[RBW] Brooks Alternative
What do you guys think of these? http://somafab.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-models-of-cardiff-saddles-in-stock.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
Saddles are a pretty personal choice. But good leather ones can last a long time, so I wouldn't make a decision based on price. Brooks has a good quality control track record and I love the Selle Anatomica. I have two of them and never really want to ride on anything else. I also prefer to do business with a smaller american company than an invisible Tiawnese knockoff artist. But they may be fine saddles. michael On Feb 28, 9:09 am, Richard Merkin wrote: > What do you guys think of these? > > http://somafab.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-models-of-cardiff-saddles-in-... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
Richard, I received a brown Velo Orange Model 6 saddle this week to try on my '95 Riv Road.: http://www.velo-orange.com/vosaddlemodel6.html It *appears* to be the same saddle as the Soma Cardiff Cambria: http://store.somafab.com/calesa.html The Cambria in turn looks just like the saddle sold elsewhere as the Cardiff Gull. I bought the VO because I wanted to try a narrow saddle (I'm treating my Riv as a go-fast bike these days - I've also lowered the bars a bit), and my old B17 wasn't working well for that. It has also become rather lopsided after maybe ten years of use, and I wanted to get back 'on the level'. The VO appears to be well-made. The leather is firm but with a little give (unlike the Selle Anatomica, which is very soft from the start). It looks good, but the color and matte finish of the VO lack the 'depth' of the Brooks. I've only ridden the VO around the block (which is actually a few miles in the farmlands just east of my house) so I can't say too much yet about its comfort. I didn't hurt after that short ride, though, which I can't say about the last plastic saddle I tried. I'll get in a longer ride today and see it I can adapt to the narrow saddle. The new Soma saddles are B17 width, so the comparison to the VO is not direct. The Cornwall isn't much less expensive than a real Brooks B17. That would make it a tough sell for me. There has been some criticism of the leather Brooks has used in some recent B17's, but mine are all at least a few years old so I can't judge that from experience. But, if I bail on the VO, I'll more than likely be back to either a Brooks Team Pro or B17 Imperial, or I'll be saving up for a second Anatomica. Bill Richard Merkin wrote: > What do you guys think of these? > > http://somafab.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-models-of-cardiff-saddles-in-stock.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
Hi All, I own both a Surly Cross Check (currently set up with derailer, but that might change) and a Soma Delancey. Both of these particular models come with long slots at the rear to allow for many gearing options. The Cross Check is quite versatile and inexpensive, so the value seems very good. It's a nice frame and I like it. I purchased my Delancey about eighteen months ago when Quick Beams were " asleep" in Rivendell parlance. The Delancey is really very nice, and while it has those looongg fork ends to allow for gearing options, it is really a road bike in terms of clearance for big tires and fenders. I run mine with 28mm Grand Bois tires and no room for fenders. Now that there are silver Quick Beams either in stock or arriving soon, I'd be buying one of those but for these financial hard times. ( I simply can't afford it right now ) All of these frames have strengths and weaknesses to them, but I feel that Jim is spot on when he talks about how his Quick Beam rides. ( or really any Rivendell bicycle [ I have a Bleriot and a Romulus too]) As to the original question, I'd strongly say " go ahead a buy yourself a Quickbeam, you'll like it on so many levels." Jon Cameron. On Feb 27, 10:33 pm, David Estes wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, CycloFiend wrote: > > > > > > > > > on 2/27/09 1:54 PM, Patrick in VT at psh...@drm.com commented: > > > > On Feb 27, 2:18 pm, Esteban wrote: > > >> I think the QB is the prototypical touring singlespeed. > > > > maybe, but there are other options, which are actually more versatile. > > > the cross-check, casserole and old lugged steel road bikes come to > > > mind - these can all be very comfortable, fit fat tires and fenders, > > > accept racks and be converted back to geared rides if one had the > > > notion. > > > > no doubt the QB is wonderful - it's a smart, sweet looking bike. I > > > just don't think it's the be-all-end-all of singlespeeding with so > > > many good options out there. > > > I have to say I've ridden a couple of Surlys over the years, and although I > > think they are a good value, it's hard to make a case that they have the > > same ride. > > > You absolutely can make a comfortable bike out of those, and thank goodness > > for the braze-on's on both models. If you think you might want to rig it > > with geary/shifty bits