Editorial by Scott
There is a term in the outdoor world - the Quiver Killer. The term refers to a bike, ski, or a kayak (and so on) that can do so many different things that it does away with the need for multiple bikes/skis/kayaks, and all you need is THIS ONE. "The one bike to rule them all" is often the sub headline or line in the opening paragraph describing the product. Well, I'll call folks out on that one. I don't really think one bike can do it all. Why - it has to compromise on something. Let's look at it from a couple perspectives.
A Polyvalent with generous clearances, mounts to carry stuff, and stouter tubing for reliability does really well as a tourer or commuting bike. But ultimately as a super go-fast roadie, trying to keep up with the fast kids on their carbon bikes? Not so much. To ride a heavier steel touring bike at that speed requires too much power to keep up with them for an extended period of time, at least for most riders.
I think people look at the idea of a quiver killer as a way to save money, to justify buying that one bike that will do everything, but the reality is that any bike, kayak, or ski that claims to do everything is ultimately a compromise in some way. To make a frame work as a touring bike, there are design aspects that have to be taken into account. And many of those aspects are not the same if we wanted to design a, for example, mountain bike. There are core elements of both styles that don't overlap in a bicycle categories Venn diagram.
Now if you're the type of rider that focuses on only one type of riding, let's say credit card touring, you could ostensibly have one bike like a Pass Hunter. It could be built up with some zippy components and be ridden on the road stripped down, gravel with some moderate knobby tires, and for a few overnights with some rackless bags!
I know some folks will say, "but you work in the bike biz, so it's all good and well for you to tell us to buy more bikes." What I'm saying is that if you want a bike to go mountain biking on, don't kid yourself and buy a flat bar road bike and think you can go ride rough, rugged mountain bike trails on it. Once you get past a smooth stretch of single track and onto a trail with rocks and roots, you'll be pining for the travel of a hardtail or tire volume of an ATB. Likewise, buying that older "race" bike that someone on Craigslist put up for sale and then trying to put racks and fenders on it, may be an exercise in frustration due to the limitations of the frame and its set up.
I'd love for there to be a quiver killer, but in reality, one bike that purports to do everything will do only some styles of riding well. Do you agree or disagree? Let us know in the comments and we'll see how folks feel about it.
Posts
31 comments:
Skiing all happens on a ski hill where 1 day a run could be powder, the next it is chop and the 3rd day it is groomed. The fall line doesn't change, but the surface does. Different bike rides happen in dramatically different places where the surface, width and fall line can be dramatically different, hence the need for n+1.
Remember when you were younger?
You probably had a bike with a name like Schwinn, Raleigh or Huffy on the downtube. Depending on when you grew up, it might have been a road bike, a street bike, a BMX, or more recently an MTB. But I guarantee you it was a quiver killer. You needed to go to the store to get something? It took you there. You wanted to go on an out-of-town trip with your buddies? It took you there. You wanted to go ride some dirt, perhaps even some jumps? It took you there.
I agree with the main premise of the article - so long as you have space and funds, specialism can be a good thing and allow you to enjoy what you’re doing that bit more.
But we all managed when we were young, and perhaps many of us have at least one cycling friend who puts in the miles in all weathers but is riding something ratty from at least a decade ago and which has some practical home adaptations. So quiver killers only exist to the extent that you think about needing a quiver…
The problem is definitional. My quiver need not include something for more than very mild off-road, and I’m not a road racer. Thus, my trusty Rando (ten years old now) does the job for touring, commuting, group rides, and grocery shopping. The point is that not all of us have the same size (or type) of quiver. The only reason I’ve ever had need of more than one bike was back when I was doing everyday commuting, so a dedicated snow bike was a necessity. Now I run a business out of my home, so things have changed…
Agree completely for bikes. There is certainly a lot of overlap of available bikes in a category (fast roadie, gravel, credit card tourer, etc), but trying to make one bike cover all categories is an exercise in frustration. Of course it always depends on your objectives - if you just ride for exercise or fitness, then you won't mind the compromises as much as someone looking to get the best performance for the current type of riding.
I happily ride a rim-brake Polyvalent. Short, I’d likely be happier on a 26” tired Pass Hunter - if it existed.
Sure, there’s a perception of acceleration and go-fastness on shorter and lighter bikes; but I’d be more impressed to see careful and accurate estimates of the greater energy needed - or effort penalty- of the Polyvalent.
You’ll still get to argue about the riding significance of say, 10 watts; I’d like to know whether if is 10 or 30 watts. Lots of labs and salons have the tools to measure the “penalty.” The cost in cruising speed can be modeled or estimated directly.
Of course you're right but some bikes cover more territory than others and some users (i.e. competitive riders) need more specialization. My Salsa Vaya is a great touring bike, a fine commuter, great for recreational rides and ok for smooth singletrack. But it's no good on gnarly mountain bike trails and won't compete in an Olympic road race or time trial bike. So, it's more of a quiver killer than a full suspension mountain bike or a time trial bike which are not much good at anything except their stated purpose.
