.

Now I am not suggesting at all that anyone here exhibits the notion that wanting a certain look is mere posing. As for me being a poser, well, we can discuss that out on a ride. This situation may make me a princess with a pea but when you change the look of the bike, you change the bike. Every bike geek in his or her heart knows that that is true. To be utterly redundant, the "Just Ride" view is only _another_ posture.

Bikes have the wonderful quality of being more than tools, more than just efficient in a technical sense without regard to appeal. So the topic appears regularly, I think. In my recent situation it causes me some moral burdens because my disappointment has caused financial burden to fall on a small company that I admire because they have acted generously. It further burdens me that a person as committed to clarity in communication as I am (it's my job), is at least partially at fault for his own disappointment. Bikes that do not evoke passion evoke no great interest even if they are just as good to ride. It's interesting being so damn human, no?


dbrk

[Len J]

the look of a bike matters to me to.

I look at it like this......the ride & the fit is the ante, the cost of entry.....while the aestetics that is the creme on top. I may be shallow to some in this regard but I simply won't ride a bike that I don't like the looks of. Conversly, if my ride motivation quotent is low, seeing a beautiful bike incents me to ride.

Maybe I'm a Poseur....but I am what i am. One of the things that stirred my soul when I unwrapped the Ottrott frame I just bought was the incredible look of the tapered clearcoated carbon tubes......I have been waiting all week anticipating riding it.

To me it's not just a tool......it's an experience.

Len

[Andreu]

DBRK writes...."I can hear the silent voices, including my own!!!, saying that dbrk wanted a poser bike rather than the best ride that IF thought that they could provide."

I think this just about sums it all up for me. OK comfort is important but I am not going to spend a few grand on a bike and look a complete t*at. This means...position (within reason) on the bike, componentry, and colour. And I also like to think that the tubes and equipment sitting underneath me are going to last a long time and work properly. The correlation between price and quality is tenuous but I have learnt the hard way with bikes and componentry that cheap (normally) = crap.

yes I am a snob....but I am not fooling myself. Anyone who is spending this sort of money on something and doesn´t feel some sort of vanity/pride in what they are riding is missing out! Anyway, I do some suffering on my bike and in my eyes we deserve to be a little vain or proud at times!
Thanks for your honesty on the matter.
A

[DWF]

In sum, a decision that IF made to enhance the ride (in their opinion, not necessarily in mine) caused a pretty noticeable (actually very, if you are keen on such things) change in the appearance of the bike.
dbrk

Before I make any further statements, could you answer a question for me? Did you order the IF as a custom build or did you buy it as a production model?

[victoryfactory]

Dbrk;
Form vs substance
aesthetics vs Performance
inspiration vs ambivalence

Everything we do or see here on earth is done or seen through the filter of Maya. The illusion, the dance of life.

Is any of this really important?
Is any of this really non important?

Beauty IS important
Inspiration IS important

Why? because it (like great poetry) shifts our consiousness to another level, it shows us a glimpse of that other world, beyond the duality of this one...


Where was I?

Oh yeah...
send the damn thing back and have them fix it!

Victory Factory...

[Sandy]

I really don't think anyone's individual response to this question really matters very much, since the satisfaction and happiness in owning and riding a particular bicycle is only really felt through the eyes, butt, thoughts, perpectives, and EMOTIONS of that unique individual. That is why they sell more than one flavor or brand of ice cream.


Strawberry Sandy

[Tom]

Why did I choose the lugged bike over the CIII even though the chances of me telling the difference in the ride are practically nil? The lugs! A steel bike must have lugs. It is meet and right so to do, as written in the Universal Book of Law.

Why didn't I choose a titanium bike, the Concours, even though I knew I'd absolutely love the ride and I could ride it hard and put it away wet? The one I looked at just didn't make me say "Aw, ain't that the purtiest thing you ever saw, Clem?"

[Jeff N.]

Perfect paint job. Perfect welds. Great ride. I insist on all three for the kind of cash we're talking about. And when I don't get them, then I start sniveling. Jeff N.