down the road, there are not a lot of options > > available which have horizontal dropouts and will let you run it both > > modes. > > > But, as I've said before I think Grant is onto something with the > > combination of rider position and frame angles that just feels comfortable > > and right for me. I had other singlespeeds mountain and road bikes and > > fixed > > gear rigs of various ilk before. The Quickbeam really replaced them all. > > > So, for me, it kinda is the be-all-end-all in that realm. > > > - Jim > > > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > And Jim, I think in addition to that, the lng track ends give you an > exceptional degree of gearing choices that a converted road bike doesn't. > You just don't have the range that the QB gives you. Don't know about the > Surly or Soma bikes mentioned above, YMMV > > -- > Cheers, > David > Redlands, CA- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
Yeah the leather in Brooks is definitely different, I still love the saddles but they have changed their formula they seem flimsier which for my aging bottom turned out to be a good thing. On Feb 28, 9:34 am, "Bill M." wrote: > Richard, > > I received a brown Velo Orange Model 6 saddle this week to try on my > '95 Riv Road.: > > http://www.velo-orange.com/vosaddlemodel6.html > > It *appears* to be the same saddle as the Soma Cardiff Cambria: > > http://store.somafab.com/calesa.html > > The Cambria in turn looks just like the saddle sold elsewhere as the > Cardiff Gull. > > I bought the VO because I wanted to try a narrow saddle (I'm treating > my Riv as a go-fast bike these days - I've also lowered the bars a > bit), and my old B17 wasn't working well for that. It has also become > rather lopsided after maybe ten years of use, and I wanted to get back > 'on the level'. > > The VO appears to be well-made. The leather is firm but with a little > give (unlike the Selle Anatomica, which is very soft from the start). > It looks good, but the color and matte finish of the VO lack the > 'depth' of the Brooks. > > I've only ridden the VO around the block (which is actually a few > miles in the farmlands just east of my house) so I can't say too much > yet about its comfort. I didn't hurt after that short ride, though, > which I can't say about the last plastic saddle I tried. I'll get in > a longer ride today and see it I can adapt to the narrow saddle. > > The new Soma saddles are B17 width, so the comparison to the VO is not > direct. The Cornwall isn't much less expensive than a real Brooks > B17. That would make it a tough sell for me. There has been some > criticism of the leather Brooks has used in some recent B17's, but > mine are all at least a few years old so I can't judge that from > experience. But, if I bail on the VO, I'll more than likely be back > to either a Brooks Team Pro or B17 Imperial, or I'll be saving up for > a second Anatomica. > > Bill > > Richard Merkin wrote: > > What do you guys think of these? > > >http://somafab.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-models-of-cardiff-saddles-in-... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Bill M. wrote: > > Richard, > > I received a brown Velo Orange Model 6 saddle this week to try on my > '95 Riv Road.: > > http://www.velo-orange.com/vosaddlemodel6.html > > It *appears* to be the same saddle as the Soma Cardiff Cambria: > > http://store.somafab.com/calesa.html > > The Cambria in turn looks just like the saddle sold elsewhere as the > Cardiff Gull. > > I bought the VO because I wanted to try a narrow saddle (I'm treating > my Riv as a go-fast bike these days - I've also lowered the bars a > bit), and my old B17 wasn't working well for that. It has also become > rather lopsided after maybe ten years of use, and I wanted to get back > 'on the level'. > > The VO appears to be well-made. The leather is firm but with a little > give (unlike the Selle Anatomica, which is very soft from the start). > It looks good, but the color and matte finish of the VO lack the > 'depth' of the Brooks. > > I've only ridden the VO around the block (which is actually a few > miles in the farmlands just east of my house) so I can't say too much > yet about its comfort. I didn't hurt after that short ride, though, > which I can't say about the last plastic saddle I tried. I'll get in > a longer ride today and see it I can adapt to the narrow saddle. > > [snip] > Keep us apprised of how the VO saddle works, in particular, how it compares with the Brooks Pro, which was the only Brooks that was almost comfortable for me. Even more particular, is it very sensitive to tilt (ie, nose angle) with lower bars? I could never get the Pro just right: I was either sliding forward or goosing myself. I don't have that problem with Flites and Turbos. The VO site says that it is 150 mm wide, which is pretty close to the width of the original model Flites and Turbos I use, so perhaps it could be the first Brooks type saddle to work for me. But I'd like a bit more feedback before shelling out $85 plus shipping -- tho' that is an excellent price for a decent saddle -- used Flites and Turbos in good condition are going for more than that on ebay. