[RBW] Re: Bosco Knuckle Clearance?

[iamkeith]

I have these Velo Orange levers on my bosco bar.  They work well.  I'll 
take a photo tomorrow, when it's light out:

https://velo-orange.com/collections/brake-levers/products/city-bike-brakes-levers

I'm not sure I'd say they're easy to operate from a forward position, on 
the curved part of the bar, though.  Prior to these, I tried dia compe 
guidonnet levers (shown here on the VO site, by coincidence), and they WERE 
operable from the curve as well as the straight section.  

https://velo-orange.blogspot.com/2009/08/guidonnet-levers.html?m=1

I didn't realize at the time, that I had the wrong version, meant for 
fatter road bar diameter bars, which was preventing me from fully clamping 
them,  and thus allowing the levers to rotate when operated from certain 
positions.  I thought it was a design flaw, and only after subsequently 
installing the city brake levers, realized that my error was just a clamp 
size.  I wish I'd figured it out and given them a more fair try -  but I do 
like both.  They both allow for full bar wrapping, like a drop bar or even 
better, and  solve the knuckle clearance issue.  Flat bar levers don't seem 
to make sense for these bars, to my thinking.  Plus, why spend more?!

One caution:  With the city bike lever, I did have to raise my bars a bit 
more than I prefer.  Otherwise, the end of the lever was aimed right at my 
top tube...  a dent and heartbreak waiting to happen.  (This only equated 
to about 1" of stem showing, above full insertion, but the bullmoose stem 
has a lot of rise built in.)


³
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7 Andrew Letton wrote:

> Hello Good Listers,
>
> I have (55cm CroMo) Bosco bars and Shimano BL-R780 levers on my old Shogun 
> kid-hauler/commuter, and I find that I just can't get the brake levers in a 
> position that both works well for braking and gives clearance for my big 
> knuckles when I have my hands on the top of the curve, forward of the 
> levers.  I got in an "altercation" with a car a month ago (they turned in 
> front of me, and I slammed into the side of their car at speed) and while 
> my fractured shoulder and torn MCL are healing, I'd like to complete the 
> bike repairs, so it's ready to ride when I am. The left brake lever 
> suffered some damage, so I'm looking at replacing these with levers that 
> have more knuckle clearance between the bars and the adjusters. The two 
> levers that look promising online are the Paul Love Levers and the IRD 
> Cafam levers, but I'm open to other long-pull candidates.
>
> *If you have Love Levers, the Cafams, or some other lever you think would 
> be a good candidate, would you mind measuring the distance from the 
> adjuster to the handlebar (assuming a straight bar, for consistency) and 
> reporting back here?*  The dimension on these Shimano levers is about 
> 28mm.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andrew in Sydney
>
> [image: Inline image]
>
> [image: Inline image]
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/20986bff-0303-4dc3-8f0a-797939c807ebn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bosco Knuckle Clearance?

[iamkeith]

Oh - maybe never mind.  You said long-pull.  Oh, well, I'll take a picture 
anyway, in case it helps someone else..

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I have these Velo Orange levers on my bosco bar.  They work well.  I'll 
> take a photo tomorrow, when it's light out:
>
>
> https://velo-orange.com/collections/brake-levers/products/city-bike-brakes-levers
>
> I'm not sure I'd say they're easy to operate from a forward position, on 
> the curved part of the bar, though.  Prior to these, I tried dia compe 
> guidonnet levers (shown here on the VO site, by coincidence), and they WERE 
> operable from the curve as well as the straight section.  
>
> https://velo-orange.blogspot.com/2009/08/guidonnet-levers.html?m=1
>
> I didn't realize at the time, that I had the wrong version, meant for 
> fatter road bar diameter bars, which was preventing me from fully clamping 
> them,  and thus allowing the levers to rotate when operated from certain 
> positions.  I thought it was a design flaw, and only after subsequently 
> installing the city brake levers, realized that my error was just a clamp 
> size.  I wish I'd figured it out and given them a more fair try -  but I do 
> like both.  They both allow for full bar wrapping, like a drop bar or even 
> better, and  solve the knuckle clearance issue.  Flat bar levers don't seem 
> to make sense for these bars, to my thinking.  Plus, why spend more?!
>
> One caution:  With the city bike lever, I did have to raise my bars a bit 
> more than I prefer.  Otherwise, the end of the lever was aimed right at my 
> top tube...  a dent and heartbreak waiting to happen.  (This only equated 
> to about 1" of stem showing, above full insertion, but the bullmoose stem 
> has a lot of rise built in.)
>
>
> ³
> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7 Andrew Letton wrote:
>
>> Hello Good Listers,
>>
>> I have (55cm CroMo) Bosco bars and Shimano BL-R780 levers on my old 
>> Shogun kid-hauler/commuter, and I find that I just can't get the brake 
>> levers in a position that both works well for braking and gives clearance 
>> for my big knuckles when I have my hands on the top of the curve, forward 
>> of the levers.  I got in an "altercation" with a car a month ago (they 
>> turned in front of me, and I slammed into the side of their car at speed) 
>> and while my fractured shoulder and torn MCL are healing, I'd like to 
>> complete the bike repairs, so it's ready to ride when I am. The left brake 
>> lever suffered some damage, so I'm looking at replacing these with levers 
>> that have more knuckle clearance between the bars and the adjusters. The 
>> two levers that look promising online are the Paul Love Levers and the IRD 
>> Cafam levers, but I'm open to other long-pull candidates.
>>
>> *If you have Love Levers, the Cafams, or some other lever you think would 
>> be a good candidate, would you mind measuring the distance from the 
>> adjuster to the handlebar (assuming a straight bar, for consistency) and 
>> reporting back here?*  The dimension on these Shimano levers is about 
>> 28mm.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Andrew in Sydney
>>
>> [image: Inline image]
>>
>> [image: Inline image]
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/08c6f621-b6eb-427d-b6e1-c439ef84c71fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Fender Install, Clem 52, SKS B65

[iamkeith]

I had to make a small notch for the chain to clear, when on the small ring 
of a triple crank
  Mine's a 59, and it's probably somewhat dependent on crank/bb choice.  No 
other trimming though.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:16:11 AM UTC-7 pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey out there. Ordered some B65 fenders for my 52 Clem and am wondering if 
> they required trimming? 
>
> TIA
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f5d292f9-f070-4376-adb3-6a6d0d7bb0a7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[iamkeith]

That's cool about your serial number.  If there was ever a question, you 
for sure can never sell now.

Crank is VERY attractive, too.  I like arms with the fattened ends where 
the pedal spindle attaches, but it does make it harder to use a single mold 
for multiple arm lengths.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> One detail from the narrative on Roman's Legolas:  His serial number is 
> MN18RMS.  (M)ark (N)obilette 20(18) (RMS) Roman's initials.  Sure enough I 
> looked at my serial number and it's got my initials too!  That's pretty 
> fun.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at Roman's 
>> Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time, so I 
>> always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 
>>
>> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset. 
>>  Looks pretty cool!
>>
>> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ddf489bf-6115-46ce-9035-9b9dac253854n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: son hub sales anywhere?

