[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[Deacon Patrick]

Always a great endeavor! Thank you for the reminder, Brian! I love all your 
family pictures.

Here's mine:
http://thegrid.ai/withabandon/best-16-of-16

With abandon,
Patrick

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC-7, stonehog wrote:
>
> It feels like the time of year to post your "best of 2016" - are ya with 
> me??  OK - I'll start it off with the obligatory blog post (dwindling these 
> days):  https://stonehog.com/2016/12/31/2016-redux 
>
> And Flickr album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskRBkZQ9
>
> Brian Hanson
> Seattle, WA
> Bike Blog 
> @stonehog
> stonehogboɥǝuoʇs
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: FS: barend shifters, sackville trunksack, ditto mini front rack, road brake levers

[Kim N]

Quick update: Just the Shimano Tiagra Road Brake Levers are left. And I'll 
drop the price to $25 for those.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 10:44:31 AM UTC-8, Kim N wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> Happy New Year! I have some parts for sale that are lightly used.
>
> $100 - Sackville TrunkSack Small - Olive 
> $115 - Nitto Mini-Front Rack 32F
> $30 - Shimano Tiagra Road Brake Levers
> $55 - Shimano 8sp Barend Shifters
>
> Photos can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/iZLZt
>
> Shipping to the contiguous USA is $5 an item and I'll include the shipping 
> if you buy more than one thing. Please let me know if you've got any 
> questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Kim
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[lum gim fong]

Patric. Dont forget to change that busted front  brake housing for '17

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Front Low-rider Panniers on Rambouillet?

[Patrick Moore]

Pure prejudice, I suppose; well, perhaps impure prejudice based on my
experience of 5 Rivendell road bikes, which all in varying ways seem to
have hit a sweet spot containing both stability and agility. But I've never
ridden a Monstercross, so I do not know at all if this is true. Still, in
terms of risk, if offered money on it, I'd probably take the gamble.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Bill in Roswell GA 
wrote:

> Patrick, just curious as to why you would think the Ram would handle
> better (with or without a load?) than the Monstercross? I ask because I was
> considering a Monstercross at one point for week-long adventure touring.
> You've had a considerable stable of bikes over the years making a wonderful
> basis of comparison.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill in Roswell, GA
>
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, my brother recently bought a BM Monstercross, and even more
>> recently installed some Soma 42 mm tires at sub 500 grams each in place of
>> the 29er tires. While he liked the handling and feel before, he did say
>> that the new and lighter tires made the Monstercross feel much more lively.
>> But he's a big man, so it may handle for him differently for a smaller
>> person.
>>
>>  tho' I don't doubt that the Ram handles better than the MC in any
>> event 
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Kieran J  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's funny - in reality, it would be way easier to use my Black Mountain
>>> Monstercross for light touring like this - it has the fork eyelets to mount
>>> the rack, and it has generous tire/fender clearance. However, it is a very
>>> dull ride, and just does not have the 'pizzazz' like the Rambouillet does.
>>> While the Ram is no BQ plane-o-matic, it is easily a nicer riding (and
>>> better fitting) bike, so I am motivated to increase its carrying capacity
>>> while preserving its fairly pleasant ride characteristics.
>>>
>>> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.
By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.
Other professional writing services.
http://www.resumespecialties.com/
www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten
**
**
*The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a
circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and
individualities revolve. *Chuang Tzu

*Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.* *(The cross stands motionless while the
world revolves.) *Carthusian motto

*It is *we *who change; *He* remains the same.* Eckhart

*Kinei hos eromenon.* (*It moves [all things] as the beloved.) *Aristotle

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[Deacon Patrick]

Why?

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:21:52 AM UTC-7, lum gim fong wrote:
>
> Patric. Dont forget to change that busted front  brake housing for '17

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[lum gim fong]

I hate when approaching loquatious cyclists and they maintain their abreast 
tracking even when they see me coming towards them. As we pass it feels like 
there's only inches between our handlebars.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[lum gim fong]

Meaning the cyclists are approaching me and I'm approaching from opposite 
directions. .not overtaking

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[lum gim fong]

It looks broken in the lichen matching picture.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Jon Dukeman]

It's annoyingThey are usually in lycra with skinny tires.
I always say" WTF is wrong with the other side of the trail??"
Jon

"FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS RIDE JUNK "

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:40 AM, lum gim fong  wrote:

> Meaning the cyclists are approaching me and I'm approaching from opposite
> directions. .not overtaking
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/rbw-owners-bunch/I2rXHQqICOc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 700c wheelset 130mm and sugino double crank

[dstein]

I found an A23 wheelset on the ibob list for a good price. I think for the 
crank I'm going to repurpose a Sugino XD2 crank for now and keep my eye out 
for a (likely new) 46/30 crank, unless someone has something ;).

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:31:20 PM UTC-8, bo richardson wrote:
>
> i have a full build from n rb2 including wheels if you want it.
> good quality good shape
> not really excellent quality excellent shape
>
> price could be excellent though.
> i think the sugino crank is set up currently as a triple
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[George Schick]

Agreed (and also with Lum Gim's comment).  And BTW, those "in lycra with 
skinny tires" are usually known by the slang term "freds."  What's equally 
annoying is when riders (usually freds, it seems) are approaching a 
rider(s) from behind while there are runners or bikers coming from the 
opposite direction and they can't slow up and wait for the oncoming traffic 
to clear, but just have to dodge around them with split seconds to spare 
before colliding, often without even any announcement that they're doing so 
(and, of course, bells are out of the question for freds).

