# PVD blog post about gravel bike design and looking back on old designs



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Some bikes are more evil than others | Peter Verdone Designs

Absolutely worth reading. :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2020)

scottzg said:


> Some bikes are more evil than others | Peter Verdone Designs
> 
> Absolutely worth reading. :thumbsup:


LOL...a PVD fanboi :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Dark Meat said:


> LOL...a PVD fanboi :lol::lol::lol:


LOL... you don't visit this forum much, do you? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2020)

scottzg said:


> LOL... you don't visit this forum much, do you? :lol::lol::lol:


I don't need to...I know PVD.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Dark Meat said:


> I don't need to...I know PVD.


I'm not a pvd fanboi. But he's made his (evolving) position very clear, and his designs optimize those ideals, without compromise for >10 years. I respect that a lot. So should you.

Read the blog post, and take whatever you want from it. It's 100% worth reading. That's all i proposed!

Any more negative comments about PVD will be getting a neg rep. FFS. Feel free to hate his opinions.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’m still waiting for someone to point out what the many failings of traditional-ish geometry are for gravel riding. Or, what the CH or like designs offer that a more traditional bike does not, for gravel riding. 

It seems like a very niche product to me. You’d have to live in an area with incredibly steep fire roads for it to be advantageous. Low grade corners are going to be frightening with the wheel that far out in front. Soon we’ll be seeing dudes riding DHFs on gravel just so they can take the turns on the 4% grade back home without eating it. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Lost me at dropper post for a gravel bike.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

Dropper posts, 50mm tyres, 66° head angles. Aren’t these just becoming mountain bikes with drop bars? Can someone explain to me what the purpose of these bikes is?


----------



## Erichimedes (Jul 30, 2010)

scottzg said:


> ...Any more negative comments about PVD will be getting a neg rep.


Interesting, because when he insults new builders or people with differing opinions, you don't seem to mind.

Shouldn't we all be free to express ourselves? That's the freedom we're extending to Peter.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to point out what the many failings of traditional-ish geometry are for gravel riding. Or, what the CH or like designs offer that a more traditional bike does not, for gravel riding.
> 
> It seems like a very niche product to me. You'd have to live in an area with incredibly steep fire roads for it to be advantageous. Low grade corners are going to be frightening with the wheel that far out in front. Soon we'll be seeing dudes riding DHFs on gravel just so they can take the turns on the 4% grade back home without eating it.


Yah i agree; seems like needing to consciously weight the front end is more disadvantages than advantages. That said, i have a buddy with a CH-style gravel bike, and he's a much faster descender than i am on my more traditional gravel bike, even on pretty flat gravel descents. He has bigger tires with some tread, but it's enough to make me curious about the concept. I want to try it.



Erichimedes said:


> Interesting, because when he insults new builders or people with differing opinions, you don't seem to mind.


Only because i'm more interested in good discussion than in forum drama.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

scottzg said:


> I'm not a pvd fanboi. But he's made his (evolving) position very clear, and his designs optimize those ideals, without compromise for >10 years. I respect that a lot. So should you.
> 
> Read the blog post, and take whatever you want from it. It's 100% worth reading. That's all i proposed!
> 
> Any more negative comments about PVD will be getting a neg rep. FFS. Feel free to hate his *opinions*.


I respect how he braves the world of realizing his own ideas as a form of pioneering, but he seems to like to look down on others that he sees as people still in the past that he's left behind; like an image of his old weak past self, that he sheds as he emerges from his chrysalis as a new being.

People generally will defend their own ego. I have little doubt that most people, as Dark Meat has done, will disparage PVD and anything else that makes them look a fool. Correct a fool and they will spite you, correct a [decent person] and they will thank you. That's why I've learned to avoid calling others out, since I expect this; I choose temperance over courage, courage to stand up for a personal belief. Trivia: this also explains why people disparage the idea of an IQ test, despite there being correlation between high IQ and note-worthy success in technical fields that benefit from such like doctors. They're afraid of the judgement of getting a poor result and want to preempt some defense or excuse themselves from such judgement somehow. Innovation disrupts, by making current stuff obsolete, devaluing investments that people want to protect, esp if they made such their foundation for the near future.

