Re: unabashed plug, Crumpton

dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > Funny-- I've been part of the cycling scene here in Austin for over
> > twenty years, minus the years of 2001-2006 that I spent in Seattle.
> > I've never even heard of Nick Crumpton or his bikes.  I guess he must
> > limit his public interface to only the scowling plum-smugglers of our
> > fair city.
>
> What's a plum smuggler?

Ask your mother.

I checked in with some of my bike shop buddies and discovered that
Nick Crumpton is known as "the guy who shares shop space with Whitney
Moyer" (a framebuilder I am familiar with).

> > I wonder how much he'd charge for a longtail cargo bike frame?  Or a
> > sociable tandem?
>
> Why be sarcastic? Yes, these are "race bikes". What's the problem?

Problem?  I dunno, paying an extra $2000 to $3000 tariff for a frame
that weighs the same, looks about the same, has exactly the same
dimensions, and is made of the same materials as a common commercial
frame could be considered a problem.  But I guess some folks must see
that as an enhancement.

I reckon you pay the custom-built surcharge to get something the mass
market doesn't already provide, or doesn't provide in your size.  If
you want a 1000g plastic frame with me-too geometry and room for 25mm
tires, you have a number of more reasonably priced choices.

> >  I think handbuilding should be used where it yields
> > noteworthy benefits.
>
> Noteworthy benefits seem to be the subject of the review. I've heard
> testimonials from an owner or two. Um, professional people who haven't
> been hypnotized or drugged as far as I know.

I read the review and see imaginary benefits (that can't be expressed
or measured in SI units).  I have observed that spending silly amounts
of money for things, or sometimes even getting to play with someone
else's things that cost silly amounts of money, can bring out the
fanciful side of people.

> > I mean, can't someone buy a plastic road bike
> > basically indistinguishable from that one just about anywhere for a
> > whole lot less money?
>
> No.

I think a rattlecan paint job and identical parts selection would
render a Crumpton equal to and indistinguishable from any number of
other plastic bikes costing less.  Until I see descriptions of
differences between such things expressed in something besides wine-
taster language, I'll assume that bikes weighing the same, made of the
same materials in the same dimensions are functionally equivalent to
each other.

> > I guess a lot of folks who are indiscriminate enough to drop $9k on a
> > bike must want something just like what they've already got, only more
> > expensive.
>
> "Indiscriminate"? That's taking on a lot, frankly speaking.
>
> > If one of the consequences is a guy making bikes by hand
> > and earning a decent living for his work, though, then that's OK by
> > me.
>
> That price point enables a "decent living", via spending a lot of time
> working at making frames and promoting, etc. Which way do you want to
> slice this luncheon loaf,Chalo?

I used to work in a tiny machine shop where one of the regular
customers was a guy who made violin bows.  He sold these bows for
$10,000 to $40,000.  A few folks thought that was a good enough value
to lay down their own money to buy them.  I got a close enough look at
the manufacturing process to believe that those folks were misguided
to pay so much.

Crumpton's frames are not so far out of line with the prices of other
comparable frames as to be absurd; but neither do they have anything
significant to distinguish them from those other frames.  He doesn't
make his tubing or subassemblies.  He doesn't get to decide that a
certain frame warrants 47cm chainstays-- he has to work with the same
length as everybody else because that's what the manufacturer
provides.  He doesn't get to build a frame with room for fat tires.
He doesn't get to specify an extra-fat or extra-thick-walled tube to
compensate for unusual tube length or load.  I'd be surprised if he
could even build a bike with a 65-degree seat angle and no other major
divergences from normal.  All he can do is bandage up the joints with
more or less wrap and make 'em as purty as possible.  That's worth
something, certainly, but $2-3k extra?  It does leave me wondering
about cost/benefit ratio.

I guess imaginary benefits are the most expensive ones of all.

To me, the only tangible benefit in the whole deal is this:  Some guy
who works hard making the nicest bikes he knows how to make doesn't
have to go broke to do what he loves (which is a pitfall I have
witnessed time and again in the bike business).  The bikes themselves
are about as banal as can be-- like a yet fancier and more expensive
set of chrome 22s on an SUV.

Chalo