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:50:17 AM UTC-6, Jon Dukeman,central 
Colorado wrote:
>
> It's annoyingThey are usually in lycra with skinny tires.
> I always say" WTF is wrong with the other side of the trail??"
> Jon
>
> "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS RIDE JUNK "
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:40 AM, lum gim fong  > wrote:
>
>> Meaning the cyclists are approaching me and I'm approaching from opposite 
>> directions. .not overtaking
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/I2rXHQqICOc/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[Andy Williams]

Great work, Brian.   Here's my 2016 recap

http://awilliams53.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-in-rear-view-mirror.html

Andy



On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:40:53 PM UTC-8, stonehog wrote:
>
> It feels like the time of year to post your "best of 2016" - are ya with 
> me??  OK - I'll start it off with the obligatory blog post (dwindling these 
> days):  https://stonehog.com/2016/12/31/2016-redux 
>
> And Flickr album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskRBkZQ9
>
> Brian Hanson
> Seattle, WA
> Bike Blog 
> @stonehog
> stonehogboɥǝuoʇs
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Clem / long CS CROW PIE!

[Richard Rios]

Definitely different opinions here which makes things fun and interesting, 
I guess it just remains to be seen as to how i feel the Clem rides once it 
arrives.  I briefly spoke to Grant about Clem and he gave it a ringing 
endorsement "your gonna love it".  I didn't go into all the details and ask 
for a comparison or anything like that i had actually just called in about 
ordering some bar tape and happened to catch him on the phone.  As for the 
frame price i don't know that one being more expensive than the other makes 
one better straight off.  My understanding is that it is primairly a labor 
cost issue and not frame quality per se.  I am sure a good bike designer 
can account for tube specs and butting and get it to ride pretty much any 
way they would like.  As for the Hunqa I think i mentioned in one of the 
posts that i had ordered that bike to be my "mountain bike". Mind you i 
didn't think that i was going to be able to scream down the hills of 
whistler on it, but it just didn't end up working for me anything beyond 
pretty mellow fire roading.  I apologize if this didn't come through 
clearly most my posts are just kinda shot off the cuff from my cell phone.  
It was / is a great bike for off road touring, and all around heavy duty 
riding.  But the long CS and handlebar setup bullmoose just didn't work for 
me.  I could have monkeyed around with the bars but i would have gone to 
something more swept back and pushed the bike more in the touring camping 
commuting direction which is not what i had intended.  When i went to check 
out Clem and rode the Appa i had no such preconceived notions as to how i 
intend to ride the bike.  I just rode it and it felt great!  I have an 
Atlantis that i use as my road bike, a simple one for darting about town, a 
surly for the time being for mountain biking, so in my mind justifying Clem 
came down to a great "whatevering" (thanks for the term gravel and grind) 
bike.  I'm in the camp of glad it is TIGed and perhaps will feel a bit less 
precious to me.  The wheel house did have a Clem frame that I was able to 
check out and it was really nicely done!  Looked better than i had expected 
it to.  Yes it was TIGed but the welds looked super clean and Riv really 
did a great job with all the details they put into the bike.  I was really 
surprised at how well it all came together.  I will report back once i get 
a chance to give Clem a good go. Oh yeah I like 650B and have found that 
tires really make a huge / the biggest difference as to how lively a bike 
feels.

Best,
Richard



On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:58:59 AM UTC-8, masmojo wrote:
>
> Well, you're getting so many different opinions here I could certainly 
> understand a little uncertainty!LOL 
> The opinions that the Clem won't ride much heavier then the Appa. Or that 
> it will ride better then the Appa. Are a little silly. The Appa. Has a 
> lugged frame, with a lighter gauge tubing, the Clem is welded which is 
> going to require much thicker tubing (at least on the ends).  One is a $800 
> frame & the other is a $1,400 frame! There's a reason the Appa. costs more!
> Additional cause for concern is that you had a Hunq. Prototype and did not 
> like it!? Huh? An Appa. Is basically a Asian made, slightly lighter Hunq. 
> So if you didn't like the Hunq. I wouldn't think you would like the Appa. 
> either!?
> A Clem. is plush, an Appaloosa? Not nearly so much, more lively.
> Anywayz, to me it sounds like to me your problem isn't so much with the 
> bike as it is set up; whatever you get, just keep trying different things 
> until you get it where you like it.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Rod Holland]

Yeah, Chris King hub angry bees are a safety feature. Badly adjusted, squealing 
cantis do the job, too, and penetrate earbids reliably...

rod

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[lum gim fong]

A noisy drivetrain and flicking one's brake levers works too on the unearbudded.

i'm surprised that joggers jog along with earbuds in both ears. I think I 
remember my wife telling me that the local library had the police there to talk 
give a seminar on safety  or something like that and they said not to have 
earbuds in when you're on the trails.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Patrick Moore]

I hold my line and let them move. Works every time.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:38 AM, lum gim fong  wrote:

> I hate when approaching loquatious cyclists and they maintain their
> abreast tracking even when they see me coming towards them. As we pass it
> feels like there's only inches between our handlebars.
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.
By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.
Other professional writing services.
http://www.resumespecialties.com/
www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten
**
**
*The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a
circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and
individualities revolve. *Chuang Tzu

*Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.* *(The cross stands motionless while the
world revolves.) *Carthusian motto

*It is *we *who change; *He* remains the same.* Eckhart

*Kinei hos eromenon.* (*It moves [all things] as the beloved.) *Aristotle

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Patrick Moore]

Many Rivendell owners ride road bikes with sub 35 mm tires while wearing
lycra; let's not be foolishly elitist.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Eric Norris]

Very true. In my experience on the local MUP, rudeness/cluelessness is an equal 
opportunity ailment, affecting bikers and walkers of all stripes. Where I ride, 
most “racers” are pacelining single file, but both racers and un-racers alike 
can be seen riding 2 or more abreast, oblivious to the other people using the 
trail.

