OK this post has nothing to do with the question at hand- but can we stop all the talk about cars? There was a 'Jaguar' reference in another thread, here a 'Triumph' reference, somebody bought a new car in yet another thread, and now we have the Pontiac Aztec. I mean no disrespect nor to pick on anyone in particular but come on, this is a *bicycle* forum and we are all bicyclists here- we can draw analogies from something other than car culture, can't we?
On Oct 29, 6:02 am, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net> wrote: > I completely agree.... I should be taller. 6ft 1.25inches would be > perfect. And I should weigh about 195 after each of my four daily > meals. > > I find that riding a too-small bike is just not as pleasant as riding > a right-sized bike. And I think the RBW notions of "right-sized" work > perfectly. I'll happily spend your money for you... go custom. > > Now, concerning the top tubes.... > > Strength-wise.... my pure speculation as a pure layman is that for the > sizes where RBW is using double top tubes, there's substantial > strength increase with the diaga-tube versus the 'llel-a-tube. And > that increase is probably in the ballpark with the increase of a 'llel- > a-tube over a single top tube frame. For the diaga-tube, look how > small those triangles are! If it's just marketing, well... it's worked > on me. For the 'llel-a-tube... well, adding extra material itself has > to help. And it does make the main triangle smaller. But having that > long hallway above suggests it's not the most strength-efficient > design. That long rectangle allows a lot of leverage for deformation. > Of course, the real question is: Do the strength-enhancement > differences between one tube vs. 'llel-a-tube vs. diaga-tube matter in > a given application: rider height (i.e. frame size), weight, and > usage... 200#, 10mph flat paved roads? 275#, 20mph boulder-hopping in > sink-hole land? Well, I've made my bet: I've bet that a well-loved > 'llel-a-tube'd 60cm Hillborne will last indefinitely with a 260# load > daily on not-great roads and decent trails, 5000 miles/year. The first > four months have been perfect! I'll let you know in a few years how > that's going. > > Aesthetics-wise... come on! Diaga-tubes just look wacky! :) Okay, > they're not that bad. But they do not look great. They're visually > confusing, even if you can eek out a symmetry knowing that they simply > flipped the middle head-lug. Hate to say it, because it really isn't > that bad.... but they put me in mind of the Pontiac Aztek. I'm just > sayin'. I wouldn't let it stop me from buying one, of course. My > appreciation of its strength, whether or not it made a practical > difference for me, easily overwhelms the aesthetics. And it's a bike > that says 'I don't care if *you* like it; I do!" to those who note its > looks. Non-violent assertions of independence have intrinsic value. > And of course, if the diaga-tube'd bike fit but the 'llel-a-tube > almost fit... I'd definitely go diaga. But.... I have literally had > compliments yelled at me half-a-dozen times by men and women who see > my 'llel-a-tubed Hillborne. I have also been stopped by people who > simply wanted to tell me they liked my bike and to chat about it. > Where did you get it? What's the second tube for? I love the paint! > Comments came from non-clubby bike folks *and* from mainstream I-don't- > live-for-bikes people. It is a stunningly attractive object. I > wouldn't expect such mainstream ad hoc looks love for a Diaga-pillar > or Bomba-diag. > > Oh, and if you do go custom... get a two-tubed Atlantis-y thing > instead of a Hunqa-y thing... Based on my Hillborne experiences, > having *level* 'llel-a-tubes will probably get women's phone numbers > thrown at you. Smokin'! Umm....perhaps you shouldn't mention that to > your wife... :) > > Yours, > Thomas Lynn Skean > P. S. > Yes, I have now planted my feet decidedly on the 'llel-a-tube side of > the line. Let's not get all Butter Battle Book over it, please. But > snarky barbs a la Wilde or Clemens or Churchill... I love those! > > On Oct 28, 12:47 pm, Kelly <tkslee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok I never fit in a Triumph TR6 or a Spitfire, or well that is a > > really long list. > > Now I find the perfect bike my AHH... 67cm but some thought I should > > go double top tube. I didn't as my test ride on a 65 cm was very tight > > even out of the saddle on hard acceration. > > > I figured I would get my double top tube on the Hunqapillar to replace > > my tour bike.. not to be.. not a big enough bike not to mention they > > went to the diagnal tube instead of horizontal.. not sure I like the > > look. What about you? Is the diagonal really needed? Was the > > horizontal that had been used not a good design or is the diagonal > > just overkill in most cases.... > > > Talked to my wife about paying for a 65cm Hunqapillar with horizontal > > top tubes as a 3k custom. At least that way I get the look I want.. > > but short people got no reason.. grrr.. should be a stock size bike.. > > ya'll should be taller.. I don't want to wait a year... pout. Ok I'm > > over it.. sorry > > > If I was even only a 6 footer there would be plenty of frames. Guess > > in 20 years I'll be pissed off and talking about bicycles that I > > didn't fit on too. > > > hmm what to do. -- 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.