I agree. When my kids were growing up, all I could afford was one bike. In my case it was a Dutch city bike for commuting/shopping and yes a little bit of bike path back road riding. Later I added a rigid frame Mtn bike and my ‘quiver’ doubled in size. The 2nd bike was a mountain bike, touring bike, or a roadie depending on which tires I mounted. Then I got rid of the Dutch city bike and bought a steel road bike. Same size quiver but different distribution. So no such thing as a quiver killer but two different bikes cover all the ground I need them to.
I rode 6 months in Europe on an old Allegro road bike with a front handlebar bag and a small rack with a day pack on it I slept out I use hostile and occasionally I went to a small pension worked for me I liked traveling light
I attempted to respond earlier but it didn't seem to post maybe I'm not doing it right I rode in Europe for about 6 months on a old Allegro road bike a front handlebar bag a small rack and a day pack I went to youth hostels slept out on the ground under the stars went to pensions it worked out fine for me I really enjoyed traveling very light
Long ago a touring bike would often have simply been a road bike with saddlebags on it but in recent decades bikes have widely branched out in their uses and have become so much more specialized in exceeding at one form of riding or another. To those considering getting their first bicycle, it is practical to consider what sort of riding comes first and foremost to mind and, unless they have money falling out of their pockets, to settle for an entry-level model of their choice. They could really like it and wish they had much better, or they could discover their choice of bike simply is not for them, all for a relatively small financial investment.
The joy of quivers are that they double, triple, or quadruple the number of toys to tinker with and love. Why kill something that much fun?
Since I am not a competitive cyclist or an elite athlete in any way-shape-or-form, my fattish tired gravel bike has become my quiver killer. My quest to build my perfect bike has just sorta taken a back seat. I only ride my vintage bikes out of guilt. The only thing that my quiver killer cheats a bit on is the ability to swap between slick and knobby clad wheels.
Not cheap, but the newer carbon gravel bikes are as close to quiver killers as I have seen in mass production bikes over the past 50 years. They allow many wheel options in 700c and 650b (tires are wide or narrow, knobby or slick). Instead of several bikes...you just need several wheelsets. Fast on pavement and capable on gravel. With strap-on bags, they work for touring and commuting. Lights & fenders are also an option.
For bespoke steel Quiver killer, you can build a very versatile bike with 650b wheels that will allow 35 mm to 48 mm tires with center-pull rim brakes and 1x drivetrain using the latest thin wall tubing which are my favorite bikes to ride especially if you run the best supple tires with light wheels.
While individual riders may be able to find a single bicycle that does all the things they need it to (gravel/commuter/rando for example), there's clearly no single bike that can do everything well. Frankly, I don't lament this reality. I enjoy planning, assembling and modifying a number of bicycles to suit individual purposes. I even have several which duplicate the functions of others that I already have. Nothing wrong with having several bicycles.
While I'm far from your best customer, I truly appreciate that you carry the range of products that you do, and how you thoughtfully consider the needs of people like myself, who like to modify their bicycles and prefer to do the work themselves whenever that is possible.
The nice thing is, if you ride enough, having two, three, or four bikes doesn't cost you any more than one bike, as long as you keep them for a while. After a few tens of thousands of miles, the initial cost of the bike is far less than the consumables.
*GOM hat on*: Of course one bike can do it all, as long as one is talking about regular cycling tasks, specialized competition machinery excluded. Growing up, I rode single track with panniers for a weekend of bike packing with the same bike I used to ride to school with and used on my paper route, a steel Peugot 10 speed tourer, running 38 mm tires, fenders and luggage rack, it even had a kick stand and dynamo lighting factory mounted.
You can only ride one bike at any one time .. enjoy the ride you're on :)
I agree with the idea of whether or not you have the means or necessity of a quiver. I did all my riding for years on a converted 90s trek mountain track. Long distance over nighters, 4 season commuting, shopping etc. it wasn’t amazing at all those things but it definitely DID all of them. My needs are pretty center spectrum though. I don’t compete and I don’t try to dominate natural formations. All that said, i now have the space and means to have more than one bike and it has allowed me to pick certain bikes for what type of ride I’m going to do and I don’t think I’ll ever only have “one bike” again.
I also have a gravel bike with multiple wheel sets. One with 700x38 slicks and another with 27.5x2.6 for the for the fun stuff. Maybe not a quiver killer, but definitely capable of handling most that gets thrown at it.
I have a Soma 'Wolverine'. It's a "monster cross" frame. I don't use it for monster cross or even as a proper gravel bike. I did purchase it with economics in mind though. I use it as a long haul touring rig. Capable of going off the beaten path. It handles pretty well, but I have developed an appetite for long haul off road trails.
The flip side is of course that if one has only one bike (or set of tyres), or one pair of skis, etc, that one will be limited in what can be done. There's no way one could use slalom skis or XC skating skis for the other purpose, and the same is true of say track bikes and DH bikes. What one might need or like to have will depend on one's interests and priorities.