Just seems like PVD's living in his own world, ignorant of others doing the same. He's quick to judge others as not having done anything of the sort. Him posting a "you are not a bicycle expert" link to thinker-type of people trying to be open minded, stifling constructive discussion, is similar to how he's criticizing instagram in that post.

Not a fan of blogging in general. I am kind of amused by how it puts a date on opinion, to revisit at a later date, but I'm bothered by the lack of supporting research data. His bullet points could be argued, but where are the provisions to even bother arguing them? Someone's bothered by a dropper. I'm wondering how big of a deal the Q-factor thing is. Is this thread supposed to be it? I don't want to push it since it's not that important to me anyways, on the level of drama. Why the repeated jabs at doodling as part of realizing an idea? Some people need to throw repeatedly before they find something that sticks into the bullseye. They get better at it. Trial and error is inefficient, but we're talking something low priority like "all-road bikes", which shouldn't attract some genius visionary.

Even if there were some genius visionary, who'd be able to see eye-to-eye with them and their super futuristic ideas where manufacturing capability can't come close to realizing the concepts? PVD isn't one, based on what I imagine is a genius visionary. I question his authority on manufacturing too. Would it be an insult for me to consider even the guys at Sick Bicycles to be on a similar level? Would PVD perhaps prefer the comparison to be to the likes of Ritchey? I hold a certain high level of esteem for guys who have such experience in creation, over people with no significant repute here at mtbr, at least.

Bottom line, it's just opinions. Opinions/beliefs have no value besides to the owner. Who knows what those who share such opinions see in them in terms of value. I'm not into loyalty to people, I'm into ideas regardless of who they come from. Who it comes from just merely earns my attention span, and I admit PVD earned enough of it to compel me to read. I didn't really learn much new disappointingly... just him saying that he's years ahead, mostly. I'd like to teach PVD something, but I imagine trying to lecture him would lead to conflict, based on his attitude. At least it might serve as drive to continue his form of innovation. I'll be waiting until then, letting this egostoke take its toll on how much attention I give him in the future.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I hate PVD. Only a rube would discuss the finer points of design at length. If he really knew what he was talking about he'd be posting glamour photos on Instagram.


----------



## nrj (Sep 20, 2008)

I made myself a gravel bike that falls between the designs of the Evil CH and pretty much every other production gravel bike.









PVD would criticize the design. The wheels are too small. The dropper is too skinny and too short. The front center isn't maximized. But his ideas and the ideas behind modern mtb geometry are what I borrowed to get to this bike.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

nrj said:


> ....PVD would criticize the design....


How about instead, you justify each of the decisions that you made to produce that bike? Why did you deviate from production garbage and why you didn't go balls-deep on a PVD-style design?
(btw, +points as you presented a decent print.)


----------



## nrj (Sep 20, 2008)

pvd said:


> How about instead, you justify each of the decisions that you made to produce that bike?


This bike was designed to ride the local fire and forest roads around Reno. The climbs and descents are long, loose, and dry. I'll also be riding in this year's Lost and Found Gravel Grinder and maybe other similar events in the future. I'm not looking to podium, just to have fun. This bike is also not made for techy singletrack. I have a hardtail for that.

1. I chose the 584 wheel size to maximize tire width. I'm running 48x584 with Sram Force cranks. Up front I could've made a steel fork but that's a big weight penalty. The carbon forks available to me at the time limited the tire size to 47x622. I wanted wider tire clearance up front, so stuck with 584. Plus, I haven't read anything that proves 622 is inherently faster than 584.

2. I used a 27.2 dropper post with 120mm travel to keep weight in check. I could've used a 34.9 seat tube and 31.6 dropper, but that would've added around a half pound. Since the seat tube isn't bent, the forces applied to the dropper aren't as severe. I also weigh 165lb and am in general gentle on my gear. 120mm of drop seems fine so far. I'm able to bunny hop the bike and move around on descents without the saddle getting in the way. I run a 170mm dropper on my hardtail for reference.