[kenyee]

dbrk:
When you get your new bike, could you also take pics of your old bike and post both in the gallery and see if anyone can pick out which is which? I've never noticed a Foco vs. Reynolds stay difference nor would I even know what to look for :-)

[Climb01742]

here i'm afraid i depart from my pal douglas. how a bike rides is of paramount importance to me. yes, if it looks cool, too, great. all the better. but for ME, if a builder had changed something to make the ride better, i 1) would hope he'd tell me before he went ahead and did, and 2) would thank him for making the ride better. i would trade performance for looks anyday. hopefully, no one has to make that trade off. let's get 'em both. but each rider has the right to get the equation he or she wants. i believe in the situation douglas found himself, he did the right thing. and thankfully, IF did the right thing. twice i think. once in trying to build the best frame they could. and a second time when they realized that a customer was unhappy, they made him happy.

ps: i frankly think my hors is kinda ugly with its funky DKS, but it rides like a dream. case closed.

[Sandy]

Amen, brother Climb.

Slowly climbing the cycling ladder of success, on rung number 2 of 20,

Sandy

[jerk]

ps: i frankly think my hors is kinda ugly with its funky DKS, but it rides like a dream. case closed.[/QUOTE]


not ugly pal, it just looks like a bug.

jerk (who thinks that form almost always follows function....at least as long as bikes stick within uci guidelines. but what the hell does the jerk know, his new favorite bike is big, orange and has some sideburned dude as a head tube badge. but the ride is wonderful. i credit the frame geometry and the tires more than any stupid choice in tubing however. dbrk-i doubt your two ifs really ride all that differently. glad you got the answer you wanted. the jerk did make a phone call on your behalf.....matt bracken is the jerk's bud but i probably didn't help your noble cause because we just ended up shooting the **** about the merits of carbon stays...they're a tiny company who finished last year for the first time ever in the black....the jerk doesn't get their geometry at all but appreciates their ethic and craftsmanship and is glad that all's welll that ends well.

jerk

jerk

[Climb01742]

jerk--naw, not like a bug, it looks like my seatstays broke their arm and are riding around with a splint on. :p

about your chat with matt about carbon stays...my impending ti CJ will have 'em...your 2 cents? my reasoning...i love carbon forks, so its like a carbon fork in the back. am i full o' crap?

[mtflycaster]

Fact is, bikes, particularly custom ones, are works of art which provide the benefit of being able to ride as well as look at.

[davids]

They are both important, and in the market we're talking about, they should both be addressed. However...

Superb performance with questionable aesthetics is tolerable. Great beauty on a bike that performs poorly is a complete waste.

So I'll freely admit to choosing my tires because of their appearance. However, I choose them (Vredstein Fortezza TriComps) only after being told that they were an excellent tire. While the Veloflex Paves were the top recommendation, I couldn't bring myself to put Red/Skinwall tires on my metallic silver and black bike. Now that they make a Red/Black version, I've got a pair ready to go.

[djg]

south of Rochester, NY?

I typically find talk about "poseurs" to be annoying and, frankly, sort of a pose in itself. Most generally, the term seems a shorthand for somebody less cool and/or serious than the speaker. That's fine, if the speaker is a 17 year old guy, I guess, but odd and not a little mean for a grown-up. We're all cyclists and, apart from a handful of riders in the US and a few score abroad, we're all essentially recreational cyclists of one stripe or another.

The only sense of the term I'd like to retain is that of someone who strives to present him or herself as something he or she is not. I don't happen to have a 7-11 jersey, but I don't see anything wrong with wearing one as a fan-retro thing. To wear it and tell folks that I was actually once a member of that pro team would be to affect a pose--as well as a lie--because, as y'all probably could figure without my help, I was never a member of that team (nothing against the fine amateur teams on whose "behalf" I rode as a mediocre and never-promising cat 3 years ago)--one striking that pose would be, IMO, a poseur.

