Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Tuesday Tidbits

Now that we are past halfway through the process of designing rSogn, I wanted to share with you the following comments I have received on this process:

Your collaborative approach is refreshing in this industry.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this collaborative effort. I don't have the kind of technical knowledge and experience some of the other contributors have, but it's still exciting to feel like you are part of a team working to create a great riding bicycle that has wide-ranging capabilities. Kudos to you for this project. Some might say too many cooks blah blah, but I think that has not been the case here. It's been a lot of fun.

Looks fantastic. I'm following the discussion and would comment, but I can't think of anything I would add to the discussion that others haven't already touched on. As the design is revealed, I am liking all of your decisions.

I see Rawland as the direct descendant of the Bridgestone XO. While other companies are fixated on capturing the look of the nearly two decade-old bike, yours seems to capture the spirit of the XO-1...Much appreciated. I'm a retrogrouch, but I'm a practical one. I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing this frame develop.

I am excited by the new rSOGN design and would probably like to get on the pre-order list. I would like to wait till the the design is "finalized" before making the decision - but each day the design just keeps getting better. Thanks...

I just wanted to send you an email and offer my gratitude for you opening up your design process to potential customers...I have designed a few bikes myself and I spent countless hours pouring over each detail and revisiting practicality, function, aesthetics and more...Anyhow, I just wanted to reach out and give you my best.

Anna and I hope that you all too have the same experience. We also wish for for the process to avoid the groupthink phenomenon. We have been successful in that regard thus far.

Additionally, I have been asked if we may take pre-orders now. After discussing with Anna, I decided to keep the schedule as is. That means we will start taking pre-orders on Friday, October 1, after making announcements of final design details and colors (!). However, you may certainly email me to get on the list.

Last but not least, I have also been asked about offering the rSogn in titanium. Email me if you are interested in this option.  

Sean

20 comments:

bking45 said...

Just came to this discussion via Alex's blog and the BOB list. The low-trail, standard diameter tubing rSogn is a great-sounding frame, and the aftermarket fork as well. Let me make a plea for an XL in the rSogn -- lots of us tall people out there would buy such a bike. I see that you have an XL in the Snekka, but I don't like the slack fork and I'm wishy-washy about large diameter 700C tires.

It would seem that at least for an XL, 9-6-9 would be a better tubing choice.

Art

Jim G said...

TITANIUM? WHOOOOOHOOO!!!!!

Jim G said...

For the Ti option, perhaps you could partner with Habanero to produce the tiSogn? That'd be very attractive ATMO.

Ti Curious said...

I'd be interested in a TiSogn!
I've always wanted to try a Ti bike and this would be a great opportunity. I prefer flexy flames, though. How does titanium compare to skinny steel?

Protorio said...

Ti would be hawt.

Anonymous said...

@ti curious: I had an early Spectrum titanium (90 or 91 I think). Even with the oversize tubing, it had some nice spring to it. Of course that may have had something to do with the skinny by today's standards aluminum fork or the tiny bb shell--it had press in bearings because ti is hard to machine and nobody had a bb yet. I rode that thing to death, could not hurt it. But it was a 55, and I now ride 58-60. Tom K. told me "Get the 57." 18 miles of seatpost was the thinking then. I sold it on eBay a few years ago, when the ti bicycle market was at its low point.

The rSogn in titanium would be formidable. It could present some cost issues in addition to the material, with all the braze-ons I suspect the frame will end up with. A bit more labor intensive to work that stuff.

I will thank you again publicly for the opportunity to be part of this process. I'm learning a lot. I'm sorely tempted to say yes to ti, but I've only had limited exposure to 650B in the form of a tandem I bought this spring and have ridden a total of 3 times. (I forgot that we need someone to watch our now 10-month old baby..) Still, at least we wouldn't have to hash out the color.

Mark

Anonymous said...

P.S. Just so I'm clear:

Depending on the price, a ti rSogn would be having a big fat cake and eating it, too. Sean, by any chance are you related to Santa Claus?

Mark

Michael_S said...

just my humble comments so... Ti is considered some magic material by some but it is much harder to weld, has significantly less tube sizes, and would preempt the beautiful Pacenti fork crown (I think) Give me good 'ole steel in standard tubing and a good price and I'll be a happy camper.

and yes, I'm digging this collaborative approach too. The voice of the customer is key to success in business.

Mike

James Black said...

A titanium rSogn would be pretty hard to pass up!

I would echo the chorus, I think you've done a great job fleshing out the design of these bikes while taking constructive input from us consumers. Every day I find myself looking for an rSogn update.

Jim G said...

@Michael_S: I'm pretty sure we're only talking about producing the frame in Ti -- Ti forks are rare things indeed, and my vote would be for a steel fork to accompany the Ti frame. Either in black, or in a contrasting color to match whatever decals are used. For example, this is a nice older sport-touring geometry custom Serotta with a steel fork -- the fork matches the decals. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/314623286/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/314622346/

Rob in Seattle said...

I've always found titanium bikes intriguing...kinda in the way I find a Ferrari intriguing. Gorgeous, high performance, totally out of my league financially. I might come back after riding a steel rSogn and want a Ti version someday (when I'm rich-ha!), but steel fine for me now.

James Black said...

Now that JimG mentions the prospect that the fork won't match the frame, that kind of ruins it for me - I don't think I would ever buy a titanium frame that was paired with a steel fork. I would rather have my steel fork paired with a steel frame.

Frames and forks should match! I don't consider a fork to be a component, but part of the frameset itself. It offends my modernist sensibilities to have them be different materials. And the hypothetical corrosion resistance of a Ti frame seems pointless if my fork is still hanging out there to rust.

Anonymous said...

This process is fascinating. I am very interested in a ti version. I currently have two ti frames. One gofast with a crabon fork, and an all-rounder with a chromed steel fork. The chromed fork is my favorite of the two and so I would assume you could chrome a steel fork for this ti frame. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

A recent comment re: the HTA on the Snekka got me wondering -- why so slack? Seems like for the purpose of this bike, go-fast rough roader, you'd want something like 73 degrees.

?

DS

Garrett Belmont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Garrett Belmont said...

I'll be sticking to all steel (my wallet agrees). Any hints on colors?

Russ said...

@James:

I know it's unheard of...but you CAN paint a ti frame sot it'll match the fork. To tell you the truth, I'd probably paint mine if I purchased one.

Nothing says bling like ti, and bling gets stolen in the 'hood where I commute.

Anonymous said...

Uh, oh. We're getting into colors and we haven't done braze-ons...

Mark

franklyn said...

Sean,

Maybe you mentioned it somewhere already. But will you be offering the fork for the rSogn separately in case one of us wants to upgrade the first-gen Sogn?

Guitar Ted said...

Late to the party here. Been in Las Vegas for this weird bike show thing-a-ma-bob...

Anyway....

To "DS" on the head tube angle on the Snekka: My take is that there are a lot of twitchy, hard to handle cross bikes out there already that'll scare the bejeebers outta ya at 40mph on a loose gravel descent. Slack, stable, easy to steer geometry when the going gets sketchy, or rough, or when you are really cooked with 50 to go on rough dirt roads/gravel isn't where I want a "fast handling" bike.

Besides, to my mind, the pre-1950 road bikes were all about handling great on rough roads *and* going fast. Keep in mind, the head angle won't make you faster, your legs and lungs will. The head tube angle is all about stability in the rough stuff and at speed in my mind.