The decision to put the second top tube on the 56cm Sam Hillborne was the deciding factor to keep my early monotube. Was going to sell because that bike can feel stiff and somewhat sluggish. (In reality, it's the rider, not the bike.) But just not personally convinced the 56 needs the undertube. Not to say I don't like the concept. Just it may be an undertube too far (my obscure cultural reference for the day).
Actually, a frame bag idea for an undertube makes some sense, but Revelate Designs does a pretty good bag, as is, without the need for an undertube. (Bias alert - I have one.) Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Jul 9, 11:02 am, jimD <rasterd...@comcast.net> wrote: > My custom Riv is 63 cm, I ride mainly on roads and it is a very fine riding > bike. > Were I ever to need and be able to get another Riv custom I wouldn't want the > double parallel top tubes. > > Something about parallel top tubes doesn't feel right to me. This is what > happens when your paradigm > for nifty bikes is founded on '10 speed' bikes back in the ancient times. > > The double tube approach that makes the most structural and aesthetic sense > to me is the one used > on the Hunqapillars and Bombidils. > That seems to me to be a more elegant and complete implementation of added > triangulation. > > All that having been said I've test ridden many different Rivs at RBWHQ and > they have all been great > riding bikes. Rivendell is like some great atelier where fine works of > bicycling are created. > I'm happy the Riv doesn't follow the herd. > > -JimD > > On Jul 9, 2011, at 5:21 AM, Jay wrote: > > > > > > > > > I emailed back and forth with Grant for about a week before deciding > > that the undertube wasn't for me. His explanation, as far as I > > understood, is that the unusually long head tube on the Sam reduces > > the frame's resistance to twisting. The 2nd tube "re-triangulates" the > > main triangle and eliminates this problem, which he acknowledged was > > more theoretical than practical. And that is might be overkill in my > > case - 56 cm Sam, 165 lbs. My feeling is that he wants the Sam to work > > for everyone, including heavier riders on medium sized frames. > > > I went with a used single TT frame from this list (thank Forrest) > > which I am currently having built. Can't wait to ride it. > > > Jay > > > On Jul 9, 8:38 am, charlie <charles_v...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I personally dig the two top tube look. Listen, Grant gives very > >> sound reasons for them on that particular style and frame size. I'd > >> rather pay more, have two top tubes and buy American anyway.....in > >> fact I may just get another Riv but probably a Hunqua or heck maybe a > >> Sam with (two) top tubes. I know I'll never see 150 again and a > >> noodley frame that flexes under load and when loaded is no confidence > >> builder. I've had numerous ghost shifts on several frames with > >> perfectly clean and lubed cable guides etc. I want a stiff frame that > >> doesn't twist but I want a fork with (some) vertical compliance which > >> is where there should and can be some. Lets face it, Riv bikes are > >> made for more average riders with baggage and for variable surfaces > >> not just perfect straight line asphalt. I think these designs are > >> well thought out and result in a well built frame that will last. Go > >> Grant ! Just sayin....... > > >> On Jul 8, 6:00 pm, eflayer <eddie.fla...@att.net> wrote: > > >>> I think it is interesting, for lack of a better word, that GP is > >>> addressing > >>> double top tubes in his latest posting on the Riv site. I respect the > >>> living > >>> daylights out of him and thank him everytime I ride my coupled 58cm Riv > >>> Rambouillet. I even go out of my way to never abbreviate "Rambouillet." > > >>> On the other hand, my eyes and brain have never gotten together on the > >>> looks. I get the logic, I get the utility for bigger bikes. But without > >>> being an engineer, I really can't imagine anything smaller that a 62 cm, > >>> well built, would ever benefit from 2 tubes. Maybe a big big rider with > >>> lots > >>> o added baggage. > > >>> And it sounds as if in his posting, he is suggesting the 56cm ones (which > >>> must be the heart of the buying population) are not moving so well.. > > >>> If I am interpreting his comments correctly, it makes me sad the inventory > >>> is not moving. And he sounds ready to eventually acknowledge that many of > >>> us > >>> are not ready to embrace the 2TT idea. > > >>> He is steadfast in a way that earns him my respect, and... > > > -- > > 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-bunch@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- 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-bunch@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.