--Eric Norris
campyonly...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
campyonlyguy.blogspot.com

> On Jan 2, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Patrick Moore  wrote:
> 
> Many Rivendell owners ride road bikes with sub 35 mm tires while wearing 
> lycra; let's not be foolishly elitist. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/02/2017 11:14 AM, George Schick wrote:
Agreed (and also with Lum Gim's comment).  And BTW, those "in lycra 
with skinny tires" are usually known by the slang term "freds."


Are you sure?  When did that happen?  When they first started using the 
term, it applied to us, not to them.  Googling the term, I retrieved this:

/
/

   /*Fred* is a derisive term used by “serious” road *cyclists* to
   describe other *cyclists* who do not conform to serious road
   *cyclists*' norms with regard to dress and equipment, and appear
   amateurish to them. The term is generally reserved for men, while
   the female *Fred* is sometimes called a “Doris.”//Apr 2, 2011/

Sure sounds like a "roadie's" view of us...


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: NEW BIKE DAY!

[Kellie]

Hi Bill: pedals are from VP Components; I think they sell them at 
Rivendell, but you can get them many places. For those that are interested, 
the build is:
Dia-Compe levers
SR One-at-a-Time shifters (love them, super crisp shifting and the 
ratcheting gives lots of feedback) mounted inside
Nitto Choco handlebar
Paul's neo-retro brakes (love all Paul's brakes)
Velocity Cliffhanger rims (both tire and rim tubeless ready for any desert 
adventure)
Schwalbe Thunder Burt tires. Love them even more than the RockNRoads, 
quieter on street
The rest is pretty standard Riv build except I have to say I LOVE THE ALTUS 
RD; great shifting paired with the SR. Not mounted yet in this photo, Nitto 
R14 rear rack, Supernova head and rear light, and hopefully a Saddlesack to 
come.



On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 8:32:10 PM UTC-8, Bill in Roswell GA wrote:
>
> One of the unfortunate aspects of surgery is that pain feedback tells you 
> how much is too much! But of course, we continue to find the edge of what 
> we love until it hurts too much! 
>
> Didn't see a build list (not that I see that well), but wondered what 
> pedals those are?
>
> Cheers and Happiest of New Years,
> Bill in Roswell, GA
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 7:33:52 PM UTC-5, Kellie wrote:
>>
>> First ride outside (been on a trainer) since hand surgery.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 2:59:52 PM UTC-8, Kellie wrote:
>>>
>>> Two months in the queue at Waterford; just finished the build.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Clementine Rolls Into Another Year

[Kellie]

Thanks for the photos!

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-8, Mark in Beacon wrote:
>
> This Friday, parked for a bit, and when I came out this weird granular 
> snow was on my Sackvilles. Coming back across the Hudson, everything was 
> clear again. I rode the bike to a New Year's dinner party in 2016, and rode 
> home in 2017. A good way to end and begin! (Photos always seem to end up in 
> reverse order.)
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[George Schick]

The term "fred" seems to have morphed into a myriad of meanings nowadays 
(according to a look-up in the Urban Dictionary, anyway), but the way it 
gets used "locally" implies someone who portrays him/herself as a racer, 
decked out in the some of the priciest gear from head to toe, rides an 
expensive professional-class bike, and goes out on the MUP's instead of the 
street where he probably belongs, to seemingly prove to everyone else out 
there how great he is.  There are lots of riders in this area who depart 
from an LBS just down the street from me most every evening during the 
regular riding season in a large pack; but they ride and carry out their 
training entirely on the streets and roads.

As far as attire is concerned, I wear lycra and have sub-35 tires, too 
(though not by much), and it's all fine.  But the freds seem to like to 
take things to the extreme even where it's impractical.  Most of the MUP's 
in this area are surfaced with compacted "limestone screenings," the fine 
and often powdery stuff that's left at the bottom after all the other sizes 
of crushed limestone rock have been sorted.  How anyone can ride on the 
stuff with something like 25's is beyond me, but you see 'em out there.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 11:47:25 AM UTC-6, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/02/2017 11:14 AM, George Schick wrote:
>
> Agreed (and also with Lum Gim's comment).  And BTW, those "in lycra with 
> skinny tires" are usually known by the slang term "freds."  
>
>
> Are you sure?  When did that happen?  When they first started using the 
> term, it applied to us, not to them.  Googling the term, I retrieved this:
>
> *Fred is a derisive term used by “serious” road cyclists to describe other 
> cyclists who do not conform to serious road cyclists' norms with regard to 
> dress and equipment, and appear amateurish to them. The term is generally 
> reserved for men, while the female Fred is sometimes called a “Doris.”**Apr 
> 2, 2011*
>
> Sure sounds like a "roadie's" view of us...
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[John Philip]

I started off the year rehabbing two new knees so I got a bit of a slow 
start but overall it was a great year.  Good times riding with my wife and 
sons, meeting up with Pondero and crew on the GAP, enjoying my 
granddaughter and all topped off with a grandson born in December. 
Here's my set..*http://tinyurl.com/jtuf4x6*   

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 8:40:53 PM UTC-5, stonehog wrote:
>
> It feels like the time of year to post your "best of 2016" - are ya with 
> me??  OK - I'll start it off with the obligatory blog post (dwindling these 
> days):  https://stonehog.com/2016/12/31/2016-redux 
>
> And Flickr album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskRBkZQ9
>
> Brian Hanson
> Seattle, WA
> Bike Blog 
> @stonehog
> stonehogboɥǝuoʇs
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Clem / long CS CROW PIE!