[iamkeith]

Don't forget about Peter White.  Also:  not to be argumentative, because 
I'm always on the lookout for sales and deals myself, but I think it might  
be an unrealisic expectation in this case.  If you want the best, you 
usually pay what it's worth.  In the case of anything that Petrr sells, I 
usually realize it's a bargain after researching and shopping and comparing 
enough.  I honestly don't know how a small, real, bike shop like his can 
offer the things he offers at such good prices.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:49:11 PM UTC-7 Sean, PNW wrote:

> I haven't checked in a year or so, but the last few SON hubs I purchased 
> were all from European mail order sites (SJS/Bike24/Condor/Berthoud/etc) 
> and were significantly cheaper as a result of favorable exchange rates and 
> no VAT, despite the shipping cost.
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-8 in...@brentknepper.com 
> wrote:
>
>> hi pals, I'm considering buying a widebody 32h son hub in the near 
>> future. just checking if anyone's seen them pop up on any of the consumer 
>> bacchanalia sales over the weekend :)
>>
>> Brent "always asks Bacchus for a discount" in chicago
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e8c597fb-541c-47d8-b61d-a20d26c5c125n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: PSA: Brooks B68

[iamkeith]

Does this mean Riv can start selling the a la carte?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:40:17 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Hope you guys get yours quick. I put in an order for another item a month 
> ago at tradeinn and it still hasn’t shown up. 
>
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-7 Josh C wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I grabbed one. My wife ordered one with her Platy, that has yet 
>> to ship, and it got me wanting to try it out for myself. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:22:12 PM UTC-5 maxcr wrote:
>>
>>> PSA: I bought mine here a while back and saw they have some in stock:
>>>
>>> Brooks england B68 Saddle, Brown | Bikeinn 
>>> 
>>> tradeinn.com 
>>> 
>>> [image: icon-180x180.png] 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2b5eabc4-9eb5-4965-a654-8279d7fa131bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 1st world commuting dilemma

[iamkeith]

I can't seem to get past Josiah's reply, referring to Missoula and the U of 
M as having a notorious bike theft problem.  If that's true, then things 
have really changed since I went to college in Montana (MSU) in the 1980s, 
and is very sad.  I can't help but think/hope though, that bike theft there 
is mostly a crime of convenience?  College kids taking someone else's bike 
home from the bar, perhaps?  I can't even fathom it being as bad as Denver, 
where my daughter now attends college, and where bike theft is a 
full-fledged industry, and where the police turn a blind eye even when 
someone locates their stolen bike.  Thieves there use cordless angle 
grinders to cut locks in broad daylight, with no fear of repercussion.

What matters is crime conditions in Indianapolis though, and Josh's 
tollerance for risk.  I'm going to take the contrarian view, and say don't 
ride anything that you're not WILLING to lose.   If theft occurs locally on 
any kind of regular basis, just concede that it's inevitable.  Economics 
would matter more than brand to a thief - so they should to you, too.  If 
you can afford to replace the bike without it being a hardship, then go for 
it.  You can still get your current Atlantis, so there's not even the 
"irreplaceable" consideration that you'd have with the hunquapillar.   

On the other hand, if losing the bike is going to be a hardship or cause 
you to loose sleep and become bitter, get a "true" beater, and tune it for 
efficiency.   The fact that you're asking this question tells me you have 
some concerns.

But my opinion is  based on my own priorities and the life choices I've 
made, which are probably different than most people's..  I deliberately 
chose to live in a place where theft is non-existent, even though that 
choice came with career limitations and economic implications.  Partly for 
that reason, I tend to treasure my nice bikes and think of them as lifetime 
investments or heirlooms.  I usually don't have to make this choice, but I 
think I'd be happy to make riding them a stricly "special event," while 
having a dedicated sacrificial bike for the mundane.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2dfe27a-ff5a-4799-9dc1-d4a53c7716e4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Coaster Brakes for a Beachy Clem Build

[iamkeith]

You may get lucky with a "magic gear" ratio, that doesn't require a 
tensioner.  This will help:

https://eehouse.org/fixin/formfmu

The chain will eventually stretch and droop though, and that might be 
exacerbated by the longer-than-normal length.  

A drum brake is probably a better idea though.  You could even get this 
with a 3-speed igh.

Interested to see what you come up with.  This is why I was so excited when 
the Roaduno was going to be a single-speed clem.  I wanted to do the same 
thing for the exact same reason.  I want a "nice" bike to keep at a family 
condo in Florida, because I go stir crazy otherwise.
On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 1:22:39 PM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> Handsome has some coaster wheels for ~$150, but spaced at 110mm:
>
>
> https://handsomecycles.com/products/handsome-handbuilt-rear-wheel-single-speed-coaster-brake-aluminum-700c-silver
>
> Eric
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:58 PM Justin Kennedy  
> wrote:
>
>> I'm considering converting my 64 Clem L frame into a beach cruiser and 
>> kid hauler to keep at my in-laws' place in Florida. The bike is currently 
>> stripped down to just F/F/HS/BB, so starting from scratch here. I can 
>> source most of the components from my various parts bins, but looking into 
>> doing a coaster brake set up which I do not have on-hand. 
>>
>> Anyone have experience with setting up a coaster brake'd bike? (Not 
>> specifically on a Clem, just any bike in general.) I see MONē has a pretty 
>> bas 
>> ass coaster brake wheel 
>>  that's 
>> built on-demand, but I'm not sure it's worth $325++ as I'd prefer to keep 
>> the build as inexpensive as possible (we're only down there a few times a 
>> year). Any other off-the-shelf coaster brake wheelset recommendations? 
>>
>> Also, what other fun components make it a certified beach cruiser? I have 
>> some VO Klunker bars to throw on there and I got some some inspirational 
>> ideas at the two below links (LOOK barefoot pedals per Crust Matt's 
>> Romanceur, pops of anodized components, etc.). Maybe a B-O-B or Frances 
>> Cycles trailer to haul gear to the beach? What else is fun? 
>>
>>
>> https://theradavist.com/the-coaster-brake-challenge-and-yall-thought-you-were-a-freak/
>>
>> https://droppedchain.com/first-gen-romanceur/
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d0786edc-83ec-4e0d-810e-69e9ce105782n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0bcb6e68-2bad-437b-8c8a-9046f97dee21n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Roaduno

[iamkeith]

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:32:33 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the new bike 
is very similar to a Homer geometrically.  


It's hard to keep up with changes, and I think we just need to wait until 
the end to know for sure what it'll be.  After that "just like a Homer" 
update, it seemed to get really long chainstays - much longer than the 
Homer.   Buy now they do say they're going to get shorter again.  
 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/998f9cb4-5321-45c2-8d60-8955a7010f2bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
> brakes. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>
>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
>>> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
>>> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and 
>>> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>>>
>>> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
>>> instead. 
>>>
>>> Eric
>>> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
>>> Plain City OH
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>>>
 When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
 stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single 
 speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
 courtesy of cantilever mounts.

 The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being 
 designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal 
 interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase 
 ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the 
 whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
 shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.

 I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
 speed Lightning Bolt.
 But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position 
 some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for. 
 But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear 
 and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push 
 back against my inner purist ;-)
 Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.

 Mike M



 On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:

>
> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your 
>> own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair 
>> of 
>> long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell. 
>>  
>> One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and 
>> geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake 
>> blocks 
>> and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some 
>> corrosion 
>> visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is 
>> the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice 
>> metal 
>> pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some 
>> point 
>> he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one 
>> brake, 
>> grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake 
>> and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55 
>> shipped for the 556s.
>>
>> Photos:
>>
>> 556
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> 365
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the 
>>> new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some 
>>> reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
>>> all 
>>> the details.
>>
>> -- 

>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-cc9838f95609n%40googlegroups.com
  
>>>

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
newsletter:




The Racer Brake
Making the Classics Even Classier



We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.

You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
what they are yet.

Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=7994ab722d&e=f5449e7ee3>,
 
and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=1c3617e3b3&e=f5449e7ee3>.
 *

Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.

Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
for conversion.

What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
stopping.

Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
NEW VIDEO PAGE 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=f8b185241f&e=f5449e7ee3>,
 
where all of our videos can be found.

Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).