But having some concern with the way your bike looks is pretty common and has nothing to do with making you a poseur. Anybody who ever chose one color rather than another has made an aesthetic choice, elementary though it may have been. You ride the bike, you're a cyclist. End of story. Frankly, I think that our aesthetics about what "looks right" in a bike are often conditioned by our understanding of how bikes should be built to ride the way we like (or to ride like the bikes we liked during our more formative years or whatever), but that's a different story. Even color--which certainly can be abstracted from any performance issue--is so conditioned. I don't typically go for orange stuff, unless its actually an orange or orange juice. But orange bikes always look fine to me--which probably has something to do with Molteni, Rabobank, etc.

[BigMac]

Douglas:

We so rarely disagree and honestly I would tend to bow to your far wiser sensibilities but in this instance I will humbly disagree. The ONLY things that matter to me are fit, feel and response. If aesthetics played ANY roll in my frame choices, I would not own a Legend or any welded frames, the aesthetic appeal of brazed-lugged steel far exceeds anything welded -- and yet you are referring to a welded steel frame which to my conservative sensibilities make zero sense what-so-ever...different strokes...

Yes there is a grace to the bicycle frame form but if something like one of those Trek Y-Foil frames or say a ST-less Kestrel worked better I may actually find them appealing .... they are downright fugly, imo. I guess another way to look at it is how I see my wife, now 20 years after we 1st said our "I do's". She was always a vibrant, beautiful woman. She is far more beautiful today however than the day I met her...and she truly took my breath away on 1st glance...and no she has never been to a plastic surgeon ;) . Once we get to really know a person, love them and adjoin our lives we just see so much more beauty. My Legend does have many fine artisan details, finely applied paint and is of course superbly engineered. Its beauty however is its remarkable response, feel, stabilty, durability...basically everything that makes it the best frame I've ever ridden regardless of price or aesthetics. The most aesthically appealing frame i ever owned? A pearl white custom Cucchetti or my pearl white Olmo Super Leggaro. These are both lugged steel frames utilizing very 'traditional' tubing diameters as opposed to the 'modern' OS tubes employed today and inspired by such legendary frames as the Masi 3V and Merckx MXL. The Olmo was a superb rider but the Oria tubes had a bit too much flex for confident descending and the rt cs and ST cracked within 6 months. The Cucchetti rode like a dream, all of Mario's creations do, but the paint chipped far too easily as did the chrome plating (common malady of all european plated/painted frames) and the rt cs has been replaced 3 times due to failures. Still one of my favorite bikes and undoubtedly my favorite builder but the frame does not perform like my Legend. No frame I've ever ridden does.

To you cs dilemna, I would refer to this as a technical design issue more than an aesthetic one. OS round cs's are a BAD design on ANY frame. Its a cheap fix for a poorly engineered main traingle. Fat, round cs's require high q cranks, limit tire clearence and often create chainline problems. If the main triangle were designed properly to acheive sufficient torsional stiffness, cs stiffness would not be a concern. The end result would be a smoother riding frame, no chainline problems, ability to use low q cranks, fat sewups and no 'ankle biter' problems. Your decision to choose oval cs's is a very good one knowing you penchant for all of the above, just hope they properly design the main triangle.

There is at least one commonality of aesthetics-ride; most cf frames are pretty ugly to my eye, the Calfee Designs taking top honors here and all lack ANY appeal to my ride sensibilities. Honestly, if the Calfee ride did appeal to my sensibilities I might even get past their looks...I might even find a 'compact geo' frame appealing if I believed they offered any benefit to ride/feel/response, they don't thus I do not consider any such designs.

Ride on! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[vaxn8r]

The correlation between price and quality is tenuous but I have learnt the hard way with bikes and componentry that cheap (normally) = crap.A

I have to disagree with this premise, unless you can further explain your meaning of "cheap".

Actually in a lot of cases, the more you spend, the less you get back in terms of longevity and reliability. This is true for most high-end, high tech racing applications, bikes, cars, sailboats, crew shells... Why? because ultra light stuff typically doesn't last as long as heavier stuff.