3. The BB height is low at 270mm. I run 170mm cranks. Again, this is not the bike I pick for techy singletrack. Keeping the BB height lower keeps the center of mass lower.

4. The front end geo was an experiment. I pushed the front wheel out while keeping in mind the limitations of running drop bars and the purpose of this bike. As trail increases so does the leverage against steering. There's a reason why current mountain bikes aren't running the 550mm wide handlebars of yore. I kept trail in check so I wouldn't be fighting the bike with relatively narrow drop bars (Cowchippers size 46). I chose to build around a 70mm stem as a split between the common 100mm found on road/gravel bikes and the stubby things on mountain bikes. Sure, I could have run a longer front center and a shorter stem, and perhaps it would have been even more confidence-inspiring on steep descents, but I'm happy with my choice so far.

5. This bike can run 2x or 1x drivetrains. I chose 1x because I can run a 36t ring and a 10-50t cassette for a better granny gear. My knees force me to be a spinner. The 1x option also allowed me to integrate the dropper lever into the left shifter. I haven't seen a good solution to a 2x drivetrain with a dropper lever for drop bars.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

nrj said:


> This bike was designed to ride the local fire and forest roads around Reno. The climbs and descents are long, loose, and dry. I'll also be riding in this year's Lost and Found Gravel Grinder and maybe other similar events in the future. I'm not looking to podium, just to have fun. This bike is also not made for techy singletrack. I have a hardtail for that.


It's like a smaller version of my last frame except for the seat angle. I live in Carson, if you ever want to pre-ride up Brunswick Canyon PM me.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I like the way you measure on that model. Was checking off the things it was missing: BB drop and tube diameters, but I like the horizontal distance the saddle clamp is behind the BB and the measurement to the handlebar grips. Was nodding to mechanical trail over ground trail, and rigid fork choice raised my eyebrows.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> Was checking off the things it was missing: BB drop...


He actually shows that properly. Look again.

As I said, I'd trade my critique for a explanation of the many choices made. This was done to my satisfaction. This is the stuff I like to see over pretty pictures.

Happy to critique in another thread.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I suppose BB drop would be based on at least 3 figures, based on the rear axle and that 48-584 tire, or the front axle which could come with a 47-622 or 53-584 tire.

36x10 as the highest gear sounds limiting on pavement. I'll preach my belief that I think bikes are more built around optimizing the experience that you get from a certain set of tires (DH bikes around DH tires, fat bikes around fat bike tires, XC, enduro, trail/AM, road racing, CX, gravel, street BMX, etc.). What tire combos you planning on running specifically? I worry that it'd be a shame to not realize their true potential.


----------



## nrj (Sep 20, 2008)

For me BB drop is the number I use to set up the frame jig. I have a different set of dimensions saved in a template in BikeCAD for setting up my jig. 

I have no reason to print the tube dimensions for myself, although I can see it being beneficial for displaying the drawing publicly. If you're curious, here they are:

TT 28.6 7/5/7
DT 31.8 8/5/8
ST 28.6 8/6/1.2
HT 46.4
BB 68
SS 16 .7 custom bent
CS 22.2 round .7 custom dimpled


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2020)

pvd said:


> I hate PVD. Only a rube would discuss the finer points of design at length. If he really knew what he was talking about he'd be posting glamour photos on Instagram.


Does this mean you'll be posting some photos of yourself in a bikini?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

nrj said:


> I haven't seen a good solution to a 2x drivetrain with a dropper lever for drop bars.


This, perhaps?
=sParty


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

pvd's got a new blog post, one on flop. Flop | Peter Verdone Designs

Don't think he considered the shape of the tire playing in a role, only really the tire diameter and trail/caster. A square profile tire with tall shoulder knobs reduces flop effect, a part of the reason why people might choose wider rims. Lots of words to simply explain why a bike stands taller when its front tire's contact point is directly under an axle (pointing straight), compared to if the tire were turned and the contact patch becomes more along the steering axis and on its shoulder knobs, and how the weight on the bike wants to fall into this low spot as you turn the wheel and the bike drops from center knobs to shoulder. Maybe his experience with flop is due to an excessively round plus tire, combined with short offset (that I'd judge detrimentally short).