[image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=8b61987dd6&e=f5449e7ee3>
Product page, plus video 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=be57d4a7cb&e=f5449e7ee3>
.

Watch on YouTube 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=c4a111f0d9&e=f5449e7ee3>


On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:

> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>
> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
> the post mount Racers. 
> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on the 
> Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing and 
> much more affordable brakes. 
> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in wet 
> weather braking generally suck.
>
> Mike M
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>
>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>
>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>
>> Max Beach
>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
>>> decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
>>> officially discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 
>>> for a pair, but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>>>> brakes. 
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I can live with the hanger and shifter 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

If you watch that video from the youtube link at the end, he explains why 
the Racer is stiffer than more-common long-reach brakes.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:04:14 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
> originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
> acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
> useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
> center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
> newsletter:
>
>
>
>
> The Racer Brake
> Making the Classics Even Classier
>
>
>
> We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.
>
> You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
> what they are yet.
>
> Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=7994ab722d&e=f5449e7ee3>,
>  
> and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
> 27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=1c3617e3b3&e=f5449e7ee3>.
>  *
>
> Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.
>
> Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
> centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
> pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
> for conversion.
>
> What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
> your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
> stopping.
>
> Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
> NEW VIDEO PAGE 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=f8b185241f&e=f5449e7ee3>,
>  
> where all of our videos can be found.
>
> Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
> black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).
>
> [image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=8b61987dd6&e=f5449e7ee3>
> Product page, plus video 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=be57d4a7cb&e=f5449e7ee3>
> .
>
> Watch on YouTube 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=c4a111f0d9&e=f5449e7ee3>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:
>
>> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>>
>> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
>> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
>> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
>> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
>> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
>> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
>> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
>> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
>> the post mount Racers. 
>> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on 
>> the Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing 
>> and much more affordable brakes. 
>> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in 
>> wet weather braking generally suck.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>>
>>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>>
>>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>>
>>> Max Beach
>>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
>>>> decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
>>>> officially discontinued it just a couple of yea

[RBW] Re: 2024 Frame Schedule

[iamkeith]

I admittedly parse these things to heavily, but the thing that struck me 
was the comma between  Charlie Gallop and nu model.  I assume that refers 
to the Charlie itself, but that barely feels new anymore.  Could there be 
something else we don't know about on the horizon, or was this a 
punctuation oversight??

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:03:05 PM UTC-7 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

> Saw this in the last email:
>
>
>- February - Clems
>- March - Lugged Susies - kind of a new model
>- April - Roaduno bikes and frames - new model
>- May - Sam Hillbornes
>- June - Appaloosas
>- July - Platypus bikes and frames
>- August - Charlie Gallop, nu model, bikes and frames, more info later
>- September - Roadini
>
> Been waiting to pick up a Sam for a lng time. Anyone else have plans 
> to pick up a new frame in 2024? 
>
> Also, Looks like the foreboding about the Atlantis going into retirement 
> is holding true with more appaloosas coming in the summer. Anyone out there 
> still pining for that turquoise dream? 
>
> - Drew  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/97328bc6-d868-4195-99d4-f34e9014c568n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: New Jewelry for my Platypus

[iamkeith]

What a great story!  

In case it didn't come up, you should still try to keep your bike out of 
direct sunlight when you're not riding it.  I've have a fair number of Paul 
components at this point (first ones were those same moto-lite V brakes 
from 1995 or thereabouts), and most of them HAVE faded.  Black is kind of 
brown now.  I doubt it will be like your others, but you might as well 
preserve them the best you can.  Also, if anodizing is anything like paint, 
red tones will naturally oxidize quicker than other colors.

If I remember correctly, there are at least two methods of anodizing.  The 
one Paul uses is much less toxic and more environmentally sound, but 
doesn't impart as hard or glossy or deep of a change to the aluminum.  I'm 
sure I over-simplified that though.
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:17:21 AM UTC-7 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:

> George, never.
>
> The photo I showed was from Paul. It was just to show me the color before 
> they shipped my order to me. Paul  had to break everything into tiny pieces 
> for anodizing and then they put it back together in gorgeous packaging and 
> shipped it to me.
> [image: image0.jpeg][image: image1.jpeg]
>
> On Jan 12, 2024, at 12:30 PM, George Schick  wrote:
>
> Hopefully you took the bike and the brake parts to that good bike shop 
> over there this time where they know what they're doing, not the one that 
> you tried once and they lost some of your parts.
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:07:50 AM UTC-6 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>
>> Marc - my thoughts, too! I know if will fade a little bit over time, but 
>> should not be so severe.
>>
>> Minh, no, these are a new and full set that Paul sent to the anodizer for 
>> me! I did pay extra for that, but it was a nominal fee, I thought. They 
>> don’t usually do the entire brake, usually levers and barrel adjustors, I 
>> think, but we got wild and decided to do the whole kit. We just have to be 
>> careful setting them up, but then it should be fine and shouldn’t mark up 
>> the posts.
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:58 AM, Minh  wrote:
>>
>> pretty cool, so they did not have fully made parts but were able to sell 
>> you a box of partial parts to mix and match your own?  i"m guessing this is 
>> a little too labor intensive to make a regular thing but very nice of them 
>> to still be able to do this. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:55:49 AM UTC-5 Marc Irwin wrote:
>>
>>> If Paul did the anodizing, this time it will be right!
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 8:28:30 PM UTC-5 Bicycle Belle Ding 
>>> Ding! wrote:
>>>
 I have never had Paul anything. I’ve had whatever brakes and levers 
 came with my bikes and didn’t think any more about it. I did get my VO 
 brake levers anodized, but that batch of rose pink ano faded freakishly 
 fast and everything was silver 4 months later. 

 But I’m giving it another chance. Everyone talks about Paul, and Paul 
 sometimes offers their parts in pretty, anodized colors, but currently, 
 they do not. I emailed the company, asking if they happened to have any of 
 their pink levers laying around that they would be willing to sell me. I 
 got an email back from Paul, like THE Paul, who directed me to an employee 
 I won’t name here. He and I got in contact and he was so fun, right from 
 the start. We chatted and he looked at my bikes (I sent him my pics via 
 email) and we made a plan. 

 We colored it all. 

 The bolts, the brake body, the levers, the barrel adjustors ALL of it. 

 The parts came in 3 boxes, plus one extra little envelope. The envelope 
 had a small personalized gift from my new friend at Paul, just because, 
 with a handwritten note in the prettiest handwriting I’ve ever seen. 
 Swoon! 
 I opened the first box and it was wrapped like origami inside. I uncovered 
 the first gorgeous pieces and the breath left my body. So beautiful. 
 Quality even a novice can’t miss. Just what I wanted. Rich, rose color. 

 I would need to be with bike people to get the full joy out of this 
 experience. My bike shop knows about Paul Components. A blizzard is on its 
 way to Michigan and I knew my shop would not be busy. I put the pieces 
 back 
 in the box, loaded the boxes and my bike in the van and drove to the shop. 
 I came in and there were 4 mechanics and zero customers. “Guys!” I said, 
 “I 
 have a fun project for us to do, and I can’t do it without you! Who wants 
 to see what is in these boxes?” 

 So there we were on company time, hovering over these immaculate little 
 parcels, oohing and aahhing. There was extra swag in there, stuff I had 
 never seen. 

 “What’s this?” I asked, holding up a flat, wooden thing with Paul 
 emblems. 

 “It’s a carpenter’s pencil,” said the mechanic. I gave it to him.

 I left th

[RBW] Re: If you plan to get a Roaduno..,

[iamkeith]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:54:57 PM UTC-7 aeroperf wrote:

Whups.  My shopping bike is 130mm.  Looks like I'll have to fix it rather 
than cannibalize it for a Roaduno.