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, CycloFiend wrote: > > I have to say I've ridden a couple of Surlys over the years, and although I > think they are a good value, it's hard to make a case that they have the > same ride. > One thing I have observed is that some people care little about how a bike handles. This used to rub me the wrong way, but I've come to accept it. On the surface, Rivendells appear to be all about lugged steel, tire clearances, dropout eyelets, and leather saddles. For me, all of that is pointless if the bike handles poorly. The vastly overlooked feature of Rivendell bikes (to me) is their remarkable handling. I admit, though, that it's a matter of personal preference. I think Rivendells handle the way they do by design. This is shown by the fact that the smaller frame sizes use smaller wheels, and still often have toe overlap. Those are signs that the frame designer is thinking about something other than marketing. I've owned over two dozen bikes over the years, most of them lugged steel, many of them built in the 80s and 90s. The Rivendells (I have a Romulus and a Quickbeam) stand out with their "just right" handling. I'm not saying that no other bikes out there handle like a Rivendell (some do, they're rare). And clearly, how a bike handles is not as important to everyone as it is for me. But if one DOES care about how a bike handles, then one should consider that few other bikes ride like a Rivendell. I regret that I don't have better words to describe this. Horace. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
What we need out here in the real world is a Team Pro with steel rails and bag loops. Are you listening, Mr. Brooks? Bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] 26" tubes for 650b tires
Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. Let me know what you think. Lesli Larson Eugene, OR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: 26" tubes for 650b tires
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 11:53 -0800, Lesli wrote: > Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I > just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes > are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and > should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? > > I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b > Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound > reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. > > Let me know what you think. I found that the Specialized 559 x 1.75 tubes I got at my LBS were too wide for easy installation into Col de la Vies. _With the Col de la Vie_ -- which is considerably wider than a Megamium -- the Specialized 559 x 1.25 - 1.5 was just right. That size would probably be a wee bit on the wide side for a Megamium, and you might end up with the same issues with the tube getting caught under the bead with consequent BOOM on inflation I did. So _with the Specialized tubes_ I'd go with the 26x1 as well. On the other hand, the Schwalbe 650B tubes were marked as fitting 559x1.75, and they were a perfect fit for Col de la Vie's. So this could vary by brand. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 10:30 -0800, Bob Cooper wrote: > What we need out here in the real world is a Team Pro with steel rails > and bag loops. > > Are you listening, Mr. Brooks? The Viva bag loops that Velo Orange sells work very nicely on a steel-railed Team Pro. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
I noticed after reading this that Rivendell has also started selling the Cardiff saddles. On Feb 28, 9:09 am, Richard Merkin wrote: > What do you guys think of these? > > http://somafab.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-models-of-cardiff-saddles-in-... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: 26" tubes for 650b tires
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 11:53 -0800, Lesli wrote: > > Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I > > just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes > > are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and > > should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? > > > > I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b > > Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound > > reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > I found that the Specialized 559 x 1.75 tubes I got at my LBS were too > wide for easy installation into Col de la Vies. _With the Col de la > Vie_ -- which is considerably wider than a Megamium -- the Specialized > 559 x 1.25 - 1.5 was just right. That size would probably be a wee bit > on the wide side for a Megamium, and you might end up with the same > issues with the tube getting caught under the bead with consequent BOOM > on inflation I did. So _with the Specialized tubes_ I'd go with the > 26x1 as well. > > On the other hand, the Schwalbe 650B tubes were marked as fitting > 559x1.75, and they were a perfect fit for Col de la Vie's. So this > could vary by brand. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ > > 26 X 1.25 worked for me, not sure of the brand (Specialized maybe?)... -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