BTW, Shimano 105 works just as well as Shimano Ultegra, though not as well as DA 10 ;) . Centaur works as well as Record or Chorus and probably, time will tell, lasts just as long. I bet a bunch of us have Ultegra components. How many of us are sporting 105 on our Legends? It isn't because Ultegra lasts longer. The only difference is finish and a few dollars in price and probably what we think is cool enough to put on our bikes.

I lost track of my point. But less expensive/cheap does not typically or usually mean "crap" unless you take it to the KMART/Toys R Us extreme.

[Kevan]

I don't think anyone will argue that looks should outweigh fit and feel, but assuming you know the critical measure points to your fit, why not try to design the bike so that aesthetics are maintained, assuming it's doable? Having said that, I would add that I'm concerned that dbrk's notions might cost the buyer more perhaps for the sake of a bike's vanity or the owner's. So the question is, is a reversed stem turned upwards considered an afront to the bike's lines, as too a scootch more steerer stack? If simply sizing up is the solution then hey... no foul, but stretching/shrinking tube lengths, let the buyer beware the cost of art.

dbrk, you any closer to buying bars more appropriate to your build? Yow, they're narrow.

[JackL]

When its too rainy or I'm too lazy to do much riding, I dream about beautiful classic lugged bikes. I go to my garage and stare at, fondle, and fuss with my pretty lugged bikes. I spent the better part of this winter building up and fussing with components on my faux French Rando bike. By the time I larded it up with Berthoud bags and Schmidt dynohubs, it weighed 31 pounds. I even rode it some.

When I'm actually getting some saddle time in, the feel of the bike overrules looks. The best feeling bike is my plain steel IF Crown Jewel. I bought if 'off the rack' and hate the color, but it gets ridden most, by far.

JackL

[dgauthier]

. . . dbrk wanted a poser bike . . .

. . . my disappointment has caused financial burden to fall on a small company that I admire because they have acted generously. It further burdens me that a person as committed to clarity in communication as I am (it's my job), is at least partially at fault . . .

dbrk

A poser. You? Dbrk, who openly describes his rides as unhurried countryside wandering, stopping to chat with birds and lizards, is a bike poser? You are many things, dbrk, but you are not a poser. You are 100% dbrk.

Please don't feel too bad for IF. I dare say that building custom bikes is IF's job, and ensuring that the customer clearly understands what they are purchasing is an essential part of running a custom bike business. All custom builders should proactively provide the customer with the following, for the customer to sign off on:

1. CAD drawing of the frame, including paint graphics.
2. a written description of the geometry
3. a list of all tubes to be used in construction
4. a list of all colors to be used in painting
5. a list of custom options, if any, such as pump pegs, internal cable routing, etc.
6. a list of associated components, if they are going to be installed by the builder, such as forks, headsets, bottom brackets, frame pumps, etc.

You had mentioned, dbrk, that the sort of miscommunication that you were subjected to happens with just about every custom builder. I ask you: How hard is it for a frame builder to describe a bicycle frame unambiguously? How many mistakes made during the course of doing business would it take for a frame builder to get the paperwork for describing their deliverables down pat?

Any frame builder that doesn't have this process honed to perfection is falling down on the job. Let IF fix it, and don't feel bad about it.

[Cranky]

[QUOTE=dbrk]
"Bikes that do not evoke passion evoke no great interest even if they are just as good to ride."
And therein lies the "heart" of cycling for me.

[dbrk]

I find myself agreeing with senor jerk because, given my size, strength, and weight, I seriously doubt that I would notice much difference in the quality of the ride between the Reynolds and FOCO stays. I also hope that IF's Matt Bracken does not regard me as a pain in the arse and worse, because I care about that but he might have some cause. If I were Big Mac sized and powered, I might notice the difference. Yes, my CJ was custom: I specified the geometry, made the changes, discussed the ride and the tubes; I authorized no changes in which tubing was used and assumed incorrectly that IF would not make any such changes on the basis of ride without my consent. To change the tubes is to change the aesthetics of the bike even if it does (or does not) change the bike. Again, I have no doubt that IF did what they thought was clearly best in function and I doubt that they considered the aesthetic change, which to my eye is dramatic. In this respect I believe they have something to learn. My learning advanced because I know to specify _every_ detail. I went with IF because I thought I could specify such details as a custom _rather than a bespoke_ bike. A bespoke bike is one you ask for and the builder makes the choices. A custom bike is one you specify.