It would be pretty easy to spread the frame by 10mm, given the longish 
chainstays we'reseeing on the prototypes..  Or maybe you can remove a 
spacer on  one or both sides of the axle, and re-dish the  wheel? 

To the original question, I've been thinking about a 3 speed / coaster 
brake too.  If not using caliper brakes allows for a little fatter tire, 
like 55 or 60mm, it will nudge  me even further that way.  

I'm watching this from a classic N+1 starting point.  I don't need a new 
bike - especially since I already have a Quickbeam - but was excited when 
the Roaduno was going to be based on the Clem.  I would definitely use a 
simple, low-maintenance, weather-proof, mud-proof and sand-proof, 
baloon-tired, cruiser sort of thing... that isnt crappy.   The ability to 
use 3 speed IGHs is the best thing about horizontal dropouts, once the 
single-speed novelty wears 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/adb7ac38-a79f-4190-8f46-2d6581742b16n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] big big chain sizing method dilemma

[iamkeith]

I agree with others, that it'll look better when threaded through a mounted 
derailleur.  Definitely do NOT remove another link until you try that 
though.Even so, I have definitely had cases where I still felt like 
there was too much slack, and ended up replacing the B-screw with a longer 
one.  In fact, I was doing that so often that I just bought some in bulk.  
(I think my issue is that Im usually trying to maximize gear range, rather 
than achieve tiny, incremental steps for maintaining cadence.)  In a pinch, 
you can also turn the B-screw around and thread it from the opposite side.  
In that case, UN-screwing it increases the tension.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:40:17 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Generally and to all: I've very often decided to use a rd that is far out 
> of spec in chain takeup for a given chainring + cassette combination, for 
> all sorts of reasons. Instances: well, first, the DA 7401 (I think it's the 
> ...01) on my present Matthews for an admittedly close ratio 13-25 10-sp 
> cassette but OTOH paired with a 44/28 wide range "1x + granny." But back in 
> the day a 8 sp Ultegra rd with a 48/38/26 crank and a 14-32 7 sp cassette, 
> just because. With the long hanger on the Spec SJ Team frame it worked well 
> enough: I could shift all 7 in the 36; but -- and this is point -- there 
> was severe chain sag in the grannies and all except the 3 or so biggest 
> cogs (perhaps 5 biggest with the Matthews). But then you don't use the 
> granny with the small cogs.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f509323e-87fa-486d-911a-529eae3ab630n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Needing some confirmation that I'm doing things correctly with a new IRD  
crankset and x-type bb, from SOMA,  that I'm putting on an old bike.  I 
mostly have square-taper setups, so I'm fairly new to these external 
setups.  The others that I have are different (and more logical)  but I 
suspect this new one is actually more standard.

Question has to do with spacers and their configuration.  And lack of 
symmetry!  The crank and bb fit either 68mm or 73mm shells.  In this case, 
the spacers go between the cup and the threaded shell.  If there were two 
2.5 mm spacers, things would be obvious: one per side, 5mm total + 68mm = 
73mm, symmetrical.  But there are three 2.5 mm spacers and, through trial 
and error, I discovered that I need all three to take up side-to-side play 
in the crank.

The problem is that no arrangement of the spacers will give me symmetrical, 
lateral positioning of the crank arms.  If I use two spacers on the drive 
side and one on the n-d side, the arms are offset 2.5mm to the left (more 
space between the left chainstay and the crank arm),  if I put all three 
spacers on the right, it is 1.75mm  too far that way but, more important, 
seems fragile in a sort of cantilevered way, with not enough threads 
engaged between the cup and the shell.

Do people usually just live with the crank being offset to the left?  The 
perfectionist in me has a hard tine accepting that something isn't wrong.  
I've offset  phil-type bbs, with separate retaining rings, to adjust 
chainline or clear a chainstay, but never this severely.

Do shops keep thinner spacers around and just use those instead, for better 
adjustment?

(My other x-type bbs are on mountain bikes with 73mm shells, and the 
spacers went between the cups and the arms, and were thinner, to allow much 
more  fine-tuned adjustment).

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e7100b64-084a-4ee0-ada0-c7c4b084787an%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Thanks.  I didn't even think to see if the chainline was matching some 
standard or other.  On multi-gear drivetrains, I've always been more 
concerned with, and prioritized, arm- or chainring-to-chainstay clearance.  
I might have compounded my problem by using a modern, wide (mtb or modern 
gravel bike?) crankset with a 130mm hub.  Crank was such a good deal on 
sale that I couldn't pass it up.

Funny, I meant to post this question on the ibob list.  But Brenton's 
thread - asking for advice on chain sizing - threw me off and made me think 
that's where I was.  At least the bike is a Rivendell.  :-)
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 7:09:03 PM UTC-7 aeroperf wrote:

> And of course, the system reversed my photos versus their names.  1 - 
> Soma.  2 - Homer.  3 - EV.
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/53a494b7-725f-419a-b237-7f1a54e4ad1cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with cranks 
that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense that 
way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the shell.  
That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure out why 
it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  it would 
still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS there was a 
bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the crank arms 
would be shaped to compensate for that.  

As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road double 
should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on that 
side.

You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to the 
non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  

It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>
> Will
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>
>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded view - 
>> spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>> slightly smaller.
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/61d94656-f599-4bc9-b259-1d7298857905n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

To wrap this up, and hopefully make it useful for someone else down the 
line:

I think Garth is right.  This crank will not work on this bike.

Even if an X-type crankset is advertized as working with both 68 and 73 mm 
shells, it's not that straight forward.  It can technically "work," but 
there will be  tradeoffs with chainline or centering or Q-factor not being 
ideal.   If I had a 73mm shell and used one spacer on the drive side, I'd 
have a 47.5 mm chainline AND symmetry between the arms.  I'd still have to 
just  "hope" it cleared the chainstays though. 

This is exactly why I was so slow to adopt X-type cranksets.  After a 
lifetime of being able to pick a square taper spindle in virtually any 
length I wanted, the inability to adjust width didn't seem intuitively 
right.  If my other forrays (on mountain bikes) hadn't been so 
plug-and-play easy, I would have questioned this more before ordering.  
Then again, there was nothing about this on the product description webpage 
that alluded to the dimensional details or specs. 

For anybody interested, here's the product link.  It's really not bad 
quality and is attractive and has many chainring options available, with 
shift aids, AND is available SILVER!  I think Riv was out of everything in 
the configuration I needed, and this was on sale for a really good price.  
For a 10- or 11-speed mountain/hillibike with 73mm shells and 135 or wider 
rear hub, it's a good option.

https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/ird-vortex-sub-compact-crankset-46-30t-4722#attr=1257,4857


On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:28:47 PM UTC-7 Max S wrote:

> A different, but related question: 
>
> I mistakenly bought the MTN version of a Shimano bottom bracket (external 
> cups) for a recent 105 crank. Comparing to the old (road) BB, it looked to 
> me like the only difference was the internal plastic sleeve length. I 
> swapped in the old sleeve between the new cups, and that seemed to go in 
> fine. Maybe last couple of millimeters were a little tighter than the right 
> hand cup, but went in. 
>
> Did I do something that will come back to bite me?.. 
>
> - Max 
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> Keith, road bike double crank chainline spec is always 43.5mm. Are you 
>> measuring between the rings ? 
>>
>> You may hate me for saying so but it sounds like this crank would be 
>> better suited for another frame with at least 135mm spacing. With the big 
>> ring that far out on a 130mm spaced road frame, your available cogs(without 
>> a lot of friction) diminishes by at least one, likely two. 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with 
>>> cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense 
>>> that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the 
>>> shell.  That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure 
>>> out why it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  
>>> it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS 
>>> there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the 
>>> crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that.  
>>>
>>> As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road 
>>> double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on 
>>> that side.
>>>
>>> You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to 
>>> the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
>>> millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  
>>>
>>> It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
>>> fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
>>> it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
>>>> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded 
>>>>> view - spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>>>>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>>>>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>>>>> slightly smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6eef04a1-7d28-4781-8cd6-7e8d580c2c2bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Max,  I can't imagine why you'd have a problem but, obviously, someone with 
more experience should chime in.  I'm going to "try" to use this same bb 
without the spacers, and get a different crank.  I'm not sure I can find 
one with the right spindle length, right spindle diameter, and 10 speed 
compatible rings in suitable sizes, but I know for a fact that the cups 
install just fine without any spacers at all.  (in this case, they each 
have an aluminum sleeve that telescopes over each other, but same thing as 
an accordian plastic sleeve in function.)