[Joe Bernard]

Richard, you make a good point about expecting a Hunq to be a mountain bike; I 
understood you were saying and meant to address it, but lost track. I think 
what we've come to expect of what we call "mountain biking" is a little outside 
the parameters of that bicycle's mission, which in current parlance would be 
"gravel bike". The bike didn't change, but the categories around it did. But I 
digress..you're gonna love that Clem!

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 700c wheelset 130mm and sugino double crank

[Chad]

FWIW, I've been told the Sugino XD double is just the triple with the small 
ring studs ground off.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Front Low-rider Panniers on Rambouillet?

[Joe Broach]

Classic Blackburn-style low riders have done well on my Romulus for several
tours. I just used p clamps. It will discolor the paint over time. Fork and
tubing are functionally equivalent to your 'bou. Go for it!

-joe in pdx

Caveat lector. Sent from a phone.

On Dec 28, 2016 1:24 PM, "Kieran J"  wrote:

Hi All,

Hope everyone is having a nice holiday season!

I'm curious about how the Rambouillet handles with different configs of a
front load. I've only ever really used a small Swift Bandito up on the
handlebar, but never anything more substantial.

Have any Ram owners ever:

   - somehow run low-rider panniers on the stock fork?
   - run low-rider panniers and an additional front bag on the stock fork?
   - had success with an aftermarket fork with a different trail figure?

Long story, I'm thinking of having a couple mods done to my Ram and new
powder done (the Creamsicle is cool, but doesn't match anything -
especially not all the red clothing I have). I would consider adding
mid-fork eyelets if running front low-riders appears to work well for the
bike.

Thanks!

Kieran

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Best of 2016

[RichS]

John, enjoyed your pics from upstate NY. I grew up in your neck of the 
woods and still have family there. You have a nice collection of Rivs! Hope 
your knees have recovered. 

Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2017!
Richard

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 2:15:42 PM UTC-5, John Philip wrote:
>
> I started off the year rehabbing two new knees so I got a bit of a slow 
> start but overall it was a great year.  Good times riding with my wife and 
> sons, meeting up with Pondero and crew on the GAP, enjoying my 
> granddaughter and all topped off with a grandson born in December. 
> Here's my set..*http://tinyurl.com/jtuf4x6 
> *   
>
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 8:40:53 PM UTC-5, stonehog wrote:
>>
>> It feels like the time of year to post your "best of 2016" - are ya with 
>> me??  OK - I'll start it off with the obligatory blog post (dwindling these 
>> days):  https://stonehog.com/2016/12/31/2016-redux 
>>
>> And Flickr album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskRBkZQ9
>>
>> Brian Hanson
>> Seattle, WA
>> Bike Blog 
>> @stonehog
>> stonehogboɥǝuoʇs
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[ted]

Hey John,

My tone was inappropriate, and I got way off the point right off the bat. 
My bad, I apologize.

I agree that 98 to 100 inches for a top gear is reasonable advice. Many 
riders probably find a top gear like that ideal.
However, as you note, YMMV. I think many riders would find a top gear 
larger (or smaller) than that ideal. I think the notion of "normal" people 
takes in a range of fitness levels and cadence preferences that result in 
preferred top gears ranging over more than 2 gear inches. Honing in on a 2" 
range that is about plus or minus 1% is quite narrow, rather specific.

Luckily for the OP, he can easily determine for himself what his ideal top 
gear is.
All he has to do is ride the bike he has, equipped the way it is, on the 
kinds of rides he wants to do with it, and pay attention to what gears he 
actually uses. If one of his current combinations hits his sweet spot, that 
is it. If one of his combinations is a tad too big and another is a tad too 
small, then half way between those two is it. I seriously doubt he will 
want something taller than the 50-11 he currently has. This approach is 
very reliable, simple, and costs him no money. Once he knows what top gear 
he wants, he can decide how (or if) he wants to realize it.

I think that is really all there is to it, but I can't resist going 
overboard on gear inch minutia.
Anybody not amused by, or interested in, such nonsense (possibly including 
John) may want to stop reading now, if they haven't already.

The OP said he had 700c 30mm tires. By measuring roll out, I've gotten 
26.26" and 26.86" as the effective rolling radius for 23 and 33mm 700c 
tires respectively. Based on that I estimate the OP's effective radius is 
26.7". So for the OP's wheels I get:
  40-11  =   97.1
  41-11  =   99.5
  42-11  = 101.9
  44-11  = 106.8
  46-11  = 111.7
Making both 40-11 and 42-11 very close to the "magic number" of 100 GI, 
with 42-11 being closer to it than 40-11. (does anybody make 110BCD 41t 
chainrings?)

For a 700c 23mm tire I get:
   53   50 48  46
11  126.5  119.4 114.6 109.8
12  116.0  109.4 105.0 100.7
13  107.1  101.0  97.0   92.9
14   99.493.8  90.0   86.3

John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the 
term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I 
was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 
racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) 
useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John 
seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if 
competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 
combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.

Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"
I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx 
freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it 
thats what 70's Schwinns had. Learn something new every day.
I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 
130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as opposed 
to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were ubiquitous on 
"racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came on the scene. By 
that time I believe cassettes typically started at 13, 12, or even 11 
teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 52-14 top gears and 
130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of any importance, just 
saying thats what I thought.

If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness but 
it seems I can't help myself.
John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also says 
2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that rather 
inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" is 
insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess occur in a 
delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? If the target is 
99" why all the talk about a magic and recommended 100" value that he seems 
to treat more like an upper bound than an actual target?