The measuring of ratio between RC and FC, and correlating that weight distro is questionable. Steve @ Vorsprung did that in some geo video and I disagree. He called out the designer/founder at Pole cycles, trying to say Steve's personal bike Deviate Guide and Sam Hill's Nukeproof were ideal compared to the Pole he demo'd. The Deviate is a high pivot with considerable chain growth affecting its RC. Just saying, lots of insight still be to had if you look further, rather than settle with simplifications/generalizations. True that increasing FC reduces weight on the front, but there's more reasons behind why I judge HTAs as getting detrimentally slacker. Can change weight distro with RC (horizontal CS length) too, but designers are reluctant to do so since that affects rear linkage suspension kinematics, regarding pedaling response, more than changing the FC. Weight distro more accurately measured with scales under each wheel.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> pvd.....


I'm perfectly happy to entertain issues with work that I post (as I did w/ Dr. Welby a thread adjacent) but most of what you are saying is just conjecture.

1. Regarding tire shape, perhaps you missed this text "The size and way a tire works and the terrain that the bicycle is on have a huge effect on how all of this works making it hard to define rules that extend across the board forcing testing when significant changes are made." This was not a discussion on tire geometry but of changes made fine tuning a platform in development.

2. Mention of weight distribution is not their to explore that topic but to add it as a factor to the handling change at hand so that it was not left to pure front end geometry as an explanation. (see: Dr. Welby)

3. You are welcome to produce you're own explanation of flop and share it with others. I didn't have that to reference so I was forced to do it myself.

https://www.peterverdone.com/i-am-a-critic/


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

pvd said:


> I'm perfectly happy to entertain issues with work that I post


To clarify I didn't see it as an issue or an omission, but as a point to further the discussion. I think flop is one of of the more interesting parameters we can tune.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

dr.welby said:


> To clarify I didn't see it as an issue or an omission, but as a point to further the discussion.


It was a legitimate point that I had left out of my description. Thanks for that.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

For sake of not being esoteric, I left it as conjecture, but that's what I was blaming you of. I was implying that it was easy to go a little deeper, relating some other patterns in the bigger picture, without making your post less digestible.

You write a long post on something, flop, based on the premise that its floppiness was bothersome at low speed. Someone not a fan of pvd would read that as your bikes having a flaw. They'd have to translate all your techno-mumbo jumbo to learn that it's due to the slack HA. Your solution? A 1 degree steeper HA and 8mm shorter fork offset (to retain trail) to get a change that you claim "eliminates" the problem. Your framed the change as being 1.7% longer trail, and 2.1% shorter flop.









^ Older design









^ Newer design

Different front tire. WTB Ranger 3.0 swapped for a Surly Dirt Wizard 3.0... not part of the scope of your blog subject, but important. Your conclusion on such small change is questionable, 64 to 65 HA, suggesting that bikes probably don't need to be slacker than 65.

Not sure if this is one of your aha moments, that you wanted to talk out loud about, but I wanna get confirmation that the flop wasn't fixed with the wheel and tire difference. Just making sure you're cross-examining yourself and people can consider this usable science, cause I have my doubts that flop was fixed with such a tiny change. Not that I think this is an important topic worth discussing, since I rarely go slow, err I mean experience intolerable levels of flop. 

Bottom line: you sound sciency, so I questioned the test method. If it matters, my bias/belief is that slack HA is okay with long fork offset, and steep HA is okay with short fork offset. My view is that a larger size of a bike model could come with a steeper HA and shorter fork offset, to get extra reach and stack to compliment a taller rider's height, and keep the wheelbase from getting too stretched out, so they don't feel compelled to downsize to keep things nimble. Shorter riders can have a slack HA to get them much needed FC length, so they don't feel compelled to upsize. I still see loads of potential for improvement in bikes in general. Regarding yours, are you resistant to steep STA for some reason? I've seen modern designs that have the seat clamp at half the distance behind the BB compared to yours (100mm, vs your 200mm). The new Evil 29 enduro has its saddle nose coming past the front of the BB... another reason to opt for steeper HTA, to open up to steeper STA.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

From what you are saying, you may not have a very detailed understanding of bike geometry. I suggest that you do some real math and build some tests...like I have done. Then write about it for others to learn from.

