Beautiful Stranger... Yet So Familiar

You know how it goes: Just when you thought you were over your Ex, she turns up wearing a sexy outfit. That's how I felt when I saw this creature in the neighbourhood! Though it wasn't my old bike, the beautiful stranger was not only of the same nationality, but had similar tastes in adornments.



Leather washer grips and a twined coffee cup holder. Not sure what that additional black bracket is on the handlebar - maybe for an extra battery-powered headlight. The Co-Habitant and I were debating whether this is a newer Pashley or one from a few years ago. He thinks it's older, because the frame is muddy and the saddle is well broken in. I think it's newer, because of that Sturmey Archer shifter (didn't these just come out in ?). Also, the tires were not the usual Schwalbe Marathon Plus, but something by Continental.



Close-up of the twined coffee cup holder. I've never seen one that integrates with the overall look of the bicycle more harmoniously! And I think the twine may also solve the loose fit/ rattling problem some of these cup holders are known to have.



Twined cable lock - just one of many locks that were keeping this Princess safe. I am ashamed to say that I never provided mine with this much security!



And the piece de resistance: a Carradician triumvirate, its olive magnificence catching the golden afternoon sunlight just so. The saddlebag is a Barley model, but I have never seen these Carradice panniers before.



The panniers are absolutely gorgeous and use what could be an Arkel mounting system. I wonder whether they are custom made (I know that Carradice will sometimes make bespoke items), or a new model I did not know about. Oh Beautiful Stranger, if only you could speak!

Unique visitor at Grand Portage State Park

We had a unique visitor today at the state park where I work. It was a rather chilly and blustery day, but that did not seem to deter this intrepid little woodpecker. He spent most of the afternoon pecking at the trunk of a fallen Spruce tree. He also apparently was not bothered by my presence, as I was only about 10 feet away from him when I made this picture. My first thought was that it was a Black-backed Woodpecker, but I have since been corrected and am told that it is an American Three-toed Woodpecker. Whatever he is, he sure was a pretty little bird and was a lot of fun to watch!

When Does a Customer Turn Designer?

[image via OAC]

I want to tread carefully here, because it is not my intent to offend independent artisans, whose work I support wholeheartedly. But this issue is on my mind from time to time, and a couple of days ago I had an email exchange with a reader that brought it back into focus. Here is the gist of the story - and I don't think it's important who the players are, because the situation is generalizable:

Clyde the Cyclist approaches Alistair the Artisan, inquiring about getting a custom Bicycle Accessory made. Clyde has a very particular idea of what this accessory should be like.Alistair the Artisan says "Gee, I've never made one of those before, but sure, I'll give it a try." And he does. The Accessorycomes out great, and when Clyde the Cyclist goes on a group ride, 200 of his riding buddies see it. "Hey, where did you get that neat Accessory?" Clyde the Cyclist tells them, and the cycling buddies contactAlistair the Artisan asking for the same thing. Several months later, Alistair the Artisan has a website where the Accessory is featured prominently and given a catchy name. He shoots a friendly email toClyde. "Thanks man! That Accessory is my best seller!" Clyde the Cyclist feels taken advantage of and emails me to ask what I think.

Well,I think it's a tough one. On the one hand, if a product really is based on a customer's distinct design, an argument can be made that the "moral" thing to do, would be for the artisan to ask the customer's permission to use it, and to offer some compensation for the idea. On the other hand, if the customer made no stipulations to protect their design, it can be said that the fault is with them.



While this has not happened to me in the bicycle industry, I experienced a similar incident in a different setting a few years back and have since been more careful. If I think of an idea or design as "mine," then I'll approach the artisan presenting it in that manner from the start: "I have an idea for a product. Would you like to collaborate?" This establishes the relationship as a partnership, and fosters an acknowledgement of the fact that design input has real value. But unless that approach is taken from the beginning, it is bound to be difficult to backtrack and reframe a relationship that started out as customer-artisan, into one of designer-manufacturer.



To be clear, I by no means wish to imply that anyone ordering a bespoke item is a de facto "designer." It is only natural that the customer will give a set of requirements to the artisan as part of a custom order, after which there will be an exchange of feedback. For example, should "make it kind of like this one, only in red velvet and with larger buttons" be considered design input or just standard customer feedback? I think the latter. But if the customer has a concrete and clearly expressed idea of the item beforehand, and if the idea differs substantially from the other products made by the artisan, then both parties may want to consider the intellectual property implications of that - before proceeding with the order.