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 8:06:37 PM UTC-8, John Hawrylak wrote:
>
> Ted
>
> I am sorry, By 52-14 I meant a 52T large ring and 14T smallest cog.  This 
> gives a 98 to 100GI value for 27x1" to 27x1-1/4" (common in the 70's) and 
> also for 700x25 to 700x32.  the 2GI difference is insignificant.
>
> The 100GI top value is the same as Schwinn explained in the their 70's 
> catalogs, a top gear for 'normal" people. Of course racers would use a 
> higher gear.  I found a 93GI to be about a half step too low, so a 98 to 
> 100GI top is very reasonable.  I agree 100GI is arbitrary, but was 
> recommended by Schwinn as a good starting point for normal people.
>
> I simply do not see any logical reason for a 50T large ring and 11T small 
> cog (current setup of the OP, I thought he had a 46)   at 122GI.  Even a 
>

Re: [RBW] Re: Multi Use Path Etiquette

[Ron Mc]

Our greenways and users are all pretty nice, but always expect the 
unexpected.  
The stupidest thing of all, today there was a road bike group with 25+ 
riders on the greenway, and heading toward the busiest part of our greenway 
system.  
Luckily I had already done that part earlier in the morning and was heading 
the opposite direction.  

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[John Hawrylak]

Ted

I used Jim Youngs Gear Calculator for the GI values for a 7000x32.   
http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/gearcalc.php

You asked;  (does anybody make 110BCD 41t chainrings?) Yes TA 
Specialties and RBW has 43T Silver and a 40T Sugino.  GP has a good write 
up in the Silver ring section about too high gears.   RBW even has a XD2 
with 40T and 26T as the wide/Low double

A range of 97-101 is fine.  A 46-11 and 50-11 are clearly higher than the 
suggested range.

I totally agree with riding and seeing what you need.  The OP probably has 
done this.  Most people complain about never using the top gears on 9-10-11 
speed cassettes with 11T small cog.  I am merely pointing this out with a 
suggested 97-101 GI range.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 6:37:09 PM UTC-5, ted wrote:

> Hey John,
>
> My tone was inappropriate, and I got way off the point right off the bat. 
> My bad, I apologize.
>
> I agree that 98 to 100 inches for a top gear is reasonable advice. Many 
> riders probably find a top gear like that ideal.
> However, as you note, YMMV. I think many riders would find a top gear 
> larger (or smaller) than that ideal. I think the notion of "normal" people 
> takes in a range of fitness levels and cadence preferences that result in 
> preferred top gears ranging over more than 2 gear inches. Honing in on a 2" 
> range that is about plus or minus 1% is quite narrow, rather specific.
>
> Luckily for the OP, he can easily determine for himself what his ideal top 
> gear is.
> All he has to do is ride the bike he has, equipped the way it is, on the 
> kinds of rides he wants to do with it, and pay attention to what gears he 
> actually uses. If one of his current combinations hits his sweet spot, that 
> is it. If one of his combinations is a tad too big and another is a tad too 
> small, then half way between those two is it. I seriously doubt he will 
> want something taller than the 50-11 he currently has. This approach is 
> very reliable, simple, and costs him no money. Once he knows what top gear 
> he wants, he can decide how (or if) he wants to realize it.
>
> I think that is really all there is to it, but I can't resist going 
> overboard on gear inch minutia.
> Anybody not amused by, or interested in, such nonsense (possibly including 
> John) may want to stop reading now, if they haven't already.
>
> The OP said he had 700c 30mm tires. By measuring roll out, I've gotten 
> 26.26" and 26.86" as the effective rolling radius for 23 and 33mm 700c 
> tires respectively. Based on that I estimate the OP's effective radius is 
> 26.7". So for the OP's wheels I get:
>   40-11  =   97.1
>   41-11  =   99.5
>   42-11  = 101.9
>   44-11  = 106.8
>   46-11  = 111.7
> Making both 40-11 and 42-11 very close to the "magic number" of 100 GI, 
> with 42-11 being closer to it than 40-11. (does anybody make 110BCD 41t 
> chainrings?)
>
> For a 700c 23mm tire I get:
>53   50 48  46
> 11  126.5  119.4 114.6 109.8
> 12  116.0  109.4 105.0 100.7
> 13  107.1  101.0  97.0   92.9
> 14   99.493.8  90.0   86.3
>
> John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the 
> term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I 
> was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 
> racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) 
> useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John 
> seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if 
> competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 
> combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.
>
> Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"
> I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx 
> freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it 
> thats what 70's Schwinns had. Learn something new every day.
> I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 
> 130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as opposed 
> to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were ubiquitous on 
> "racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came on the scene. By 
> that time I believe cassettes typically started at 13, 12, or even 11 
> teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 52-14 top gears and 
> 130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of any importance, just 
> saying thats what I thought.
>
> If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness but 
> it seems I can't help myself.
> John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also says 
> 2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that rather 
> inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" is 
> insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess occur in a 
> delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? If the target is 
> 99" why all the ta

[RBW] Will the Walnut Creek shop be open Monday, 1/2/17?

[Rod Holland]

So, since I was in Berkeley anyway, I walked by another iconic bike shop, also 
closed for the day.
https://goo.gl/photos/dZe4EdkBjPvAVLFS6

rod

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[Call Me Jay]

Thanks again for all of insight!