I have not tried a Persons but they have been around for a while. I guess Permaco used to have a pretty tight relationship with Brooks years back so I suspect they know a thing about saddles. Their prices are pretty reasonable. http://www.permaco.com/ On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Bob Cooper wrote: > > What we need out here in the real world is a Team Pro with steel rails > and bag loops. > > Are you listening, Mr. Brooks? > > Bob > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
Y'all inspired me to get out and ride the 'Beam. Well, actually I have a flat on my A-R, and was too lazy to fix it... The QB performed flawlessly. A bit over geared for my needs on this trail (step-ish portions quite sandy in places). Forced me to take a break now and then, which is good for pics: http://flickr.com/photos/cyclotourist/sets/72157614495729399/ On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Horace wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, CycloFiend > wrote: > > > > I have to say I've ridden a couple of Surlys over the years, and although > I > > think they are a good value, it's hard to make a case that they have the > > same ride. > > > > One thing I have observed is that some people care little about how a > bike handles. This used to rub me the wrong way, but I've come to > accept it. > > On the surface, Rivendells appear to be all about lugged steel, tire > clearances, dropout eyelets, and leather saddles. For me, all of that > is pointless if the bike handles poorly. The vastly overlooked feature > of Rivendell bikes (to me) is their remarkable handling. I admit, > though, that it's a matter of personal preference. > > I think Rivendells handle the way they do by design. This is shown by > the fact that the smaller frame sizes use smaller wheels, and still > often have toe overlap. Those are signs that the frame designer is > thinking about something other than marketing. > > I've owned over two dozen bikes over the years, most of them lugged > steel, many of them built in the 80s and 90s. The Rivendells (I have a > Romulus and a Quickbeam) stand out with their "just right" handling. > > I'm not saying that no other bikes out there handle like a Rivendell > (some do, they're rare). And clearly, how a bike handles is not as > important to everyone as it is for me. But if one DOES care about how > a bike handles, then one should consider that few other bikes ride > like a Rivendell. > > I regret that I don't have better words to describe this. > > Horace. > > > > -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: 26" tubes for 650b tires
I have used 26x1.25-1.5 for Riv Nifty Swifty. It's a bit of stretch but no problem. I got those tubes from Universal Cyclery in Portland oregon. Franklyn On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, David Estes wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 11:53 -0800, Lesli wrote: > > > Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I > > > just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes > > > are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and > > > should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? > > > > I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b > > > Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound > > > reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > I found that the Specialized 559 x 1.75 tubes I got at my LBS were too > > wide for easy installation into Col de la Vies. _With the Col de la > > Vie_ -- which is considerably wider than a Megamium -- the Specialized > > 559 x 1.25 - 1.5 was just right. That size would probably be a wee bit > > on the wide side for a Megamium, and you might end up with the same > > issues with the tube getting caught under the bead with consequent BOOM > > on inflation I did. So _with the Specialized tubes_ I'd go with the > > 26x1 as well. > > > On the other hand, the Schwalbe 650B tubes were marked as fitting > > 559x1.75, and they were a perfect fit for Col de la Vie's. So this > > could vary by brand. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ > > > 26 X 1.25 worked for me, not sure of the brand (Specialized maybe?)... > > -- > Cheers, > David > Redlands, CA --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: 26" tubes for 650b tires
