The U Factor <https://www.rivbike.com/pages/rivendell-archives-rivendell-reader-5-the-u-factor>
Andy Cheatham Pittsburgh On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-4 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ wrote: > Enjoyed reading the thread "Anyone else not a fan of long chainstays?", > especially Bill L's explanation of the RBW bike design philosophy. Seems > the prevailing thought is long stays are better for > upright riding > single track type trails (vs a Rails to Trails type trail) > > I'll just note 2 'facts' > 1 The vast majority of RBW models (except the Roadeo type frame) use > slack STA and HTA which may contribute to the ride effect when coupled with > long stays. > 2. In the beginning RBW addressed getting the bars higher and adopting a > non-racer riding style (back at 45° with hands on hoods), which IMHO were > solutions to actual problems. > > *So What problem or current deficiency in bike design is Grant solving by > using long chain stays????* > Just to bring bikes to market that no one else is building?? > Or do they solve a real problem??? > > John Hawrylak > Woodstown NJ > > FWIW 2 of 3 of my frames have 44 to 45cm chain stays, and 1 has a 43cm > chain stay. It's hard to notice a ride difference. > -- 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/221e5279-517e-4a34-b078-eaf9b72d7647n%40googlegroups.com.