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-5, Call Me Jay wrote:
>
> It looks like 46-30 cranks are a favorable of RBW owners (I've reviewed 
> the group archive).  I'm interested in getting the insight of folks that 
> are using them in moderately hilly terrain on an unloaded road bike.  I 
> live in northern Connecticut and occasionally
> do mixed surface rides but bike isn't a "gravel bike"---second hand short 
> reach custom road with 11-30 cassette and 700x30 tires.  Is it worth a swap 
> from a 50-34?  Should I just toughen up and join Zwift? While most of my 
> road riding is solo or with my young kids, will I be under geared on casual 
> club rides?  Will the less aggressive gearing be too much overlap with 
> other bikes in my Riv stash---Homer with a triple; Legolas on order that 
> I'm planning on specing with a 46-28 as a pure dirt road/CX bike?
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[Call Me Jay]

Lots for me to ponder here.  Thanks everyone.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-5, Call Me Jay wrote:
>
> It looks like 46-30 cranks are a favorable of RBW owners (I've reviewed 
> the group archive).  I'm interested in getting the insight of folks that 
> are using them in moderately hilly terrain on an unloaded road bike.  I 
> live in northern Connecticut and occasionally
> do mixed surface rides but bike isn't a "gravel bike"---second hand short 
> reach custom road with 11-30 cassette and 700x30 tires.  Is it worth a swap 
> from a 50-34?  Should I just toughen up and join Zwift? While most of my 
> road riding is solo or with my young kids, will I be under geared on casual 
> club rides?  Will the less aggressive gearing be too much overlap with 
> other bikes in my Riv stash---Homer with a triple; Legolas on order that 
> I'm planning on specing with a 46-28 as a pure dirt road/CX bike?
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] New (to-me) Roadeo!

[Paul Y]

I just bought this 59cm Roadeo from Tim on the board. 

After six years of living on the Sam and finding no other bike able to replace 
its position in the stable, moving to the Roadeo feels like a leap of faith. I 
had initially considered a Lyon (was not entertaining international orders) and 
then Boulder (Mike seemed a bit too busy to reply emails). Then finally had the 
realization that I was much more Rivified than I thought, having read this 
board everyday for years and having really REALLY grown into my Sam.

Hoping to do a SR on it the Roadeo this year and fingers crossed, PBP 2019, but 
the plan is also for this to replace my Sam as the commuter.

Pics from my shakedown ride:
https://flic.kr/p/QN8vdm
https://flic.kr/p/QFaCGn

Tektro 539s
Rich built 105/SON28 A23
8 speed Sora cassette 
32mm Compass Stampede Pass
All other parts are from the hillborne and were standard Riv issue in 2010, 
except my much-missed silver shifters which suffer the stuck-cable-end syndrome 
:(

The Roadeo feels incredibly different from the Sam (56cm double TT). More 
spritely, less robust, certainly more squirrelly at speed but I'm still sorting 
out my riding position at this stage. Gets up to speed much quicker and more 
effortlessly. Already missing the rack mounts and ability to mount a 
kickstand... but I wanted a faster bike and everything can be gotten used to!

I have a Bagman support and fender nuts on order after which a Nelson longflap 
and 45mm sks chromoplastics will join the party and normalcy can return!

Thanks for sharing in my joy :)

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Will the Walnut Creek shop be open Monday, 1/2/17?

[Joe Bernard]

Has it ever been open for the day? ;-)

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[Steve Palincsar]

On 01/02/2017 06:37 PM, ted wrote:


John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see 
the term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a 
bicycle. I was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle 
aged local cat 4 racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 
700c 23mm tires) useful on group rides with a local racing oriented 
group. So I think John seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. 
It wouldn't surprise me if competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way 
from pro caliber) found a 50-11 combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.




Use cases for 50x11 (or gears that high in general):

- tandems
- sprinting at the finish of a race
- very strong riders riding fast in a pace line
- pedaling while going down several mile long hills

Making your living riding has nothing to do with it.





Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"
I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx 
freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take 
it thats what 70's Schwinns had.


1970s Paramounts had Campagnolo Record cranks.  144mm BCD, I think.



Learn something new every day.
I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 
130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as 
opposed to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were 
ubiquitous on "racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came 
on the scene. By that time I believe cassettes typically started at 
13, 12, or even 11 teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 
52-14 top gears and 130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of 
any importance, just saying thats what I thought.


If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness 
but it seems I can't help myself.


Work on it.

John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also 
says 2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that 
rather inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" 
is insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess 
occur in a delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? 
If the target is 99" why all the talk about a magic and recommended 
100" value that he seems to treat more like an upper bound than an 
actual target?


All snarkiness aside, I had a 104" top gear on my 1972 P-15 Paramount as 
originally delivered.  I found it way too high.  I changed the freewheel 
(had no choice, really: the shop destroyed the Regina Oro when trying to 
remove it for the first service) to one with a 15T that brought the top 
gear down to a 97" and found that it made a huge difference: top gear 
was now usable.  It made as profound a change in the usefulness of the 
bike as switching the granny to a Merz 31.  That was a 27 x 1 1/4" 
wheel, 54T big ring. Make of that what you will.   And back then, I 
lived in the Catskills, where we did have some big long mountains to 
ride down, unlike now where most of my "downhills" are stream-cut gorges 
no more than 150' deep and 0.3 - 0.6 mi.


These days, everything of mine is in the 96 - 99" range (except the 
Moulton, which is in the mid-80s).


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[ted]

John,

Thanks for pointing out that TA makes 41t chainrings. Im well aware of GPs 
writings re too big gears. One of my bikes currently has Silver 25 and 43 
rings sandwiching a TA 33 on Sugino arms I got from RBW. Prior to that it 
was set up as a 26/40 with chain guard, and before that as a 24/40. I 
originally paired the 24/40 with a 8sp 11-32 based on a suggestion 
attributed to Kevin (I think), saying it gave "all the low you need, and 
all the high you need" or something close to that.

