Nope, Steve, you've captured the functionality completely. You like 2TTs for loaded touring bikes and hate them for light roadish/randoish bikes. It's unfair for people to label you as a universal 2TT denier, because you aren't. You like the 2TT for touring bikes, as do I. You like more flex for a roadie bike, as do I. Folks that want one bike to do both have to choose between something that's stiffer than optimal unloaded, or flexier than optimal when loaded. Thankfully I have the means to possess both.
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:33:06 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 09:19 -0800, Jim M. wrote: > > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:11:43 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > > What functionality would that be? Excessive top tube > > stiffness? > > > > > > Yes, Steve, we know your negative opinion of double TT since you take > > every opportunity to denigrate the design. But I don't recall you ever > > saying you've ridden one. Are you just being an armchair engineer? > > That is certainly a popular vocation in the Riv/BOB world. > > And you then know exactly how I feel about excessive stiffness. Do you > dispute that double top tubes would increase the stiffness of the top > tube? > > > Or is that not the functionality that has been praised? Is there some > other functionality (other than visual distinctiveness) that I'm > missing? > > > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
