I used WINK as an indicator that I was just joking around when I called it fake news.
I was just joking around, I was not trying to be a d_____ I do sincerely believe that the Cheviot is a capable touring bike. On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, Jay Connolly wrote: > > Bill, I did not say 170 pounds in my post. I referred to "a 175 pounder." > > If you're going to be a d___ about accuracy, you should be accurate. > > I don't have time to match you condescension for condescension, but I will > point out that "swath" is not synonymous with "range." > > Perhaps, in the rush of bombastic agitation, you simply neglected to > choose your words carefully. > > Jay > > > > On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 11:51:50 AM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: >> >> FAKE NEWS! >> >> Wink! >> >> It does not say "light touring" in the Cheviot brochure. The brochure >> mentions the word touring four times: >> >> 1 and 2. "A top tube adds stiffness necessary for racing bikes or >> heavily loaded touring bikes, but for >> commuting, day rides, moderate touring loads (up to 35lbs), and trail >> rides, you don’t need >> it." >> >> I interpret this statement to mean "The Cheviot is a capable touring >> bike. A step through frame is strong. A frame with a top tube AND a >> diagatube (like a Hunqapillar) is stronger. Choose the one that you think >> is best for how you plan to use it" >> >> 3. "Ready for Touring" >> 4. "It’s stiff enough for touring." >> >> >> >> Jay asked whether "the issue" involves strength or bike handling. >> >> It's neither. Rivendell is not telling you the bike will break if you >> put 36 pounds on it. Rivendell is not telling you that your bike will be >> unrideable if you put 40 pounds on it. Rivendell is not telegraphing that >> if I weigh 170 and have 35 pounds of touring gear, that you will break your >> bike if you weigh over 205. >> >> It's just a recommendation. The intent of a brochure is to plant >> encouraging and positive ideas in the mind of the customer about what kinds >> of things they might want to use this particular bike for. It's also a >> design *INTENT. *As Grant designed this bike, he was thinking about >> riders doing a swath of activities, including 'moderate touring'. Some >> people put 75 pounds on a racing bike and ride across country and have the >> time of their lives. Those people probably would have done even better on >> a Cheviot. >> >> >> >> Bill Lindsay >> El Cerrito, CA >> >> On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 11:07:48 AM UTC-7, Jay Connolly wrote: >>> >>> I'm often struck by references to "light touring"--most recently in the >>> posted Cheviot brochure, which advises that the bike is suitable for light >>> touring (up to 35 pounds). I'm interested in whether the issue involves >>> frame strength or bike handling. I weigh more than most people PLUS their >>> full touring loads, and I've never had any issues on any kind of steel >>> frame--road, cross, or mtb. If a smaller person--a 175 pounder, for the >>> sake of argument--were touring on a Cheviot or any other light touring >>> bike, is there a reason why they would need to keep the load under 35 >>> pounds? I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable with design/engineering >>> principles to understand how various loads and roads might stress chain and >>> seat stays, for instance. >>> >>> We use all ultralight camping gear, and when touring, my load probably >>> runs to no more than 25 pounds, but I have toured only on robust touring >>> bikes (LHT and Fargo). I'm not looking for a light touring bike. I ask >>> purely out of interest. >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