I've used 559X1" tubes in 559X2" tires; no problems. I've used 559X2" tubes in 622X60 mm tires: no problem (except that they are very, *very* hard to install, with that extra 2 1/2 inches of rim to clea)r. I've used 622 X 28mm tubes in a 60 mm tire; no problem.These were situations where I didn't have the right tube. Ordinarily, I use 622X35-37 mm tubes for my 29er instead of buying more expensive "twentyniner" tubes. I've regularly use 26X1" tubes in everything up to 38s (1.5 inches) for years. Oh, and I use 650c skinnies in 559X1.5s; again, no problem. Tubes stretch, at least up to a point. I wouldn't use 26X1" tubes in a 622X60 mm tire, at least not if I could help it, but I expect such a combination would get you home. On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Lesli wrote: > > Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I > just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes > are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and > should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? > > I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b > Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound > reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. > > Let me know what you think. > > Lesli Larson > Eugene, OR > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > The Viva bag loops that Velo Orange sells work very nicely on a > steel-railed Team Pro. And even on a Flite or a Turbo. They are vastly better than the hateful Cyclo loops, in you are tempted to judge these by those. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Horace wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, CycloFiend > wrote: > > > > I have to say I've ridden a couple of Surlys over the years, and although > I > > think they are a good value, it's hard to make a case that they have the > > same ride. > > > > One thing I have observed is that some people care little about how a > bike handles. This used to rub me the wrong way, but I've come to > accept it. > > On the surface, Rivendells appear to be all about lugged steel, tire > clearances, dropout eyelets, and leather saddles. For me, all of that > is pointless if the bike handles poorly. The vastly overlooked feature > of Rivendell bikes (to me) is their remarkable handling. I admit, > though, that it's a matter of personal preference. > > I think Rivendells handle the way they do by design. This is shown by > the fact that the smaller frame sizes use smaller wheels, and still > often have toe overlap. Those are signs that the frame designer is > thinking about something other than marketing. > > I've owned over two dozen bikes over the years, most of them lugged > steel, many of them built in the 80s and 90s. The Rivendells (I have a > Romulus and a Quickbeam) stand out with their "just right" handling. > > I'm not saying that no other bikes out there handle like a Rivendell > (some do, they're rare). And clearly, how a bike handles is not as > important to everyone as it is for me. But if one DOES care about how > a bike handles, then one should consider that few other bikes ride > like a Rivendell. > > I regret that I don't have better words to describe this. You are entirely and exactly right. The principal quality of a Rivendell (all mine have been customs) is their handling -- that elusive combination of straight line stability and unerring and intuitive cornering -- *as well as* fit. I've ridden other bikes I've loved, but every time I get back on a Riv, it's like putting on a pair of well broken in boots or moving from a ballpoint to a Parker 51. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
to be clear, I'm not knocking the QB in anyway or suggesting that any of the bikes i mentioned are necessarily better options. ss/fixed gear riding is different for everyone. i'm sure the slack angles and long wheelbase of the QB yield exactly the kind of handling that some want out of a bike regardless of drivetrain (which is why I still think the QB should come with horizontal dropouts and a derailer hanger!!) personally, when I ride fixed, I tend to ride more aggressively - i don't want my bars high (b/c i'm out of the saddle more), i don't need the stability and feel of a longer wheelbase (b/c i'm typically not carrying too much) and i appreciate a bike that is more responsive to my inputs. in short, I like to take advantage of racier geometry when i only have one gear. it makes a real difference, especially when climbing. didn't mean to put anyone off - especially the OP!! i don't ride a surly, salsa, soma, etc. and i'm not trying to steer anyone away from the QB. it's an awesome bike for sure, as evidenced by it's popularity and glowing owner reviews and reports. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: Quickbeam ?
Parker 51! I, too, write with a fountain pen when writing for pleasure, as in journals and the rare snail mail. Except, I learned to write with my mother's Schaeffer, and have used a Pelikan 120 since, oh, 1970. And, I was given a modern Lamy that writes really well. It's just that fountain pen inks tend to dry up in the pen in the low desert heat...I write with ballpoints at work, a pencil when doing math, I'm fluent in Palm OS "graffitti" script...each seems to shape my letters and to some extent, my thoughts, as I write. Yeah, I fly fish, too. Or, used to, before moving here. On topic, my Quickbeam does handle very well. It is a bike with a strong personality. It is more stately and seems to sail along more (steadier on line and harder to alter the line on curves) than I recall for my sport-touring bikes, and much steadier at speed than my "race