Agreed in principle but I also believe most people have bikes that fit too distinctly into one category and that with a bit of creativity you can get a lot more out of a one, maybe two, bikes than you'd think. Maybe a better way to frame this idea is "If you could only have one bike what would it be?". And what sort of riding would that bike prohibit? I know I'd be more comfortable commuting on my 130mm forked hardtail than I would be riding black runs on my cargo bike. I'm gald (and privileged) to have both those bikes (and more!) but if I could only have one it'd be an easy choice for me.
I think cycling is usually about ranges. People tend to start with a specific discipline like road or mtb and branch out into adjacent categories as time moves on. It's unusual to find people that do both road TT's and something like downhill. As a roadie, I like to mix things up with gravel/off-road because I enjoy the change of pace, taking-on a different challenge, and not being around cars.
However, I tend to enjoy more the milder stuff than the really rough trails. On the opposite spectrum, I enjoy fast bunch rides but don't really like competing and mass events or racing. Within my spectrum I could perfectly fin a quiver killer in a performance-oriented bike with off-road capabilities, which I could take for occasional rack-less, credit-card touring.
When I talk to non-cyclist folks about my collection of bikes (and their shock of having so many), I compare it to shoe collection. Sure, one pair of shoes can work for multiple things. And yes, you can wear dress shoes on a downhill rocky mountain hike. But it probably won't be a good experience for you and your dress shoes.
I think you’re incorrect on this - I can prove it as I have 3 ‘quiver killers’ (tongue firmly in cheek:). My Salsa Fargo, Rivendell Appaloosa and Black Mountain Cycles monstercross are all versatile bikes, though, and can do many things well.
The quiver I've built up over the years is pretty much full at this point:
racer for delirium inducing speed
tourer for fully-loaded multi-day trips
light tourer with upright bars for shorter trips
cross bike for mixing it up
hardtail mountain bike for days when I need some cush
full-suspension mountain bike for really cutting it up
rigid drop-bar mountain bike for dirt/bad roads and trail skills maintenance
rigid flat-bar mountain bike with all the bikepacking accoutrements
fast/beater city bike for longer city explorations (SF bay area)
one-speed city bike for take-out runs
To me it's worth the cost (pretty modest actually) and space, because the bike always fits my mood and feels fun and fresh. That is priceless. And I do ride more often with a big quiver.
So, the concept of a quiver-killer to me is inconceivable.
To add to what Granite said.......can you conceive of 'quiver-killer' of music that would eliminate the need for any other?
My "core" bike is one that I pulled together piece by piece, to be as versatile as possible without giving-up anything important to me. Its foundation is a very high-end, custom steel frame -- so, admittedly, the one thing it does give up is affordability. But aside from that: I can put 700c wheels with 32mm tires on it, ride it as a more or less "pure" road bike, and it is as agile and quick as I could want. Or I can outfit it with 650b wheels and 55mm tires, load it up with camping gear, take it out on anything up to and including non-technical trails, where it performs like a best-of-class monster-cross/bikepacker rig. It's not an ultralight road racer and neither is it suited for technical off-road riding. But for literally anything in between those extremes, it's perfect for me. I actually love the fact that it's this one bike which can take me so many places, effortlessly adapting to the terrain and what sort of ride I want to have.
That said, it is not, and nor is it intended to be a "quiver killer" -- primarily because I love bikes way too much to ever limit myself to just one. I have a Rivendell Sam Hillborne outfitted as my around-town/picnic bike, and -- ahem -- *too many* vintage road bikes. But my primary reason for owning multiple bikes isn't because one can't do everything I need it to do. It's because I like to have different kinds of experiences on a bike. I like that different bikes feel different -- they each offer something interesting and unique.
So I guess that in some ways I agree but in other ways do not.
It depends on the range of activities you want to do. As a trivial example, some train companies only allow small-wheeled folding bikes, so mixed mode commuting (or touring) needs one of those. No small-wheeled folding bike is going to be competitive, or even allowed, in a UCI approved road race.
But if you aren't actually racing, can one bike, possibly with a change of wheels, be usable for a wide range of riding? Yes.
Bike types form a spectrum with on- and off-road racing machines at either end and let's say a 700c hybrid or something near the middle. The mistake with your argument is the same as the mistake that most riders make, and is one which bike companies like to make: that anyone but a racer needs a racing bike (or even a "racing-inspired" bike). If you bracket off these racing bikes and then as a rider honestly reflect on the kind of riding you actually do (not the kind your imagine you could do), then the range of riding types that a one-and-only bike has to be good at is a lot more narrow. And also--i think it's important to come to terms with the idea that for most riders, a bike doesn't need to be anywhere near perfect at anything-- i think generally the limitations on a rider-bike combo is the rider, not the bike, and that most bikes can do a lot more than their rider can. Bike companies sell the myth of a perfect bike that will make the imperfect rider a winning racer. but that kind of bike doesn't exist, not even at the pro level. That's why some pros become domestiques despite riding the same equipment as their team leader. The bike cannot overcome the limitations of the rider on it.
You've nailed it. I'm sure Tadej Pogachar would be fast AF on a folding bike on most group rides.
Post a Comment