I approve this list. Also not committing to a frame. Pro: Fixed/fixed rear hub. Slightly more tire clearance - 45s with fenders, Rock n Roads without. Not monstrous clearance - Riv should build another kind of bike around 65mm tires... Equidistant threaded bridges/fork underside yes. If you don't need fenders, you won't know or care. If you do - WOOT. *Does not affect the ride.* Cantilever brakes. Clearance, bad-assery. Sidepulls aren't a dealbreaker, though. *Does not affect the ride.* Black bike. *Does not affect the ride.*
Anti: Not interested in a QB-descendant with a double top tube. I weigh 250 and the OG green QB rides fantastically. If you want to stiffen it up, use a steel stem. I don't like the look front mid-fork brazeons on the orange QB. "Everyone should be like me and use a NItto M12!" It should come with the bike.* Does not affect the ride.* Not a fan of the double front dropout eyelets, but I understand that's the new style. *Does not affect the ride.* Not a big fan of cream headtubes.* Does not affect the ride.* Don't care: Either dropout style is fine with me. *Does not affect the ride.* Kickstand plate or no. I don't use kickstands, but the plate wouldn't bother me. *Does not affect the ride.* Wherever the rear cable stop is now is fine. I don't ever shoulder my bike. *Does not affect the ride.* Philip www.biketinker.com On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:49:36 AM UTC-8, oldmangabe wrote: > > I am not sure if I would be able to commit to a frame, but I do have some > general ideas and opinions. > > I would basically keep the SO/QB the same in terms of general geo and > specs. At it's core it is a very good design and concept that is actually > pretty hard to find in the bike world. > > Changes or things I would like to see: > > 1-foreward facing horizontal dropouts without a derailleur hanger. > -the reason for this is that it replicates the current dropouts on the > simple one/quickbeam allowing for easy gear changes, and allows for easy > fender setup/fenderlines and wheel removal. The rear facing horizontal > drops are cool in theory, but it was the main dealbreaker for me because it > made wheel removal and movement with fenders such a PITA. No derailleur > hanger, because it is unappealing aesthetically and concept wise, plus > these kind of bikes never shift that well unless the wheel is all the way > forward in the DO slot. BTW, I am speaking mainly of rear facing DO's with > hangers. Even horizontal DO's with hangers need the wheel as far forward > as possible for quick shifting. > > 2-More tire clearance with fenders. > -Maybe up to a 45mm with fenders and 10mm of clearance at stays and > fork blades with fenders on. > > 3-equaldistant bridges for easy and secure fender mounting. The seatstay > bridge should have a threaded boss facing the rear axle. Even bolting > plastic fenders makes them more secure than just using the slide clamp. > > 4-Canti/linear pull brake bosses. > -Keeping in line with the original QB and SO concept. Better tire, > fender, and mud clearances than the silver sidepulls. It also allows for > more variation and choice in specing the bike out. You are not locked into > just using the silver big mouth brakes. Same goes for centerpulls, limited > options. > > 5-brake cable stops at 11 o'clock, or 1 o'clock on the TT. This will make > shouldering the bike comfortable. You won't have the stops digging into > your shoulder, or you don't have to think about repositioning the bike when > carrying it on your shoulder. This can make the frame better for urban > use, plus dirt riding. > > What I would like to not see. > > 1-No double TT's except on the bigger sizes (62cm plus). > A double TT doesn't really add anything structurally IMHO except on the > bigger frames (62cm+), and only when the frame is built using either > "standard diameter" tubing or very thin wall tubing. Unless one of the > main design concepts for the frame/fork is to be a single speed mtn touring > bike, or a "go fast" bike, then it wont be built using either of the afore > mentioned tubing styles, thus negating the need for the double TT. > Aesthetically a double TT just makes the frame look cluttered, my personal > opinion. I see the double TT to mainly be a marketing/brand identifier > now, one which I don't think Riv needs anyway, again my personal opinion. > > 2-No kickstand plate. > Again a personal preference. In my urban/suburban riding I have never > found the need for a kickstand. Leaning the bike on poles, meters, bike > parking, walls, fences, trees, bushes, etc. has always been sufficient. > When in my apartment, bikes are hung up or leaned against a wall. When > touring and riding in the wilderness I have not found kickstands to be a > benefit. More often than not the kickstand sinks into the ground > destabilizing the bike. Or the loads on the bike destabilize the bike > negating the kickstand. > > 3-No extra brazons > -single rear eyelets, rear seatstay eyelets, double fork tip, midfork, > TT cable stops. No shifter bosses or other extra cable stops or > brazeons. > > Though a design by committee approach can be a dangerous thing, it can > also be exciting. I look forward to hearing what others think, and > ultimately what Riv and Grant design and brings to light. > > Gabe > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:28:12 AM UTC-8, Cyclofiend Jim wrote: >> >> I guess this is a type of Entmoot - we're discussing features on a bike >> that might not be built, but one which is the evolution of the Quickbeam >> and SimpleOne. The impetus for this thread has branched from Grant >> Petersen's comments in this thread - >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rbw-owners-bunch/QhzO4CFyz1U - >> in which I was volunteered to wrangle discussion of and interest in the >> project. >> >> Basically, if 30 individuals are interested in committing, this could >> come to pass. No promises, of course. >> >> Here are the guidelines for this thread: >> - State clearly what you would like to see. >> - Give a specific reason why. >> >> Since this is a Brainstorming thread, let's keep the focus on encouraging >> creative thought: >> - No negative comments. If you think an idea is stupid, bite your tongue >> (or quell your keyboard) and come up with a better one. >> - No discussion about whether something would or would not work. Each >> idea may also spur a more functional insight in someone else's brain. >> >> This (hopefully) is not an empirical discussion. If you have a Quickbeam >> or SimpleOne and really like a certain aspect of the frame design, or if >> you didn't buy one because of a specific issue, this is the place to talk >> about that. The goal is to recognize valued features and uncover hidden >> possibilities. All of which or none of which might be incorporated into >> the final design. >> >> For example - >> I have an orange series. It does not have seat stay threads for a rear >> rack. This has always bothered me as I have a Mark's Rack on my Hilsen and >> would love to be able to run a dual rack setup without resorting to >> P-Clamps. (This was corrected in the SimpleOne.) >> >> - or - >> >> Would it matter if it had a derailleur hanger? Would you want it >> optimized for upright bars? Would a kickstand plate be a dealbreaker? Would >> it absolutely have to be a 584/650B capable of accepting super wide tires? >> Or a 622/700C capabler of mounting your favorite "29er" mondo tire? >> >> OK? >> >> Thanks in advance and enjoy the ride! >> >> - Jim / cyclo...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> -- 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.