There is no doubt that a lugged steel bike is, say, a billion times more attractive to my eye than any TIG'd bike. I was looking for tres modern looks including threadlss and carbon, American made, TIG'd with a certain OS flare: from IF's catalogue and stated description I had every reason to believe they made _their_ tubing choices up front and in print. Soooo, when they changed it, I think the onus fell on them but they put function entirely over form. That, imho, is a mistake that simply should not be made. In this regard I disagree with the wise and always well-spoken Big Mac because I think one feature does not have to come at the expense of the other when you are dealing a rider of my size and proportions. There is nothing special about my sizing and I am after a certain fit. I would agree with Big Mac that sizing is first, foremost, and last. A bike that does not fit properly is not your own bike! It should belong to someone else! But the bike I received from IF fits perfectly (I got precisely what I asked for, I measured to the millimeter) and the fit is commensurately perfect. So fit is out of the mix. Tubing choice here is virtually out of the mix as far as real diferences in the feel and ride for a person my size. What is left is aesthetics and, frankly, in my world such things actually count, vain or not. I would rather own something beautiful to my eye than merely functional because I don't have to trade off. When you are Big Mac's size there may be trade offs, but I think senor jerk is correct: the change in stays in my case results in nada but aesthetics.

This is an interesting matter to me. Given the cost and labor I would add that I may have cut into IF's profit with this situation but I did not deprive them of profit nor cost them money as such. I know what it costs to build a frame, down to the penny. Lugged bikes cost TONS more, as we would all surmise. That said, I don't resent them their profit anymore than I would deny my preferences. They have acted with great generosity and integrity for which I am genuinely grateful.

I'm off to ride that bike...right now.

dbrk

[dbrk]

Now what sort of ungrateful, miserable sod am I not to begin by _thanking_ the jerk for calling his friend Matt Bracken, a perfectly nice, intelligent, and thoughtful fellow, on my behalf? Thank you, senor. Apologies for the belated appreciation.

Every comment in this thread has been illuminating and helpful.

Now, I'm goin' for a ride. Thanks a million.

dbrk

[ericmurphy]

I dealt with this issue pretty extensively in the thread "Why I Want a Serotta." The thing is, when you're spending this kind of money (e.g., seven thousand dollars or more), there's more to the equation than just ride and handling. One of the primary reasons a rider like me (i.e., a non-pro) would spend this kind of money on a bike is to get me out there riding as much as possible. And let's face it, regardless of how we don't want to be "poseurs" and just want to base our decisions on hard-core practicality, it's going to be a lot more fun to ride a bike if we like its looks. The paint on my bike is not going to make the slightest difference in its ride, its handling, or even the weight. But I'm spending an extra $350 on paint because it will make the bike stunningly gorgeous and make me want to ride the thing. And I explained at great length to the guy doing my fitting what I liked and didn't like about the way my frame would look in terms of top tube slope, head tube length, etc.

When I was talking to my LBS about the design of my Legend, at one point I said, "I'm making a truly frightening number of design decisions based on aesthetics." But a bike is more than just a tool. And if you're going to be out there riding for ten hours every weekend, anything you can do that can make the whole experience more enjoyable is totally worth doing.

At least in my opinion.

[Ozz]

This is an interesting matter to me. Given the cost and labor I would add that I may have cut into IF's profit with this situation but I did not deprive them of profit nor cost them money as such. I know what it costs to build a frame, down to the penny. Lugged bikes cost TONS more, as we would all surmise. That said, I don't resent them their profit anymore than I would deny my preferences. They have acted with great generosity and integrity for which I am genuinely grateful.

Don't feel too bad for them. They will sell your old frame and recoup most, if not all plus some, of their out-of-pocket expenses.

