On Apr 6, 2:34 pm, Rene Sterental <orthie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will apologize first, but do think this "triangapillar" is just > taking the discussion to a silly level. >
Somewhat. But from an engineering standpoint, three triangles are stronger than two. So technically, it is a stronger design than the diaga-piller. Also, I question whether the diaga-piller, which I hereby dub the dragon-pillar because it rolls off the tongue easier, is actually stronger. It creates two flattish somewhat triangular shapes. The flatness is the problem, I think. Not much strength in that. And really, they aren't even triangles to begin with. I would like to see some test results. I also wonder if someone can speak to the concept of using short stems on big frames to get the reach right. The Bombadil has a longish top tube for me. With drop bars, if I want to sit more upright than on a road bike, for example when touring, I would have to use a very short stem. From what I've read that affects the handling--negatively. A large frame should have a 12, 13, or 14 cm stem so that one's weight is distributed properly between the front and rear. It seems like the Bombadil was designed for mustache bars that extend backwards, but how does that affect the handling? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
