Please explain what "wobbly steel" is, and how one identifies it?
I would guess that, in frames smaller than, I don't know, 62cm, a second top tube will not have much affect on how the bike handles or carries a load. Especially since Rivendells use fairly beefy tubing to begin with. >From my point of view, I see it as much as an extension of Just Ride as anything else. Traditional bicycle design with steel hasn't strayed much lately from the basic diamond frame. Why be so darn serious all the time? In the first bike boom of the late 1800s, there was more variation, including double top tubes. I think in addition to being an aesthetic choice, and nominally a structural one in the largest frames, it visually signals one of the companies credos: *The kind of bikes we don’t do:* *We don’t “do” racing bikes; not road, not mountain, not gravel. We make bikes for daily riders, tourers, commuters, shoppers, trail riders. For athletes and get-arounders. Not for racers. Racing has tweaked and refined the comfort, safety, and versatility out of bicycles, and on the way, it has made the modern bikes into sleek and mean, dark and fat road bikes and mechanically overkilled mountain bikes.* There is no mistaking a bicycle with a double top tube for a racing machine. On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:27:30 AM UTC-4, brendonoid wrote: > > > Both of my Double TT Rivs have wobbly steel around the seat lug from > overheating the tubes during brazing. I would think this alone would undo > any strength gains from a second tube but what do I know. With that said my > 60cm Sam with double TT holds the same load on racks as the Single TT Homer > with much less flex. So yeah it is noticable in that scenario. > > Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think? > *shrug* > > Making my post vaguely on topic. In 2018 when the new Atlanti came out I > found the 59 Atlantis extremely handsome but bought one of the remaining 58 > Appa's instead because after some of Grants Blahgs at the time I thought > that the Appaloosa would probably be the last FULLY LUGGED Rivendell ever > made. Sometimes I regret my decision. But not really. That Atlantis > Headbadge is still one of my favourites. > On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 07:57:12 UTC+8 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> Ted, it's not rocket science. The tube looks good (on this bike) but >> serves no real, practical need. >> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM ted <ted....@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you >>> don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be >>> there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be >>> justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of >>> arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does >>> not belong. >>> "Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a >>> tautology and as such is basically meaningless. >>> Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not >>> practical? If yes I disagree. >>> Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as >>> opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but >>> insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are >>> aesthetic and practical antonyms. >>> Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at >>> the thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The >>> appearance of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they >>> look like). YMMV. >>> Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply >>> that the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or >>> inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually >>> used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike >>> in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might >>> get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the >>> down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube >>> "impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with >>> lacking a practical reason for being. >>> qed ish >>> >>> ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his >>> 52 bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or >>> something like that. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: >>>> >>>> Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need. >>>> >>>> Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, >>>> but the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the >>>> qualifications already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of >>>> chromed steel to a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can >>>> wear a 1 lb weight around one's waist; no practical difference, but >>>> there's >>>> certainly no structural reason for doing so. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted <ted....@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics >>>>> **is** a practical purpose. >>>>> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total >>>>> bike + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) >>>>> weight is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to >>>>> theoretical) detriment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patrick Moore >>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>>> >>>> -- >>> >> 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 rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f75597ef-dfae-4d8b-8760-5a846447048fo%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f75597ef-dfae-4d8b-8760-5a846447048fo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Patrick Moore >> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >> >> -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9668c01d-7288-4270-b2cd-6f547cd28a04o%40googlegroups.com.