ready" Cannondale F-100, now converted to a "city bike". I chose a slightly larger size than I would usually ride, and don't regret it, even with minimal stand-over, as I have a comfortable range of positions from semi-up, with little weight on my hands, to pretty low for me, with more weight on the pedals for the big efforts. And, it is not as flexible as my old 531 db bike, an old Falcon built for Eddy Merkyx's brand, dubbed Eddy, now gone. The Quickbeam's OS tubing and all, is more rigid, which is maybe not a good thing but one I appreciate when I overload it with groceries or gear and try to climb or..."sprint". What impresses me is how well it handles dirt roads, besides pavements. I think it's weight distribution, as it is a rear-loading design (which handles my Baggins Handlbar bag fully loaded in front just fine), but the front wheel doesn't bog down into sand and gravel as badly as even some Mountain Bike designs, with the big tires. The front wheel seems to lift and plow along better, giving me a better chance to avoid a dismount and a little walk. On the other hand, I had a dream last week about riding the Quickbeam with some other riders, who were riding multiple-geared bikes, and turning a corner to find a veritable wall of cobbles, soaring into the distance above me. I immediately surrendered, in my dream, dismounted, and walked up the cobblestones, my cycling shoes slipping just a little every step, as I watched the other riders gear down, then slip and fall on that precipitous dream slope as they struggled up it ahead of me. It really is flat around here. On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Horace wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, CycloFiend >> wrote: >> > >> > I have to say I've ridden a couple of Surlys over the years, and >> although I >> > think they are a good value, it's hard to make a case that they have the >> > same ride. >> > >> >> One thing I have observed is that some people care little about how a >> bike handles. This used to rub me the wrong way, but I've come to >> accept it. >> >> On the surface, Rivendells appear to be all about lugged steel, tire >> clearances, dropout eyelets, and leather saddles. For me, all of that >> is pointless if the bike handles poorly. The vastly overlooked feature >> of Rivendell bikes (to me) is their remarkable handling. I admit, >> though, that it's a matter of personal preference. >> >> I think Rivendells handle the way they do by design. This is shown by >> the fact that the smaller frame sizes use smaller wheels, and still >> often have toe overlap. Those are signs that the frame designer is >> thinking about something other than marketing. >> >> I've owned over two dozen bikes over the years, most of them lugged >> steel, many of them built in the 80s and 90s. The Rivendells (I have a >> Romulus and a Quickbeam) stand out with their "just right" handling. >> >> I'm not saying that no other bikes out there handle like a Rivendell >> (some do, they're rare). And clearly, how a bike handles is not as >> important to everyone as it is for me. But if one DOES care about how >> a bike handles, then one should consider that few other bikes ride >> like a Rivendell. >> >> I regret that I don't have better words to describe this. > > > > You are entirely and exactly right. The principal quality of a Rivendell > (all mine have been customs) is their handling -- that elusive combination > of straight line stability and unerring and intuitive cornering -- *as well > as* fit. I've ridden other bikes I've loved, but every time I get back on a > Riv, it's like putting on a pair of well broken in boots or moving from a > ballpoint to a Parker 51. > > > > > -- Bill Gibson Tempe, Arizona, USA --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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, visi
[RBW] Re: Brooks Alternative
Okay, a couple of updates: I rode 42 miles on the VO model 6 today, on the American River bike trail in Sacramento. As it's a much narrower saddle than I've used in some time, and a brand new stretched leather saddle, I expected some discomfort. I had also dropped my handlebars nearly an inch, from a bit over the saddle to a good cm lower than the nose. I got a little discomcort, my sit bones definitely knew they were on a firm, narrow perch. Not terrible, though, no pain, and as soon as I finished the ride all discomfort was gone. Compared to my well-worn B17, the VO held my sit bones up rather than cradling them, which kept the rest of me from resting too heavily on the saddle. That proved to be a very good thing. No chafing, no soreness, no pressure on the sensitive tissues. This is NOT a saddle for an upright, touring, or typical Rivendell riding position. For a more 'sporting' position, bars lower than saddle, body leaned forward, hips rolled forward, it worked pretty well. I'm going to keep using it for my faster rides and see if it breaks in and gets more (or less) comfortable as time goes on. Patrick, I think you just might get along with this one! It reminds me of my old racing saddles, firm