The 58cm Betty Foy takes 650B, is a super bike, and would easily fit a 6'0" or 6'1" dude. I'm only half joking. Maybe not even half. With drop bars on a dirt drop stem, that would be a super touing/rando bike. Only one water bottle cage but otherwise would have everything you need.
On Aug 15, 2:21 pm, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > Two distinct but complementary phenomena. The "larger sizes" I was > speaking of in the context of Riv retreating from 650B in larger sizes > are sizes above 52 cm (e.g., the Hillborne comes in 650B only in 48 and > 52 cm). 54-60 cm don't constitute "large" sizes for outlier huge > people, these constitute the most popular sizes. > > Basically it seems Riv has taken the position that 650B is a way to get > a 32mm tire on a tiny frame, and "full-sized" frames should use a > 700Cx33.33333 for a "wide" tire. > > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 11:31 -0700, MichaelH wrote: > > Over the years, Rivendell has trimmed its offering of larger sizes, > > independent of tire size. They don't offer anything equivalent to the > > Redwood, which went to 68, and have stopped offering the Atlantis in > > even a 64. I don't own an Atlantis but if it came in a 64, I would be > > tempted. > > > michael > > > On Aug 15, 1:29 pm, RoadieRyan <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Is it possible the "retreat" from larger sized 650b is simply a > > > business decision? I get the impression, no hard facts, that there is > > > less demand for larger sizes, especially over say 62 cm, than the mid- > > > range, so it would follow that demand larger sizes spec'd for a "non > > > traditional" wheel size is pretty niche. > > > > With a tough economy, constraints on manpower and financial resources > > > it would make sense to me that Rivendell would build to meet the > > > greatest demand in order to maximize sales and revenue. Not that the > > > bottom-line drives their business but it is a big consideration. And > > > for those folks who really want a larger size designed around 650b > > > there is always a Riv custom, so its not like they are left with no > > > options. > > > > just my uninformed 2 cents > > > > Ryan > > > > On Aug 15, 6:47 am, MichaelH <mhech...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think this is right. I don't think Grant has "retreated" from 650B > > > > for larger sizes. He has always argued in favor of wider road tires, > > > > 28-35 mm, and that it is easier to achieve that on small frames with a > > > > 584 rim diameter because the 622 size forces unwanted compromises on > > > > the frame design. This isn't true in larger sizes, as shown by the > > > > AHH, my Ebisu and SOMA dbl. cross. > > > > > I have never felt the need for anything larger than 38 on dirt or > > > > even gravel roads However, it is also true that smaller rims are > > > > stronger. Our road tandem runs on 559 rims with 1.6 Marathon Racers > > > > and carries 380 lbs over dirt roads with remarkable strength and > > > > comfort. If you are riding trails, than you are essentially talking > > > > mountain bike design for tires that are bigger yet. Grant's focus has > > > > traditionally been road bikes that handle trails as well, only > > > > recently has he offered a "pure" mountain bike. > > > > > michael > > > > > On Aug 15, 2:01 am, Bill Gibson <bill.bgib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I always thought of 584/650B as a way to get more tire in the right > > > > > frame size with all the right clearances for fenders, etc. more than > > > > > any other reason. And that especially for smaller sizes that even > > > > > smaller wheels - 559/mountain bike size or - in my wife's case, for > > > > > her mountain bike, 507/24" (she is 4' 10"), are required for > > > > > stand-over heights, etc. Seeking optimums in moments of inertia, > > > > > various hysterises (is that a word? what is the plural of hysteresis? > > > > > hysterii?), aerodynamic resistance, rolling resistance, pneumatic > > > > > trail, contact patch shape, and so on has to be a matter of...personal > > > > > taste and much further research? Maybe matching to load and road > > > > > surface, too... > > > > > > Amazing how little changes have such strong real or placebo > > > > > effects.... > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Rob Perks wrote: > > > > > > >> The volume of air that affects rolling resistance is the cross > > > > > >> section > > > > > >> of air directly above the area of deformation. Therefore it > > > > > >> stands to > > > > > >> reason that wheel diameter should not play into that. > > > > > > > It is, so they say -- I am not an engineer -- the contact patch (a > > > > > > sign of > > > > > > which is that tire suppleness affects rolling resistance greatly, > > > > > > indicating > > > > > > that it is the contact patch and not just air volume) that, all > > > > > > else equal, > > > > > > determines rolling resistance, and that is certainly affected by > > > > > > wheel > > > > > > diameter. > > > > > > Snip. > > > > > >>WRT to smaller wheels and faster acceleration, I have ridden 26" - > > > > > >>29" > > > > > >>with all sorts of tires and still feel that the greates factor > > > > > >>affecting acceleration is the weight not as much the diameter. e.. > > > > > > Not quite, I think. First, it is indeed the smaller size that makes > > > > > > smaller > > > > > > wheels so light. You save 100 grams or so at the circumference on > > > > > > the rim > > > > > > and 50 more on the tire, ceteris paribus -- my Sun M14A 559s weigh > > > > > > 360 gr > > > > > > (and are strong enough that I had no problems at all off road) and > > > > > > the 559 > > > > > > Turbos and Conti GPs weigh just under 200 gr. And then add the > > > > > > cumulative > > > > > > effect of taking a bit over an inch off each spoke. My old > > > > > > Ultegra/nothing > > > > > > special 8-9 sp 559 wheelset weighed about 1500 grams with rim tape, > > > > > > no > > > > > > skewers or cassette. > > > > > > Second, most of that weight is at the circumference and we all > > > > > > remember the > > > > > > Law of Moments. > > > > > > Again, riding fixed, you can certainly feel the difference. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > > > > Bill Gibson > > > > > Tempe, Arizona, USA -- 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.
