On 11/12/2013 03:08 PM, Garth wrote:
Steve ...I'm not going to continue because this could go on endlessly
point-counter point-etc-etc.. This is matter of *perspective*, and I
have mine, you yours, and we simply cannot see the same thing the same
way no matter how many words or drawings.
No, this is a matter of fact. You said:
They've simply made the seat tube overly long, but the top of the
head tube itself is well lower than the top of the ST. If you like
lower bars, that'll be great. If you want higher bars without lots
of spacers or extenders , not so great. Back to using a long quill
adapter on a brand new frame? You really should not have to do that
with a new frame if it is made to fit you.
Here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvadna/10433330374/in/set-72157637283707385/lightbox/
is a photo of a built-up Grand Randonneur. As you can see, even if the
quill stem were slammed all the way down the bars would be pretty high
compared with frames of the past that might be considered 650B
conversion candidates. In case you've forgotten what a bike built
without head tube extension but with a threaded steerer looks like,
compare my George Longstaff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/4018066148/in/set-72157622475590131
with the Grand Randonneur linked to in this paragraph. Rather a
dramatic difference, I'd say.
Contrary to what you've suggested, it certainly appears to be possible
to get the bars up at least to seat height without bizarre adapters or
extenders.
You also said:
It's rather the opposite of a Riv type frame where the top of the HT
is well above the top of the ST. It's more like a track bike
proportion.
I submit, this is nothing at all like a track bike, and clearly shows
all kinds of "Riv influence". Quill stem? Very Riv-ish. Wide tires?
Definitely. To be sure, in some highly significant areas it departs
from Riv orthodoxy, notably in its low trail geometry and in the use of
650B tires on the medium and large size frames, as well as its welded
construction. But the head tube extension is easily as tall as a
Rambouillet
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/1526014599/in/set-72157602336534002
although that bike lacked Kogswell P/R-like seat tube extension.
The orignal question was "what's not to like from a Riv perspective"
, I answered . If it's what One really wants ... get it. If it's not
... don't. Or buy it anyways ... lol.
From a Riv perspective, what's not to like are low trail geometry and
no lugs. The lugs are cosmetic, of course, but the differences in
geometry and in the way the bike is meant to be loaded are huge. With
the best will in the world, there is simply no way you could load this
bike up the way the attendees at this year's Delaware Water Gap ride
loaded their Rivendells http://www.flickr.com/groups/2169588@N24/
Buy, don't buy, up to you. There's a lot to be said for both
approaches. But let's not misrepresent what this bike is.
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