but supportive, and narrow enough to stay out of the way. I have not found it difficult to find an angle that works. My B17's seem a little more particular about the angle. I have the nose just slightly above the tail (maybe 3 mm), and I was fine. Not sinking in means little or no 'goose' factor. And like any racing saddle, the faster I went the less I noticed the saddle. Of course, you might also want to check out the SOMA Ta-bo, which looks a lot like an older saddle with a similar name. Or there's the Hisan, which Wiktionary translates as "flying". BTW, I haven't ridden a Team Pro in recent memory, so I can't compare the VO. If I finally decide the VO is too narrow, a Pro will be my likely next saddle. As for the original post, after the ride we dropped in to a couple of bike shops in midtown Sacto. The Bicycle Business had a Cardiff Mercia in stock, hanging up next to several Brooks B17's, two standard, one copper railed, and one Imperial. The Cardiff looked fine, though I still think the honey Brooks is prettier. It weighed about the same as the Brooks. The leather of the Cardiff was... stiff. To the point of being hard. The B17's all felt rather supple in comparison. Whether that means the Brookses would be more comfortable off the bat, or whether they would stretch out sooner, I don't know. I couldn't sit on any of them, so no telling what the cheeks would say. Were it my money I'd probably go for the plainer looking B17 std for $10 less than the fancier Cardiff. There was another Asiam leather saddle in the store too, a Tipo Uno Traditional: http://www.torelli.com/parts/Tipounoparts.html The second saddle on that page looks familiar! The Tipo Uno had the same care tag that came on my VO, which confirms that they are from the same source. The Uno Trad. looked a little odd to me, with the deep profile at the nose and the very rounded tail, but it did seem to have more flex than my VO in the sit bone area. Once again, I didn't get to sit on it. Very narrow looking, though. I think I'd prefer the one I have. BTW, I love the leather pants clips on the Torelli page. I gotta find a set of those! OTOH, the shop had the SOMA Ensho "glitter" saddles - throwbacks to the Sting Ray's of my childhood. I think I'll pass, thanks. http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-3773699254952_2037_98456 Bill On Feb 28, 8:44 am, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Bill M. wrote: > > > Richard, > > > I received a brown Velo Orange Model 6 saddle this week to try on my > > '95 Riv Road.: > > >http://www.velo-orange.com/vosaddlemodel6.html > > > It *appears* to be the same saddle as the Soma Cardiff Cambria: > > >http://store.somafab.com/calesa.html > > > The Cambria in turn looks just like the saddle sold elsewhere as the > > Cardiff Gull. > > > I bought the VO because I wanted to try a narrow saddle (I'm treating > > my Riv as a go-fast bike these days - I've also lowered the bars a > > bit), and my old B17 wasn't working well for that. It has also become > > rather lopsided after maybe ten years of use, and I wanted to get back > > 'on the level'. > > > The VO appears to be well-made. The leather is firm but with a little > > give (unlike the Selle Anatomica, which is very soft from the start). > > It looks good, but the color and matte finish of the VO lack the > > 'depth' of the Brooks. > > > I've only ridden the VO around the block (which is actually a few > > miles in the farmlands just east of my house) so I can't say too much > > yet about its comfort. I didn't hurt after that short ride, though, > > which I can't say about the last plastic saddle I tried. I'll get in > > a longer ride today and see it I can adapt to the narrow saddle. > > > [s
[RBW] FS: Riv. All Rounder,
Not mine, one of us here? http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/1044182688.html "50cm seat tube 54cm top tube, suitable for someone 5'2"-5'6" Custom built by Curt Goodrich includes frame/fork, headset, large rear rack, mini front rack, wheelset, an assortment of tires, A set of new fenders plus some used fenders not the complete bike. Color is Pea sage green, condition is excellent $2,200 " --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[RBW] Re: 26" tubes for 650b tires
In my mind, the more a tube has to stretch the greater the chance of a puncture. I try to use the largest volume tube of the correct diameter for the tire. In a pinch, whatever works is better than walking for ten hours. On Feb 28, 11:53 am, Lesli wrote: > Just confirming that one could use 26" (mtb) tubes for 650b tires. I > just checked out the Riv site and 26" tubes are 4.00, the 650b tubes > are 8.00! Why pay more if the mtb versions would work fine (and > should prove to be lighter than those Schwalbe versions)? > > I'm thinking of buying the skinny (26x1") version for use with my 650b > Michelelin Megamiums and Riv Maxy Fasty tires. Does that sound > reasonable or should I get the slightly wider, "medium" sized tube. > > Let me know what you think. > > Lesli Larson > Eugene, OR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