Sounds like we are in complete agreement about one thing: if you don't like 
your 11t cog because it is "useless", your big chainring is too big.

Too bad that gear calculator you use doesn't support 700x30 wheel size, 
though the math is so simple its easy to do it yourself.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 5:57:33 PM UTC-8, John Hawrylak wrote:
>
>
> Ted
>
> I used Jim Youngs Gear Calculator for the GI values for a 7000x32.   
> http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/gearcalc.php
>
> You asked;  (does anybody make 110BCD 41t chainrings?) Yes TA 
> Specialties and RBW has 43T Silver and a 40T Sugino.  GP has a good write 
> up in the Silver ring section about too high gears.   RBW even has a XD2 
> with 40T and 26T as the wide/Low double
>
> A range of 97-101 is fine.  A 46-11 and 50-11 are clearly higher than the 
> suggested range.
>
> I totally agree with riding and seeing what you need.  The OP probably has 
> done this.  Most people complain about never using the top gears on 9-10-11 
> speed cassettes with 11T small cog.  I am merely pointing this out with a 
> suggested 97-101 GI range.
>
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 6:37:09 PM UTC-5, ted wrote:
>
>> Hey John,
>>
>> My tone was inappropriate, and I got way off the point right off the bat. 
>> My bad, I apologize.
>>
>> I agree that 98 to 100 inches for a top gear is reasonable advice. Many 
>> riders probably find a top gear like that ideal.
>> However, as you note, YMMV. I think many riders would find a top gear 
>> larger (or smaller) than that ideal. I think the notion of "normal" people 
>> takes in a range of fitness levels and cadence preferences that result in 
>> preferred top gears ranging over more than 2 gear inches. Honing in on a 2" 
>> range that is about plus or minus 1% is quite narrow, rather specific.
>>
>> Luckily for the OP, he can easily determine for himself what his ideal 
>> top gear is.
>> All he has to do is ride the bike he has, equipped the way it is, on the 
>> kinds of rides he wants to do with it, and pay attention to what gears he 
>> actually uses. If one of his current combinations hits his sweet spot, that 
>> is it. If one of his combinations is a tad too big and another is a tad too 
>> small, then half way between those two is it. I seriously doubt he will 
>> want something taller than the 50-11 he currently has. This approach is 
>> very reliable, simple, and costs him no money. Once he knows what top gear 
>> he wants, he can decide how (or if) he wants to realize it.
>>
>> I think that is really all there is to it, but I can't resist going 
>> overboard on gear inch minutia.
>> Anybody not amused by, or interested in, such nonsense (possibly 
>> including John) may want to stop reading now, if they haven't already.
>>
>> The OP said he had 700c 30mm tires. By measuring roll out, I've gotten 
>> 26.26" and 26.86" as the effective rolling radius for 23 and 33mm 700c 
>> tires respectively. Based on that I estimate the OP's effective radius is 
>> 26.7". So for the OP's wheels I get:
>>   40-11  =   97.1
>>   41-11  =   99.5
>>   42-11  = 101.9
>>   44-11  = 106.8
>>   46-11  = 111.7
>> Making both 40-11 and 42-11 very close to the "magic number" of 100 GI, 
>> with 42-11 being closer to it than 40-11. (does anybody make 110BCD 41t 
>> chainrings?)
>>
>> For a 700c 23mm tire I get:
>>53   50 48  46
>> 11  126.5  119.4 114.6 109.8
>> 12  116.0  109.4 105.0 100.7
>> 13  107.1  101.0  97.0   92.9
>> 14   99.493.8  90.0   86.3
>>
>> John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the 
>> term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I 
>> was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 
>> racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) 
>> useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John 
>> seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if 
>> competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 
>> combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.
>>
>> Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"
>> I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx 
>> freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it 
>> thats what 70's Schwinns had. Learn something new every day.
>> I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 
>> 130BCD standard emerged much later to allow t

Re: [RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[ted]

Steve writes:
"... I had a 104" top gear on my 1972 P-15 Paramount as originally 
delivered.  I found it way too high.  I changed the freewheel (had no 
choice, really: the shop destroyed the Regina Oro when trying to remove it 
for the first service) to one with a 15T that brought the top gear down to 
a 97" and found that it made a huge difference: top gear was now usable.  
It made as profound a change in the usefulness of the bike as switching the 
granny to a Merz 31.  That was a 27 x 1 1/4" wheel, 54T big ring.  Make of 
that what you will. ..."

