It does seem nuts, but maybe I've overstated that point to make it stand out. We don't need another multiversatile, do-it-all bike (it's hard to improve on the bikes we have, in that way...I mean, I think). True, it's not the bike for Japanesey apartments already crowded with bikes and roomates, but the BR or RB or whatever it is...could easily be an Albatross-bar bike, with a 9cm stem or a JoeSlacker bar bike with a 12...the diff in stems is, I'd say, about 3cm, maybe 4cm. Although I have a 12cm stem on it, the long tt, if anything, favors a shorter stem. I wanted to test it with a longy, also as a way of testing the sweebackedness of the handlebar. It's main purpose is riding pavement of any length, but not too steep. And if it IS too steep, it can handle that, too---just put a 24t ring in front and a 36t cog in back. Descending on a long wheelbase is an experience we should all have at least a few times. The WB on the BR is a hair under 45 inches (WB is the only bike dimension I still think of non-metrically). And...historically, 45-inches ain't that long. The Worksman bikes we have here are about that, and for all their other eccentricities that on paper suggest they shouldn't be (super slack head tube, high bb), they're great descenders.
I'm not sure the extra stays are required to stiffen the frame, because I don't know how important it is for the frame to be rigid back there (or anyhere, to a point). But they don't add enough weight to worry about, and they call attention to the bike as a little different, and I think they look kinda cool. (Which reminds me of a Dolly Parton response to an interviewer's question, that didn't she/ Dolly think all that makeup and the uplifts and all that made her look like a hooker?--something along the lines of, "I hope so, because when I was growing up, they were the prettiest girls in town!" On Dec 8, 7:54 am, chadk <chadknut...@gmail.com> wrote: > Back to the frame. I understand that some folks don't like drop bars. > > Designing a bike around the to-be-finalized handlebars seems nuts to > me. The consequences of this design: > 1. Much longer top and down tubes (+5ish cm) > 2. Much longer chain stays (+4ish cm) > 3. Extra frame tube and stays required to stiffen frame > 4. Slack head tube plus rather raked fork plus long chainstays > results in a huge wheelbase > 5. needs extra long stem > > The result is a HUGE frame. Of course it is heavier than a 'standard' > bike, but it also takes more storage space and is more unwieldy for > tight space manuevering (e.g. staircases). > > I don't doubt that Grant designed the bike to ride just fine, but > those compromises are significant. > > How about designing a wacky, more comfortable bar with forward reach? > > -Chad > Urbana, IL -- 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.