Certainly, you could make a web page with some drawings and explaining of the geometries you imagine for others to critique.

Actually, you're not a bike expert | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

As expected. Can't take any feedback.

Focused on micro changes, calling them gambles, as if you can't see any potential in bike improvement... xD

Does it really take an expert to realize a tire change is a big change, and suspect that has something to do with what you felt in addition to your geo tweak? Have some trustworthy anecdote from changing offset alone, and/or changing head angle alone, and I bet anyone would question what you're crediting to be the primary cause of the massive difference in floppiness.

What are you judging my knowledge on geo on exactly anyways? Another jump to an early conclusion?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Please share a link to your portfolio.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

What quantifies a "gravel bike"? When it's a Long Low and Slack frame with flat handlebars and a 150mm dropper post, why isn't this considered a rigid MTB? It's running slightly smaller/faster tires?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

*onespeed* said:


> what quantifies a "gravel bike"?


tldr


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

PVD portfolio clearly better than Santa Cruz portfolio. Should I even try to compare cock size with someone with signs of NPD?

"The Camel has a 4mm longer front center and 25mm shorter rear center than a large Santa Cruz Megatower. Klunk-duro. Strange that my retro bike is more progressive than a major brands flagship release. I guess the marketing guys are still doing most of the design work over there."

My face is all contorted from the cringe-factor, trying to imagine how can you even come to this conclusion, or make the comparison in the first place.

Source footnote: PVD Sopwith Camel | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

pvd said:


> tldr


It's funny, you ask others for a detailed reply yet avoid answering a very basic question.

Honestly, in the interest of continuing the conversation where do you draw the line? I own and have owned multiple rigid MTB's. I also have a cross bike set up with flat bars. I've also set up a couple MTB frames with drop bars. I've built Monster Cross bikes, etc.

I like blurring the lines and trying out different stuff. I'm fully aware of the fun factor involved with being under gunned. In fact I much prefer it as it keeps things interesting for me.

So, I'm not criticizing the design, or the concept, or anything, but what makes this a gravel bike and not an under gunned rigid MTB?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> ....


Bro, you've got no portfolio.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Honestly, in the interest of continuing the conversation where do you draw the line?


I tried to spell that out clearly in the post with several bullet points. Primary, it comes down to pedal spacing, gearing, aerodynamics, flex, and a few other factors. I really tried to break it down.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

pvd said:


> I tried to spell that out clearly in the post with several bullet points. Primary, it comes down to pedal spacing, gearing, aerodynamics, flex, and a few other factors. I really tried to break it down.


In many aspects of "bike" I'm all for nerding out on conversations about components, geometry, validity of products/concepts, etc.

Though I quickly loose interest when people bring up weight in the wrong context for example.

Aerodynamics on a fairly standard steel frame? You lost me at flat handlebars.

BB spacing? Are you implying the difference between a 68 and 73mm BB shell is significant for this type of bike? It's not to me.

Gearing? I'd gladly ride this "gravel bike" or my cross bike, or my MTB with only one gear. I also regularly race any and all of those. Gear range doesn't determine what type of bike you're riding, the terrain and fitness level determine the optimal drivetrain setup, geometry be damned.

Ride compliance is the only factor you listed that is of significant value. It's one of the most important things to me, right up there with geometry. That's why I choose steel for anything but full suspension, and honestly I'm so intrigued by steel FS bikes lately I'd be surprised if I didn't have a new frame by the end of the year.

Back to the question of "Is it a MTB or a gravel bike?", the bike in question is slacker than my SS 29er, it's got a good long dropper (rigid post on my SS), both bikes have flat handlebars, and neither one has suspension. Which one is more of a mountain bike?