Of which I make
Steve believes a 27x1-1/4" wheel has an effective radius of 27"
That he found the 54-14 104" top gear on his 1972 P-15 Paramount too high 
for his liking.
That the ~7% smaller 97" gear he got by replacing his 14-xx freewheel with 
a 15-xx one suited him much better.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:29:29 PM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> On 01/02/2017 06:37 PM, ted wrote:
>
>
> John wrote: "46-11 = 113GI, pretty high for all but pros". When I see the 
> term "pro" there I think of somebody who makes a living racing a bicycle. I 
> was never a pro, never even really competitive as a middle aged local cat 4 
> racer wana be, but I did find a 116" gear (53-12 with 700c 23mm tires) 
> useful on group rides with a local racing oriented group. So I think John 
> seriously over stated how high a 46-11 gear is. It wouldn't surprise me if 
> competitive local cat 3 racers (a long way from pro caliber) found a 50-11 
> combination (yielding ~120GI) useful.
>
>
> Use cases for 50x11 (or gears that high in general):
>
> - tandems
> - sprinting at the finish of a race
> - very strong riders riding fast in a pace line
> - pedaling while going down several mile long hills
>
> Making your living riding has nothing to do with it.
>
>
>
>
> Veering onto antique standards, John wrote: "... from 52-14 130BCD days"
> I had no idea 130BCD cranks with 52t big rings and 14-xx 
> freewheels (emphasis on the 130BCD) were ever a common thing. I take it 
> thats what 70's Schwinns had.
>
>
> 1970s Paramounts had Campagnolo Record cranks.  144mm BCD, I think.
>
>
> Learn something new every day.
> I always thought the Campi 144BCD was standard back then and that the 
> 130BCD standard emerged much later to allow the 39t small ring (as opposed 
> to the previously prevalent 42) of the 53/39 cranks that were ubiquitous on 
> "racing" bikes before 50/34 110BCD "compact cranks" came on the scene. By 
> that time I believe cassettes typically started at 13, 12, or even 11 
> teeth. So I didn't think there was ever a time when 52-14 top gears and 
> 130BCD cranks went together. Not that that is of any importance, just 
> saying thats what I thought.
>
> If anybody is still reading, I apologize for the impending snarkyness but 
> it seems I can't help myself.
>
>
> Work on it.
>
> John recommends 98-100 inches which is 99" plus or minus 1". He also says 
> 2" is insignificant, and says 103" is too high. I find all that rather 
> inconsistent. If 3" too many is too much, I wouldn't think 2" is 
> insignificant. Does the transition from insignificance to excess occur in a 
> delta of <1%? If 2" is insignificant, why not 97 to 101"? If the target is 
> 99" why all the talk about a magic and recommended 100" value that he seems 
> to treat more like an upper bound than an actual target?
>
>
> All snarkiness aside, I had a 104" top gear on my 1972 P-15 Paramount as 
> originally delivered.  I found it way too high.  I changed the freewheel 
> (had no choice, really: the shop destroyed the Regina Oro when trying to 
> remove it for the first service) to one with a 15T that brought the top 
> gear down to a 97" and found that it made a huge difference: top gear was 
> now usable.  It made as profound a change in the usefulness of the bike as 
> switching the granny to a Merz 31.  That was a 27 x 1 1/4" wheel, 54T big 
> ring.  Make of that what you will.   And back then, I lived in the 
> Catskills, where we did have some big long mountains to ride down, unlike 
> now where most of my "downhills" are stream-cut gorges no more than 150' 
> deep and 0.3 - 0.6 mi.
>
> These days, everything of mine is in the 96 - 99" range (except the 
> Moulton, which is in the mid-80s).   
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[Garth]

While I am not familiar with every type of casette, but are not the 
smallest/lock ring cogs individual and easily replaced with a 12 or whatever on 
most cassettes ?  Ceratainly a bit more simple than trying to configure rings 
around a cog/cogs you do not want or need. I would rather have gears I could 
actually use on the top end myself .  

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Clem / long CS CROW PIE!

[Bustini]

I have a 52 Clem and a 55 Appaloosa.The Clem is super smooth. That thing 
glides on pavement! The Appa is not quite as "plush", a bit quicker 
steering. Both bikes inspire confidence in corners. They are both great 
bikes to ride. Smiles very time!

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 1:11:07 PM UTC-8, Richard Rios wrote:
>
> So a few weeks back The Wheelhouse los angeles posted on their facebook 
> page that they had some Clems, Appas, and Sams in stock. So I though Howdee 
> I live close enough to there to grab a quick look. And there is a pretty 
> decent ramen shop near by score twofer! Also to be completely honest the 
> new bike bug has been biting a bit. Anyhow I stopped by to check out the 
> bikes, the clem that was my size 52 had already been sold and I have owned 
> a Sam so I was offered a test ride on the Appa. It was a size to small but 
> they got things close enough for me to take it for a spin...and well WOW 
> was I surprised! Not that I should have been per say but I was. Two words 
> Smooth and responsive! Like a Caddie with Porsche handling! Also loved the 
> choco moose bars that were on there. The forward hand position felt really 
> good to me and natural better than that of the Albas for compairson. So as 
> for the crow I've been a bit of a poopooer on the whole long CS thing. Not 
> in any major way but based on my experience with a particular bike. Now I 
> don't know if the feeling I got was because of the smaller frame or bar 
> position or simply because it was a parking lot test ride and the bike is 
> STUNNING! But man was I impressed. So much so I whent ahead and ordered a 
> Clem. Not the appa I know but I had sold a few bikes recently and thats 
> what I had the scratch for. Still might be an appa in my future as an 
> upgrade from clem if need be. Anyway when the Clem arrives I sure hope I 
> have the same experience all over again and get to eat a great big giant 
> Clem Smith / long CS CROW pie!

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: 46-30 crank on an unloaded road bike

[ted]

Garth,
I suppose, sure. Though really its the gear (ratio of chainring over cog) 
that you don't want, so you can blame it on either the cog or the ring. Are 
you configuring rings around a cog you don't want, or cogs around a ring 
you don't want? I suppose either point of view is equally valid. Whether or 
not reconfiguring off the shelf cassettes is simpler than picking 
chainrings is probably a matter on which reasonable people might disagree. 
Also cassettes seem to wear out more frequently than cranks/chainrings, so 
if you choose the route of reconfiguring cassettes you may have to deal 
with the matter more frequently.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:19:28 PM UTC-8, Garth wrote:
>
> While I am not familiar with every type of casette, but are not the 
> smallest/lock ring cogs individual and easily replaced with a 12 or 
> whatever on most cassettes ?  Ceratainly a bit more simple than trying to 
> configure rings around a cog/cogs you do not want or need. I would rather 
> have gears I could actually use on the top end myself .  
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.