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:28:47 PM UTC-7 Max S wrote:

> A different, but related question: 
>
> I mistakenly bought the MTN version of a Shimano bottom bracket (external 
> cups) for a recent 105 crank. Comparing to the old (road) BB, it looked to 
> me like the only difference was the internal plastic sleeve length. I 
> swapped in the old sleeve between the new cups, and that seemed to go in 
> fine. Maybe last couple of millimeters were a little tighter than the right 
> hand cup, but went in. 
>
> Did I do something that will come back to bite me?.. 
>
> - Max 
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> Keith, road bike double crank chainline spec is always 43.5mm. Are you 
>> measuring between the rings ? 
>>
>> You may hate me for saying so but it sounds like this crank would be 
>> better suited for another frame with at least 135mm spacing. With the big 
>> ring that far out on a 130mm spaced road frame, your available cogs(without 
>> a lot of friction) diminishes by at least one, likely two. 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with 
>>> cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense 
>>> that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the 
>>> shell.  That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure 
>>> out why it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  
>>> it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS 
>>> there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the 
>>> crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that.  
>>>
>>> As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road 
>>> double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on 
>>> that side.
>>>
>>> You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to 
>>> the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
>>> millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  
>>>
>>> It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
>>> fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
>>> it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
>>>> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded 
>>>>> view - spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>>>>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>>>>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>>>>> slightly smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/52a71012-77b1-44f2-97de-bfff26d2d31en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bosco for small bikes

[iamkeith]

Nice bike, Dave.  I kind of interpreted it the same way as you.  The caveat 
being that not all old mtbs are created equal, and it probably works better 
the older they are.  By '88 / '89 or so, the frame angles had gotten so 
steep, owing to NORBA fashion, that they required a good portion of the 
rider's weight to be distributed to the handlebars.  At least that's what 
Ive concluded when trying to turn them into more upright riders.  They just 
feel twitchy without weight on the front.

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 9:27:27 AM UTC-7 DavidP wrote:

> Yes, I always guessed it was talking about rise and assuming the use of a 
> long stem.
>
> My townie is an old Univega MTB that is a bit small for me that is setup 
> with a Bosco and 120mm stem. The use of a sprung saddle helps with the seat 
> post height and the Bosco helps with the stem height. The result is very 
> upright when on the grips, but I can slide my hands forward on the bars to 
> lean forward a bit. I've tried a bunch of configurations with this bike and 
> like this setup the best but the overall feel is still not quite as good as 
> a larger bike with swept back bars (I've been spoiled by my Platypus).
>
> -Dave
>
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 11:39:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Yeah the second one has never made sense. It'll get your bars up high on 
>> a bike with a tiny headtube but said bike will also have a short toptube. 
>>
>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:12:32 PM UTC-8 peter...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone
>>>
>>> The rivbike page for the Bosco handlebars mentions this -
>>>
>>> "Here’s its best use:
>>> - Longish top tube bikes and upright riding. Mountain bike conversions 
>>> to supa-comfee cruisers.
>>> - Making too-small bikes fit and feel better."
>>>
>>> I think I understand the first use - since the handlebar reaches far 
>>> back it would make long reach bikes easier to fit. How do you make sense of 
>>> the second one? Wouldn't it make the small bikes feel smaller? Or perhaps 
>>> the reference is to the handlebars rise and not reach?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4ff3b6dd-6211-4a9a-891f-1cdbc9a1cdfdn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Seat lug crack

[iamkeith]

Where are you located, Logan?  Maybe someone will know a builder or repair 
service near you, that they can recommend.  

It sure looks like a crack to me, and I too would guess that the most 
likely cause was a too-small seat post.  I also like Christian's idea:  If 
you're lucky, perhaps a small drill hole to stop it propogating further, 
and then brazing the crack itself might suffice without a large area of 
paint damage.  Great that you caught it before it got worse.

Finding a good builder will be the first step.   I wouldn't hesitate to ask 
Rivendell if they have any ideas or experience.  You're way beyond anything 
that could be construed as a reasonable warranty period, so be clear that 
you're not approaching it from a standpoint of expecting something or 
pointing fingers.  You're just asking for advice and brainstorming. 

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:22:09 AM UTC-7 christian poppell wrote:

> Amateur framebuilder here...
>
> Id drill a hole to stop the propagation of the crack then TIG weld to fuse 
> the crack. grind smooth to finish. I would try that first before replacing 
> the whole seat lug.
>
> "If my understanding of frame construction is correct, that also means the 
> top of the seat tube is cracked, since it extends through the seat lug and 
> is cut off even with the top of the lug."
>
> Some seat lugs are like that, many lugs used in production have a shelf on 
> the inside where the seat tube would be cut at 90deg then inserted into the 
> lug. (image from torch and file 
> )
>  
> I believe that is how the lug is on the QB, I can check mine when i get 
> home and report back. 
>
> Are you at U Michigan? If so, there's Doug Fattic (Niles, MI) and Franklin 
> Frames (Newark, OH?) that are closeish. Doug is great, I don't have 
> experience with Franklin but have heard he is willing to take on odd jobs. 
>
> Long live the Quickbeam!
> Christian
> Phoenix AZ
>
> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:29 AM UTC-7 George Schick wrote:
>
>> Are you the original owner of this Quickbeam or did you buy it used from 
>> someone?  If the latter is true it may be that the wrong diameter seat post 
>> was initially used and thus the seat post binder bolt over tightened to 
>> accommodate.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 1:07:41 AM UTC-6 eil...@umich.edu 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, 
>>>
>>> I am seeking information about what looks to be a small crack in the 
>>> seat lug of an orange Quickbeam. The reason I think it’s a crack in the lug 
>>> and not just the paint is that it is visible from both inside and outside 
>>> the seat tube. Pictures attached below. 
>>>
>>> Some questions I have are: 
>>> - Am I diagnosing this correctly as a cracked seat lug? 
>>> - Is a crack this size and in this location a big deal (I’m assuming 
>>> yes), and if so, how big of a deal? 
>>> - Does this render the frame dangerous to ride? 
>>> - Can something like this be repaired? Is there anyone that’s had 
>>> something similar repaired who can share their experience? 
>>>
>>> Thank you for any information anyone can share or point me toward. 
>>>
>>> Logan 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/27c69cb2-b863-49e3-9d4a-b6e34637e58bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Preaching to the choir

[iamkeith]

Eben Weiss shines a light on the folly of carbon, in the way only he can.

https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/opinion/theres-no-good-reason-to-buy-a-carbon-bike/?fbclid=IwAR0muu-zFYlIDfTmjI3DiAeGq8a9WL0O3NfeyNV6biqV4dGqV-CGxsRbrDU

While I'm at it, I've been meaning to share this.   A modern roadie 
discovers steel:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lh6qCZESZU

 I enjoy this guy's, Lois Scott's, youtube videos, because he articulates 
the modern rooadie mindset so well.  I left the lycra and aero, group-ride 
mindset behind me so many decades ago that I often feel like those people 
and I speak an entirely different language.  Over the last year or so, he 
discovered steel and became a convert.  There are a number of videos on his 
youtube "channel" documenting his journey.  This is just one I could find 
from near his epiphany.  I think he's taken it further since.