Gear range and aerodynamics don't make it a gravel bike IMO, not when we're discussing a steel frame, you'd have made a stronger case by saying it has gravel tires on it.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Hey pete, since you're getting bombarded with commentary- what's the logic behind the really short head tube coupled with riser bars? I've never liked short head tubes because they encourage fore-aft deflection, so i'm curious about your reasoning. Personal preference i understand.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

scottzg said:


> What's the logic behind the really short head tube coupled with riser bars?


Body clearance.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> In many aspects of "bike" I'm all for nerding out on conversations about components, geometry, validity of products/concepts, etc.


I don't know what to say. Some people want to drive Formula One cars. Others are happy with driving Buicks. Both are designed for tarmac but will deliver a different experience. I tend to put a bike together more like a Formula One car, obsesing over every possible detail.

I don't ride singlespeeds. They go slow.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2020)

^^^Where are the bikini pics???


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Dark Meat said:


> ^^^Where are the bikini pics???


Why are you here? You have nothing to contribute. No questions. No reason to ignore your shitty attitude. Go away.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2020)

^^^I’m here for the same reasons as you...we both want to see Pete in a bikini :eekster:


----------



## nrj (Sep 20, 2008)

Sparticus said:


> This, perhaps?
> =sParty


It's definitely an option, as is the lever from PNW Components. I still prefer a modded Sram shifter paddle or the new GRX lever. They're tidier and accessible without moving your hand.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> What quantifies a "gravel bike"?


Has something been deleted? I was genuinely intrigued to know the answer? I just thought it was a cool new name for cyclocross bikes to generate some sales.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

Cord said:


> Has something been deleted? I was genuinely intrigued to know the answer? I just thought it was a cool new name for cyclocross bikes to generate some sales.


Geometry, max tire width, number of bosses to attach important stuff.

I realize the differences are subtle, like the differences between an "XC" and a "trail" MTB...a "trail" MTB has a steeper seat-tube angle for your lack of wattage when climbing steep sh!t, and more front travel for your lack of technical skills descending steep sh!t. See? Subtle, but significant.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> your lack of wattage when climbing steep sh!t,


nah, electricity gives me 250w to make up my deficit. :thumbsup:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

This post was just added to the site. I hope it makes everyone happy.

You can't fix it in post. | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

I don't get it to be honest, why do you keep beating us over the head with the fact that you're an expert and none of us are worth having a conversation with?

According to you it seems there are only 8 other experts in the country worthy of having a discussion with so why to you keep coming here to explain that to the plebs? 

There is definitely some interesting information to be extracted from your spreadsheets, but the attitude I don't get?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Why do you keep beating us over the head with the fact that you're an expert and none of us are worth having a conversation with?


Think of it as a challenge. Prove me wrong. Do it. Do the work. Talk is cheap.



*OneSpeed* said:


> According to you it seems there are only 8 other experts in the country worthy of having a discussion with so why to you keep coming here to explain that to the plebs?


I would never inflate the number to be that high. It's far less. Again, this is part of the challenge. I'm the heel. Give up the smackdown. The good guy needs to win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_(professional_wrestling)

Also, If I don't educate folks, they'll never catch up. A lot of people appreciate my work and it helps them.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

If you want to attract attention it's more desirable to be controversial than appealing.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

pvd said:


> Think of it as a challenge. Prove me wrong. Do it. Do the work. Talk is cheap.


So far in this thread all I've challenged is your attitude and terminology. Nothing to do with your technical knowledge or level of experience. You call yourself an educator but fail to understand what that word means.

Clearly we can't communicate until I give up my current life and career, invest in a shop, tools, etc, and dedicate my life to bike design, fabrication, geometry, and blog about it? Do it for 15 years, document it, post it on the internet, then we can have an open dialog? That's what you're saying no?



> I would never inflate the number to be that high. It's far less. Again, this is part of the challenge. I'm the heel. Give up the smackdown. The good guy needs to win.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_(professional_wrestling)
> 
> Also, If I don't educate folks, they'll never catch up. A lot of people appreciate my work and it helps them.