They should also learn from this experience and realize that any design changes they make need to be discussed with the client. Their target market is typically an informed cyclist. We know what we want, and expect to get it. Obviously they are the experts and can (and should) make recommendations, but the bottom like is that the buyer should get what they want. Improved communication with clients will make them a better company.

Lastly, how many people of read this and the thread in the classifieds? A couple hundred? A couple thousand? I believe you can tell the most about a company not by how many mistakes they make, but how they behave when a mistake is made. I think most people will agree that IF is treating you most fairly. It is hard to measure how much "pressure" was put on them to behave this way because of the discussions here, but it did not take long for them to step up and take care of you. I think they will continue with their reputation intact, and perhaps better after this incident. Bottomline, this is pretty cheap advertising....

Enjoy your new bike and have peace of mind in knowing IF is better off for having done business with you!

[victoryfactory]

in my experience, communication gets confused when the dealer/fitter translates your measurements/preferences to the manufacturer. I've had this problem even with Serotta. The solution? You must talk to the builder at some point and not just rely on the intermediaries, however expert they are. Even after doing so, I usually forget to cover every detail. Glad it's been worked out. Good luck.

I would consider an IF but I can't stand their downtube logo.
Is that aesthetics or performance?

VF

[dbrk]

I think one of the interesting things about IF is how people react to their logo, graphics, and sense of style. I visited with them way back when they were Fat City and Merlin was literally across the alleyway and I think that some of those same folks are still there. They are anything but coporate in any conventional sense, rather they are diehard bike geeks and very laid back but industrious and smart people, savvy, fun people. What the heck that has to do with their logo, I dunno. But I have connected with them over the years, ridden a slew of their bikes, plunked down my Jacksons gleefully, etc. The graphic sort of reflects, in some artistic interpreation that may only belong to me, the quirky but serious way they go about their business. I happen to really like it.

I am generally not that keen on flames, multiple patterns, and busy bicycles. I confess to liking the Mapei cubes, okay? But I nearly always order a subdued or classic color scheme. I'm inclined to be easy on the eyes and with IF's logo this can happen in certain combinations very tastefully indeed. At least to my eye. And to each his or her own! The world is large enough, no? But more directly pertinent to VF's point: I think we all buy the graphic or we don't. This hones the point that aesthetics are indeed very much a part of teh choices we make. Tubes are part of that aesthetic too. What is really more beautiful than Serotta tubes? I have always maintained that Serotta's swagged, redwood-like tubes are the standard against which all others are measured. I like Dario too, aplenty for the tubes and graphics. But I like IF and it's interesting to see how people react.

dbrk

[Andreu]

I have to disagree with this premise, unless you can further explain your meaning of "cheap".
As I said the correlation is tenuous....and the best groupset (pound for pound) I have ever had was Shimano Ultegra (not cheap $-wise?).
I agree....that at the high end there are as many pros as cons. And for me, follows the law of ever diminishing returns. I always use the wine analogy because (for some reason) its easier for me to understand....it´s like comparing a $50 wine with a $100 wine....not really much in it when your plonking down your hard earned. But the difference in quality between the $50 and the $3 wine can be big (huge infact to the dent in the wallet!). Of course this is based on my set of values....taste, smell etc. And does not work for everyone else (thank God!)
In terms of bikes....I don´t get the Pinarello for $16k. I would find it hard to justify an Ottrott.... but Legend CSI and others etc....for me there is a sense of value for money and quality with these bikes that is worth parting with my hard earned (until I am proved otherwise in my own context of value (I am sure the Ottrott is fine). I would not personally buy a bike from the supermarket at $100 knowing that I was going to spend the next year riding it for over 10000 miles.
I think I might go back to musing about how many angels there are on the head of a pin.
A :beer:

[Andreu]

........... out the IF website and they have great equipment!
I don´t want to get dragged into the IF debate but I remember reading once "there is no such thing as bad publicity" (not sure whose quote this is) but, I hope, DBRK, you get the bike you want and IF get some favourable "publicity" too ...we need these guys to keep building these beautiful frames and give us some choice (one of the better aspects of living in a capitalist society).
:beer:
A