-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7f0a9698-20b6-4edd-ad40-60d5796deeefn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

Pam, I agree the R10 probably won't work, but wanted to offer:  Ive got a 
currently-unmounted one lying around.  If it would help, I could use it 
along with one of the smaller bikes in the garage to mock up something 
similar, and then take any  measurements you might need.

Also - and again, this might not help but mentioning to complete the 
thought - there's this slightly different version offered by simworks, that 
i found in a different, recent discussion about the R10.

https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934



On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:37:20 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

> Also, here's my NR-20  shown 
> mounted to my 26" Atlantis, so you can see how it works with my fenders and 
> mounted to the rear bridge. With all the clearance I have, I had to use a 
> 25mm aluminum spacer to get it to fit, and fortunately everything worked 
> out perfect with my fender lines. I don't know if this will help you, Pam, 
> but I thought I'd put the info out there so you can make a more informed 
> decision.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-5 Brian Turner wrote:
>
> I got mine from across the pond: 
> https://sprockets.uk.com/nitto-nr-21-canti-rear-rack-mount/
>
> Keep in mind, there are two different versions depending on your brake 
> bridge mounting orientation. NR-20 is for vertically oriented mount, NR-21 
> is a threaded mount meant to go straight through (like a fork crown does). 
> Also, these are meant for 26" wheels.
> -Brian
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3806ddc0-40df-4b07-9a59-a415c405605cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Bikeshop A-Hole Video

[iamkeith]

This was great.  I sometimes am not sure if people are expressing similar 
"values" or "priorities" to my own, only to reach an entirely different 
conclusion.  The '96 All Rounder was perfect confirmation though.  Thanks 
for posting.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 6:45:46 PM UTC-7 John Dewey wrote:

> Troop 21 BSA, many Lake Mills campouts. We even rode our 3-speeds with 
> gear one time. 
>
> Brain workin’ hard today, whew 😰 And this after cold dark wet NorCal ride 
> this aft. I need a long hot shower & nap. 
>
> Jock
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:30 PM Bob  wrote:
>
>> Fairly sure he's in Lake Mills, WI: https://gibsbikes.com/
>>
>> His All-Rounder can also be seen here, 
>> https://www.instagram.com/p/CUd84lVNlD-, and elsewhere on his Instagram 
>> account: @bikefarmer
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-7 RichS wrote:
>>
>>> Steve, your question about his location. It appears to be Wisconsin. 
>>> Note the BKEFRMR license plate at 2:26 in the video.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Rich in ATL
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-5 Steve wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for sharing Doug. It was refreshing to hear a shop owner 
 critique high end race bikes. Any idea where the guy's shop is located?  
 His personal All Rounder looked pretty sharp.

 Steve in Asheville

 On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 8:14:34 AM UTC-5 Doug H. wrote:

> It's a fun video despite the title and if you watch the whole thing 
> you'll even see a Rivendell All Rounder for a few seconds. I thought you 
> all might enjoy this on the heels of Bike Snob's Outside article. It's in 
> the same vein. Enjoy. Video 
> 

 -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5af7a7c0-3034-4f35-9c7f-a08bb0d6aea9n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/92345c9d-fa43-425c-9406-07303a0f2954n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
drivetrains.  

Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.

Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer (but 
Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between the 
Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 

Size range:
Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used in 
the earlier years.  The classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes 
way of ensuring that there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple 
One was a geometic clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really 
huge or really small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium 
sizes, because it was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where 
people tend to have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer 
"expanded" sizing method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I 
believe:  sloped top tubes allow more standover AND taller stack heights, 
and longer top tubes allow for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial 
in the fit for more riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer 
lengths) is cheaper and avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche 
sizes that take forever to sell.

Lugs:  
All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
previously only used on customs.  

Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the tight 
spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of the 
dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  Later 
QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect it 
had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire technology 
and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is getting the 
unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, because it's 
being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.

Brakes:
QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.

Chainstays;
Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.

Dropouts:
QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in the slot 
the wheel was clamped.  It was intended to see frequent manual gear changes 
by moving the chain to adjacent cog and/or chainring, either of which would 
change the effecive chainstay length.  It could accommodate an 8 tooth 
total range.  Frank had similar sloped slots, but used a fancy investment 
cast dropout.  Roaduno has an investment-cast dropout too, but the slot is 
horizontal and, of course, has the hanger.

Braze-ons:
Haven't studied this closely, but it should be easy enough to figure out.  
The first QBs were pretty spare.  Later ones at least got mounts for a 
campee rack on the fork.  I >think< Roaduno will have a full range for more 
utility with racks.  But they talk about it being lightweight and NOT 
intended for touring loads, too.

Kick Sta
The only difference between the QB and SO (other than country of origin for 
tubing and manufacture) was that SO had a kickstand mounting plate.  
Roaduno will likely have one too.




On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:24:12 AM UTC-7 Arthur Mayfield wrote:

> If my FJ had a derailleur hanger, I’d be constantly tempted to turn it 
> into a 1X or 2X 5 or 6. 120mm rear spacing and the difficulties of mounting 
> a derailleur under track forks keeps me in line. As I recall, the Roaduno 
> has wider rear end to go with the hanger-equipped dropouts, so there are a 
> zillion hubs that will fit. I ride it as a single, rather than fixed, and 
> am content. The one change I’d make to a re-imagined FJ would be to add a 
> kickstand mount. I’ve never been comfortable with clamp-on kickstands, 
> always afraid they’d slip or I’d over tighten and damage the chain stays.
>
> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:24:09 AM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well damn it. Looked this up & now I really want a silver Roaduno. Look 
>> like the same dropouts but with the hanger?
>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2024, at 9:04 AM, Arthur Mayfield  wrote:
>>
>> Not what else is out there, but what should be—Rivendell should bring 
>> back the Frank Jones. 700c, sidepu

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

While im at it: 

Seat stays:
QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
"spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.

Paint:
QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
highlights.


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
> Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
> following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
> that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
> whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
> multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
> drivetrains.  
>
> Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
> truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
> group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.
>
> Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer 
> (but Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between 
> the Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 
>
> Size range:
> Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used 
> in the earlier years.  The 
> classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes way of ensuring that 
> there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple One was a geometic 
> clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really huge or really 
> small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium sizes, because it 
> was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where people tend to 
> have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer "expanded" sizing 
> method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I believe:  sloped top tubes 
> allow more standover AND taller stack heights, and longer top tubes allow 
> for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial in the fit for more 
> riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer lengths) is cheaper and 
> avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche sizes that take forever to 
> sell.
>
> Lugs:  
> All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
> previously only used on customs.  
>
> Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
> First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the 
> tight spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of 
> the dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  
> Later QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect 
> it had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire 
> technology and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is 
> getting the unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, 
> because it's being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.
>
> Brakes:
> QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
> Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.
>
> Chainstays;
> Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
> tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.
>
> Dropouts:
> QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
> slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in the slot 
> the wheel was clamped.  It was intended to see frequent manual gear changes 
> by moving the chain to adjacent cog and/or chainring, either of which would 
> change the effecive chainstay length.  It could accommodate an 8 tooth 
> total range.  Frank had similar sloped slots, but used a fancy investment 
> cast dropout.  Roaduno has an investment-cast dropout too, but the slot is 
> horizontal and, of course, has the hanger.
>
> Braze-ons:
> Haven't studied this closely, but it should be easy enough to figure out.  
> The first QBs were pretty spare.  Later ones at least got mounts for a 
> campee rack on the fork.  I >think< Roaduno will have a full range for more 
> utility with racks.  But they talk about it being lightweight and NOT 
> intended for touring loads, too

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

...why that minutia about dropout construction and connection methods 
matters is this:

Even with the longer chainstays, it may actually be more difficult to spead 
the rear end to 130 or 135mm.  I haven't tried, but it seems logical when 
you look at the dropouts.  With the QB and its brazed-in plate steel 
dropouts, people spread them to 135 fairly regularly.