Your work is appreciated, I've read about it. I also like that you take the time to document it in an organized manor and share it openly with the internet. In many ways your work is a valuable resource. But you're no holy bike god, and score zero points for being a good guy on the internet. You could do it differently, get a different result, and it would cost you nothing.

Since you're aware of your "elite" status, and you're not in it for sales and profitability (as I understand it, could be wrong?) why do you bother coming here just to tell us how dumb we are and not worthy of your keyboard strokes?

I just don't get it? Poke the bear? "I'm here to spew how great I am and you're not worthy of a response. BTW click the link to my website, you'll understand better what kind of inexperienced idiot you are. Enjoy"


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Why is my tone such a bone of contention for you? Maybe that's something that you have to figure out for yourself. I use the tone I do for several reasons. Certainly, I'm not one of those "everybody has a valid opinion" types that message boards foster. That pisses people off and that's a good thing.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

pvd said:


> Why is my tone such a bone of contention for you? Maybe that's something that you have to figure out for yourself. I use the tone I do for several reasons. Certainly, I'm not one of those "everybody has a valid opinion" types that message boards foster. That pisses people off and that's a good thing.


Again avoids addressing the question.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I guess it just sounds like you are confused, as referenced by your original comments. It seems like you didn't understand the content of the link posted by the OP. Have you tried reading it over? That can help.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I will say that I expected worse from that latest article, especially based on the title pic and premise, the photo/film analogy. Started reading, skimmed, then read in full.

You seem to be focused on the solo builder perspective, and want to show how developed the process can be after you spend time fleshing out the workflow steps to be optimized for your personal demands. It's like a look into where you invest your time, and how it would reflect on the end product.

I used to, and still do, criticize such qualities as micro improvements. Now I see it even more hipster-like. I presume that you think yourself a trend-setter, solidifying that with actual productions. 

Logical fallacies are abound, which bothers me, and such emphasis on subjective values like portfolios reminds me of how leadership guided things during the US-Vietnam War regarding how they emphasized enemy body count as a measure of their progress. I don't mean to use that as an analogy; it only just reminded me.

No wisdom from my post, just a perspective/observation from my own head that I wanted to share for no specific reason. I suppose I just wanted to say that I read pvd's post, which I saw it as weird text-heavy way of describing how a pvd bike is made, while also taking a jab at critics. Clearly community feedback isn't a part of it; this is just the gallery to show off in. If there is community-feedback, I'm guessing that he'd consider the community of NAHBS builders to be it, and only some special ones that pass his "be more like me" standards.

I'm not trying to be a geo expert. I'm just sharing my thoughts, like when you say there's a lack of weight on your newest bike's front end, I see that as a flaw that can be fixed in a number of ways. You lauded one fix from the prior design's floppiness, which I criticized the test method behind. I see talk being cheap as one of its strengths. You could use more balance and I tried to supply some. 

Sound reasonable ideas/concepts should be sound regardless of who shares it. Portfolio, fame, or professional achievements, or whatever should only fetch attention at most. Prejudice (AKA bigotry) is the thing that crushes this principle's ideals. I applaud those who call bigotry out when they see it. I appreciate the amount of time that decent people spend on almost anything considered good, including promoting such ideals...


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> It's like a look into where you invest your time, and how it would reflect on the end product.


You hit the nail on the head there.

As to the rest of your response, I'm showing how we design and develop excellent bicycles. Not accidents. Not copycat. Actually calculating and planning an better bike than the last.

If you know of a better way to do that, I'd love to hear it. Feel free to speak from experience and how your view has changed over time.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

pvd said:


> You hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> As to the rest of your response, I'm showing how we design and develop excellent bicycles. Not accidents. Not copycat. Actually calculating and planning an better bike than the last.
> 
> If you know of a better way to do that, I'd love to hear it. Feel free to speak from experience and how your view has changed over time.


C'mon Pete, you and I both know the bike industry borrows a lot from each other. It's borderline incestuous. Hiring from within the industry, or even from within the company, puts a hamper on potential improvement.