Another Piece of the Puzzle

On my visit to the Columbiana County Archives and Research Center in Lisbon, Ohio last month I was given two more documents relating to the descendants of Dietrich Hoffman, my 5th great-grandfather. A previous visit (in July ..) had garnered an article on the legal publication of the Petition for Partition for a portion of the real estate.





Published on September 29, 1832 on page one of The Ohio Patriot, the article lists the heirs of Detrick Hoffman and states that 27 acres in the north west quarter of section 12, township 15, range 3 were involved. Although there were 10 heirs named, the petitioner was requesting his “one-sixth part of said land” indicating that there were only 6 children of Detrick Hoffman still living or deceased with children. (A full transcription can be found in this post).



The parties involved in the Petition were John Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Daniel Coler and Elizabeth his wife, John Swarts and Margaret his wife, Henry Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Jacob Hoffman, Abraham Hoffman, Samuel Fox, and Edward Rhodes and Sarah his wife.



Through evaluation of various records and information from another researcher, we thought the relationships of the individuals listed in the above Petition were:

• John, Samuel, Jacob, and Abraham - children of Detrick


• Elizabeth wife of Daniel Coler, Margaret wife of John Swarts, Henry Hoffman, and Samuel Hoffman - children of Michael & Mary (Coy) Hoffman


• Samuel Fox and Sarah wife of Edward Rhodes - children of Phillip and Susanna (Hoffman) Fox

One of the things that puzzled me about the above Petition was that only 27 acres of land were being sold. Detrick was in possession of 81 acres of land when he died in March 1826. The answer lies in the documents below...






Columbiana County, Ohio - Common Pleas Journal #6, page 165

August Term AD 1828 1st day 18th


John Hoffman & Jacob Hoffman vs Michael Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Abraham Hoffman, Abraham Fox, Samuel Fox, Sarah Fox & Susanna Huffman } Petition for Partition

"The Petition of John Huffman & Jacob Huffman by Mr. Blocksom their attorney presented their Petition for partition of 81 25/100 acres of land being a part of S12. T15. R3. in Columbiana County & produced satisfactory Proof that due & legal notice has been given the parties interested by Publication in the Ohio Patriot. A. W. Loomis Esq is appointed guardian ad litem of for Abraham Fox[,] Samuel Fox & Sarah Fox defendants in this case & Minors, who appears and receives notice and consent to the grantings of the prayer of the Petition, whereupon the Court grant the Petition [smudged word] that a writ of Partition [illegible word] to the Sheriff to proceed and apart [?]..."

It seems there may be a little more to the case on the next page, which I neglected to get... at any rate, the document shows us that Michael Hoffman was still living in August 1828. It also names three minors: Abraham, Samuel and Sarah Fox. The published petition of 1832 listed Samuel Fox as well as Sarah wife of Edward Rhodes. There was no mention of Abraham. It is likely that he died sometime between the time of the two documents (August 18, 1828 and August 23, 1832). So, it seems, that our original "assessment" regarding the heirs of Detrick Hoffman was correct!






Columbiana County, Ohio - Common Pleas Journal #7, page 53

April Term 1829, 3 day


John Huffman etal vs Michael Huffman etal }

"The Sheriff of the County made return of a writ of sale issued in this case with his proceedings thereon from which it appears that after giving notice as required by the statute of the time & place of sale by advertising & putting up written advertisements he sold the land in said writ mentioned at the Court House in said County on the 26th of January 1829, Except the widows dower mentioned in the writ, to John Fry for Seven Hundred ten dollars & that he brought the money into Court for distribution & thereupon the Court order the said Sheriff, after deducting the costs & expenses, to distribute the money aforesaid to & amongst the parties entitled to receive the same in lieu of their shares & proportions of said land according to their just rights. And said Sheriff here acknowledges in open Court a deed for said land so sold as aforesaid to said Fry."

It appears that John Fry would have purchased 54 acres, with the 27 acres mentioned in the 1832 published Petition being the Widow's Dower.



What these two documents also provide is a better estimate of the date of death of Susannah Hoffman, widow of Detrick. We now know that she was still living in January 1829 when the land was sold to John Fry but had passed away before August 23, 1832 when the Petition for Partition for the remaining 27 acres was dated.