Here are some 120mm cassette hubs I mentioned earlier.  Bill has a thread 
detailing his own experimenting with one:

https://www.hubjub.co.uk/sunxcd-120-mm-old-rear-cassette-hub-5204-p.asp


https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/grand-bois-5-speed-cassette-hubs/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true/




On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:37:14 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> While im at it: 
>
> Seat stays:
> QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
> "spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
> saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
> the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
> the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
> strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
> also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
> welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.
>
> Paint:
> QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
> least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
> Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
> highlights.
>
>
> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
>> Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
>> following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
>> that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
>> whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
>> multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
>> drivetrains.  
>>
>> Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that 
>> take truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new 
>> Suntour group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm 
>> OLN.
>>
>> Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer 
>> (but Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between 
>> the Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 
>>
>> Size range:
>> Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used 
>> in the earlier years.  The 
>> classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes way of ensuring that 
>> there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple One was a geometic 
>> clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really huge or really 
>> small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium sizes, because it 
>> was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where people tend to 
>> have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer "expanded" sizing 
>> method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I believe:  sloped top tubes 
>> allow more standover AND taller stack heights, and longer top tubes allow 
>> for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial in the fit for more 
>> riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer lengths) is cheaper and 
>> avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche sizes that take forever to 
>> sell.
>>
>> Lugs:  
>> All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
>> previously only used on customs.  
>>
>> Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
>> First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the 
>> tight spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of 
>> the dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  
>> Later QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect 
>> it had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire 
>> technology and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is 
>> getting the unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, 
>> because it's being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.
>>
>> Brakes:
>> QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
>> Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.
>>
>> Chainstays;
>> Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
>&

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:

I am confused and its probably just that I am not the market for a bike 
like this. I feel like once you decide you want a few gears its easier to 
do a 1x7 for limited gears than 3x1. And big jumps on the front will be 
fidgity anyway. Understanding that the idea is to stick in one gear most of 
the time but I still don't see the value. Either you want a 1x or you want 
a few options and if you want a few options 7 is theoretically better than 
3.



Having not tried it, I can only speculate.  What is interesting about it to 
me is:


1.  You wouldn't technically even need a front derailleur.  You could just 
move the chain by hand or stick, and not have to fuss with loosening  
re-centering, and re-tightening a wheel.  I don't know if you need 
narrow/wide teeth patterns to keep the chain from bouncing off the 
chainring though.

2.  You could have more subtle jumps in gearing.  (2 teeth is a smaller 
percentage of 44 teeth than it is 16 teeth.)

 


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 11:37:14 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:

While im at it: 

Seat stays:
QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
"spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.

Paint:
QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
highlights.


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
drivetrains.  

Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.

Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer (but 
Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between the 
Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 

Size range:
Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used in 
the earlier years.  The classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes 
way of ensuring that there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple 
One was a geometic clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really 
huge or really small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium 
sizes, because it was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where 
people tend to have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer 
"expanded" sizing method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I 
believe:  sloped top tubes allow more standover AND taller stack heights, 
and longer top tubes allow for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial 
in the fit for more riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer 
lengths) is cheaper and avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche 
sizes that take forever to sell.

Lugs:  
All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
previously only used on customs.  

Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the tight 
spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of the 
dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  Later 
QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect it 
had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire technology 
and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is getting the 
unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, because it's 
being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.

Brakes:
QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.

Chainstays;
Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.

Dropouts:
QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in th

Re: [RBW] Susie / Appaloosa indecision

[iamkeith]

Tough call, based on your stated criteria and preferences.  I don't think 
you could go wrong, but I don't have the direct experience for a 
comparison.  I have a Susie and a bunch of other Rivs, but my All Rounder 
is the closest analog to the Appaloosa.  (If you cosider Appaloosa evolved 
from the Atlatis, which evolved from the All Rounder but it's pretty 
far removed at this point.)

I'll say that both are among the few bikes I'll  never ever part with.  But 
ESPECIALLY the AR,  because it is just so classic looking and also so 
versatile.  I suspect the Appaloosa will still feel more like a sprightly 
road bike than the Susie, with it's new thicker tubing - not the more 
"over-built" load carrier you're anticipating

On the other hand, I'll note that my one, big complaint about the Susie - a 
too-high-for-my-liking bottom bracket - is being remedied in the new, 
lugged batch.  So that's a huge improvement that should make it feel more 
like a Rivendell and be more comfortable for the riding you describe.

I'll also say that you're probably correct that you won't want or need all 
of the tire clearance that the susie has. I got B65 fenders to work with 
2.8 tires, with mods.  (More on that later.)  But it's way too much.  It's 
overkill and doesn't ride or steer well.  (But the high BB compounds that, 
Im sure, by making the center of gravity too high.)

Then again, it's nice to finally  have MORE room than you need or want for 
a change.  I think 2.5ish tires are probably the sweet spot - at least at 
my weight and terrain and for the type of riding you describe.  (What I 
have on my clem)  And, unfortunately, the Appaloosa caps out at 2.25  
(going from memory...  so check that.)  

Making your decision even more muddied, I'm sure...
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:30:07 PM UTC-7 Tim Bantham wrote:

> I would recommend the Appaloosa. If you're primary use is commuting and 
> grocery getting there isn't a better bicycle then the Joe A. You could put 
> a decent size knobbie tire on there is you wanted. I had Schwalbe Thunder 
> Burts on mine which made it great for road and great for the occasional off 
> road excursion. It certainly can be a "have fun" bike if you build it up 
> right. If you are looking to add fenders under a reasonably sized tire then 
> the Appaloosa also gets the nod. I've never owned a Susie/Gus but I've 
> owned an Appaloosa which was one of my favorites Riv bikes I had ever 
> owned. I regret selling it all the time. 
>
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 5:16:03 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Others here can no doubt offer more experienced opinions but, I would get 
>> the Susie and an extra set of wheels. One with 2.5”-2.6” knobbies (Honcho, 
>> Ehline) for singletrack or other off road stuff (backpacking), and the 
>> other with 2.0” - 2.25 smoothish tires for more roadish use. Susie is such 
>> a versatile platform. This of course is my perspective only & reflects my 
>> preference for off road excursions.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Brian Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hey Everyone. I'm seriously torn between a lugged Susie and an Appaloosa 
>> later this year. Help me commit!
>>
>> I commute and run errands (no question that's most of my mileage), but 
>> fun rides are always in seek of trails with pavement as needed: day rides 
>> plus occasional camping. I think each bike is overkill in a different way. 
>> The Appaloosa is capable of longer distances and heavier loads, which would 
>> be pretty rare for me. The bigger tires on the Susie would open up more 
>> technical singletrack, which would be similarly rare. 
>>
>> What to do? I like the idea of the Appaloosa's more traditional look, but 
>> I like the Susie's higher handlebars and increased crotch clearance. I'm 
>> likely to want fenders, so I may end up not using the Susie's tire 
>> clearance to full advantage (sidebar: what's the biggest tire that will 
>> really fit under a B65? B69? Anyone know of another decent-looking jumbo 
>> fender?).
>>
>> All opinions welcome, with special thanks to anyone who's ridden or owned 
>> both.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1e47cf36-31e0-4a3c-8e64-39bd3cf86693n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https:/

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

First of all, "welcome,"  and beautiful bikes!