With some projects like the Alutech ICB2.0, where design was "crowd-sourced", I recall some experts outside of the bike industry, but advanced in their own, offering great input.

That all said, my experience with experimental builds (Marino custom-built) has suggested that incremental improvement exists for a reason, in the mainstream market. It sells. The timing of the innovation, in relation to what currently exists, matters. The idea could be sound, and the engineering can make it possible at an affordable price, but it's difficult to rush the consumer side of the market. Marketing can be a costly gamble, as people behave paradoxically to prior patterns known to work. Consumers are 3+ years behind the creators... what they're on and providing feedback on, is what they already know from their own development and testing process. To not give up their competitive advantage, or devalue currently selling product, all makers can do is respond to feedback by thanking them and telling them to anticipate/wait for their new product. Someone like you can just make a bike that you want to ride, or open up to something new. You can build something excessively stupid and still find it fresh and enjoyable, since you have a sense of extra special fulfillment on top of it all from building it.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> C'mon Pete, ...


I know a lot of folks that work in the bike industry. Big companies. Small companies. I know for a fact that the only thing that matters is selling crap and making money. If the kewl kids decided that 16" wheels wheels were the thing to have, everyone would rush to sell it to them. There's really no magic going on behind the curtain. Just people trying to sell more junk.

My goal is different. I need to make a better bike. I want folks to talk about what's real instead of some fantasy they've been sold. I wish I had some more folks to learn from.

I think that you are reading a lot of magazine articles and reading message board dribble and imagining that you are getting the real scoop. Magazines and companies ONLY shill junk. That's all they do. Then people on message boards imagine the story is real. It's not. They're all lying. Pay for play, all day long.


----------



## mickuk (Jul 6, 2007)

Finally the most sensible thing to be said in this whole thread. And hopefully obvious to anyone that has sceptically watched the industry and magazines for the last 30 plus years.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

mickuk said:


> Finally the most sensible thing to be said in this whole thread. And hopefully obvious to anyone that has skeptically watched the industry and magazines for the last 30 plus years.


On the other hand, if you're building iteratively for yourself... that introduces problems. Runaway evolution, target fixation, an inability to test all configurations, an inability to thoroughly explore all variables, insufficient sample size. Too easy to get weird results and think you've struck gold.

Ideally, mass production and design pioneers are in an ongoing dialog. Even if it means slower development. Magazines and marketing serve their own ends, but they inform the population that hasn't been following the discussion.

We all play a role.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

scottzg said:


> . :thumbsup:


 Scott, your inbox is full.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Cord said:


> Scott, your inbox is full.


Sorry! Should work now.


----------



## compositepro (Jun 21, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> I respect how he braves the world of realizing his own ideas as a form of pioneering, but he seems to like to look down on others that he sees as people still in the past that he's left behind; like an image of his old weak past self, that he sheds as he emerges from his chrysalis as a new being.
> 
> People generally will defend their own ego. I have little doubt that most people, as Dark Meat has done, will disparage PVD and anything else that makes them look a fool. Correct a fool and they will spite you, correct a [decent person] and they will thank you. That's why I've learned to avoid calling others out, since I expect this; I choose temperance over courage, courage to stand up for a personal belief. Trivia: this also explains why people disparage the idea of an IQ test, despite there being correlation between high IQ and note-worthy success in technical fields that benefit from such like doctors. They're afraid of the judgement of getting a poor result and want to preempt some defense or excuse themselves from such judgement somehow. Innovation disrupts, by making current stuff obsolete, devaluing investments that people want to protect, esp if they made such their foundation for the near future.
> 
> ...


who are you man this is awesome,


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2020)

pvd said:


> This post was just added to the site. I hope it makes everyone happy.
> 
> You can't fix it in post. | Peter Verdone Designs


I prefer the pic on the left...it would be even better if it was in a bikini.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Dark Meat said:


> I prefer the pic on the left...it would be even better if it was in a bikini.


so you want to see amateur, voyeur style photos of young boys in ladies' swimwear?


----------

