Re: unabashed plug, Crumpton

>> 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.

> dustoyevsky wrote:
>> What's a plum smuggler?

Chalo wrote:
> 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.


"Quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is 
what the customer gets out and is willing to pay for. A product is not 
quality because it is hard to make and costs a lot of money, as 
manufacturers typically believe. This is incompetence. Customers pay 
only for what is of use to them and gives them value. Nothing else 
constitutes quality." -    Peter Drucker

-- 
Andrew Muzi
  <www.yellowjersey.org/>
  Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**