Choosing Your Gospel: Rivendell vs Bicycle Quarterly

For those who are interested in classic touring bicycles that combine speed, maneuverability and comfort, we live in interesting times. Such bicycles have gained in popularity over the past several years, with many custom framebuilders and manufacturers introducing touring models into their line-ups. And while trends like this are not easy to trace, I think it is fair to say that Grant Petersen of Rivendell and Jan Heine of Bicycle Quarterly deserve a great deal of the credit. Rivendell is a small bicycle manufacturer witha distinct philosophy, which they promote with a tireless output of literature. The Bicycle Quarterly (review here) is a niche cycling magazine, with a focus on classic bicycles in the French randonneur tradition.



To the untrained eye, the type of bicycle promoted by these two camps may seem similar, if not identical: lugged steel frames, wide tires, fenders, racks, classic luggage, leather saddles. But in fact, there are major differences as far as geometry and historical lineage go, and these differences have been inspiring impassioned debates among bicycle connoisseurs for years.



[image via stronglight]

When it comes to frame geometry, Rivendell's emphasis is on relaxed angles and clearance for wide tires.Theresulting bicycles are fast, stable, comfortable, and have excellent off-road capacity. The bicyclechampioned by Bicycle Quarterly is rather more specific. Jan Heine believes that bicycles made in the French randonneur tradition - which had reached its height in the 1940s and 50s before its recent resurrection - offer an unrivaled combination of speed and comfort. These bicycles are aggressive and maneuverable, yet cushy and easy to control. They are super light, yet designed to carry a great deal of weight. The main difference from Rivendell structurally, is that such bicycles have what is known as "low trail geometry" while Rivendell bicycles have "mid trail geometry." The difference cannot be easily summed up here, but suffice to say that this factor controls the bicycle's responsiveness, and that mid trail is considered classic whereas low trail is more exotic - not often seen outside the early French tradition. In addition, Jan Heine insists on wide 650B tires, lack of toe overlap, and integrated features such as racks and dynamo lighting. Grant Petersen does not place as much emphasis on 650B tires per se, considers toe overlap to be a non-issue, and does not take lighting into consideration when designing frames.



If these differences seem too subtle for those not familiar with frame design, let me rephrase it like this: The bikes may look similar, but they are built differently and ride differently, and there is some debate about which is "better."



[image via protorio]

As a reader of both Rivendell literature and Bicycle Quarterly, I am equally convinced by Petersen and Heine; both arguments make sense while I'm reading them. But they can't both be right, because some of their views are in direct opposition!



Since I own a Rivendell and have now ridden close to 2,000 miles on it, it would be fantastic to try a classic randonneur with low trail and 650B wheels for comparison. The problem is that these bicycles are extremely rare. To try one, I would need to either find a vintage Rene Herse or Alex Singer in my size to test ride - which is next to impossible, as they are not exactly the kind of bike a neighbour would have lying around in their garage, or commission a new one custom built just for me by the handful of framebuilders who specialise in them, or find someone who has commissioned such a bike, is the same size as me, and would be willing to lend it to me for a test ride. As neither option is realistic, my interest in classic randonneurs seems destined to remain hypothetical. Has anybody out there actually tried both a Rivendell and a traditionalrandonneur?

Lady's Bicycle? Colour vs Form

Still obsessively browsing the new NAHBS pictures, I am seeing some bicycles in pastel colour schemes that suggest they are meant for women.
[image by Geekhouse Bikes via flickr]

Here is one from Geekhouse that I must say is spectacular. Personally, I consider this colour scheme "feminine", in the sense that the colours are traditionally seen on women's clothing and accessories. However, it is a diamond frame.

[image by sleepyneko via flickr]

On the other hand, here is a mixte by Velo Orange. The frame is typically viewed as a "women's frame" (at least in the US), yet the colour scheme is traditionally "masculine": a solid, conservative blue.

In a controlled study, I wonder which bicycle would be more appealing to women. (Research grant?)

Random Things in Raleigh

After our wonderful trip to see our granddaughter, we flew back in to Raleigh. Nathan had a meeting, so we had to spend the night there and stay in a hotel until he was done with his meeting. We stopped at a few stores before heading home, so Nathan could buy some things he needed. I was driving and noticed something odd at a stop light. Really odd.



An abandoned lawnmower, just sitting in the middle of the intersection.We laughed so hard. You know there is a good story behind that!