I'd encourage you not to give up on getting the appaloosa to fit, even if 
it requires some out-of-the-box solutions, or thinking in diferrent ways 
than you're accustomed or predisposed to.  Put some miles on it and get to 
know it intimately.  And then, if you DO decide it's not ideal as the drop 
bar bike you dreamed of, get something else BEFORE you get rid of the 
appaloosa.  This group is full of people who sold a Rivendell only to 
regret it after the fact.  Your bike might be  perfect as something you 
don't yet realize you need.

A couple of things you may or may not be aware of:

1.  As with many Riv models, the appaloosa was originally conceived with a 
specific handlebar in mind.  In this case it was the Bosco, which was 
likewise originally made FOR the Appaloosa.   You could descibe that as 
drop bar- or moustache bar-like, in that it has multiple hand positions, 
but it doesn't have the long, forward reach of those bars.  It comes back 
TOWARD the rider.  I'm actually sort of surprised Antonio recommended that 
stem and reach.  I'd expect that to work for me, with my abnormally-long 
torso, but not normal people.

2.  Stems are available with very short reach, or none at all:

https://analogcycles.com/products/analog-wright-stem?variant=40095824674993

Grant recently blahged about a bike with a stem turned around and reaching 
backward  and said it felt totally normal.

3.  Another thing Grant has discussed better than I can, is the 
self-negating effect of raising your stem without ALSO shortening it.  (Not 
even sure I paraphrased that properly, but it's worth reading before you 
mess around with things too much.)  I think that one is on the website 
articles.


On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 2:20:53 PM UTC-7 eitanz...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Hi all, wanted to introduce myself and my bikes. Over the last six months 
> I went from zero to two Rivendells, and joined this group--though this is 
> my first post: First up, a Cheviot, picked up secondhand, as my city bike. 
>  Previous owner built this up swanky: Son, XTR,, Pacenti, Paul, XT, etc. . 
> added the front and rear racks. I also picked up a Riv Happisack, which 
> alternates with the YEPP mount. Apologies for the distinctly un-glamorous 
> garage pic:
>
>
> [image: IMG_2009.jpeg]
>
> I love this bike. It is exceedingly comfortable and beautiful. 
>
> Last month I took delivery of a Homer,  which I had built up to be a zippy 
> road bike with a classic look: 9 speed friction shifting using the Dia 
> Compe shifters to XT derailleur, Rene Herse crankset, Paul brakes, the TRP 
> drilled brake levers, with Velocity Quill rims on Deore hubs. 
>
> [image: IMG_2739.jpeg]
>
>
>
>
>
> That said, as beautiful as this bike is, I haven't been able to get 
> comfortable on it. I am too stretched out. I have tried raising the bars a 
> bit from these pics, but fundamentally I think the reach is too long. I 
> gave my height/PBH to Antonio at Rivendell, and they set the bike up with 
> an 80mm stem. I have ordered a 70mm version of the stem, though I'm 
> concerned that's getting pretty short. Next step if that's not enough is 
> try a shorter-reach handlebar, in a narrower size.  If that doesn't work I 
> fear I will need to sell the bike. I could replace the drops with upright 
> bars, but I already have the Cheviot and specifically wanted a drop-bar 
> endurance/all-roadish bike. 
>
> I get the need to raise the bars, but I don't want a situation where the 
> bars are 5" above the saddle. 
>
> Any thoughts on other ways to get this bike to fit better?
>
> Thanks!
> --Eitan (in Los Angeles)
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/efa11cc2-ae89-470f-ac32-aa7e4aaadd1fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

I said "bosco," but meant "chaco."  The first ones, on the first run of 
appaloosas, were the bullmoose version.  

(The bosco was designed, coincidentally, in tandem with a model that was 
also originally going to be called the Appaloosa, but never went beyond 
prototype form.  It's usually referred to now as tge mystery bike or long 
bike.)

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 8:39:43 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> First of all, "welcome,"  and beautiful bikes!
>
> I'd encourage you not to give up on getting the appaloosa to fit, even if 
> it requires some out-of-the-box solutions, or thinking in diferrent ways 
> than you're accustomed or predisposed to.  Put some miles on it and get to 
> know it intimately.  And then, if you DO decide it's not ideal as the drop 
> bar bike you dreamed of, get something else BEFORE you get rid of the 
> appaloosa.  This group is full of people who sold a Rivendell only to 
> regret it after the fact.  Your bike might be  perfect as something you 
> don't yet realize you need.
>
> A couple of things you may or may not be aware of:
>
> 1.  As with many Riv models, the appaloosa was originally conceived with a 
> specific handlebar in mind.  In this case it was the Bosco, which was 
> likewise originally made FOR the Appaloosa.   You could descibe that as 
> drop bar- or moustache bar-like, in that it has multiple hand positions, 
> but it doesn't have the long, forward reach of those bars.  It comes back 
> TOWARD the rider.  I'm actually sort of surprised Antonio recommended that 
> stem and reach.  I'd expect that to work for me, with my abnormally-long 
> torso, but not normal people.
>
> 2.  Stems are available with very short reach, or none at all:
>
> https://analogcycles.com/products/analog-wright-stem?variant=40095824674993
>
> Grant recently blahged about a bike with a stem turned around and reaching 
> backward  and said it felt totally normal.
>
> 3.  Another thing Grant has discussed better than I can, is the 
> self-negating effect of raising your stem without ALSO shortening it.  (Not 
> even sure I paraphrased that properly, but it's worth reading before you 
> mess around with things too much.)  I think that one is on the website 
> articles.
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 2:20:53 PM UTC-7 eitanz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all, wanted to introduce myself and my bikes. Over the last six months 
>> I went from zero to two Rivendells, and joined this group--though this is 
>> my first post: First up, a Cheviot, picked up secondhand, as my city bike. 
>>  Previous owner built this up swanky: Son, XTR,, Pacenti, Paul, XT, etc. . 
>> added the front and rear racks. I also picked up a Riv Happisack, which 
>> alternates with the YEPP mount. Apologies for the distinctly un-glamorous 
>> garage pic:
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_2009.jpeg]
>>
>> I love this bike. It is exceedingly comfortable and beautiful. 
>>
>> Last month I took delivery of a Homer,  which I had built up to be a 
>> zippy road bike with a classic look: 9 speed friction shifting using the 
>> Dia Compe shifters to XT derailleur, Rene Herse crankset, Paul brakes, the 
>> TRP drilled brake levers, with Velocity Quill rims on Deore hubs. 
>>
>> [image: IMG_2739.jpeg]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, as beautiful as this bike is, I haven't been able to get 
>> comfortable on it. I am too stretched out. I have tried raising the bars a 
>> bit from these pics, but fundamentally I think the reach is too long. I 
>> gave my height/PBH to Antonio at Rivendell, and they set the bike up with 
>> an 80mm stem. I have ordered a 70mm version of the stem, though I'm 
>> concerned that's getting pretty short. Next step if that's not enough is 
>> try a shorter-reach handlebar, in a narrower size.  If that doesn't work I 
>> fear I will need to sell the bike. I could replace the drops with upright 
>> bars, but I already have the Cheviot and specifically wanted a drop-bar 
>> endurance/all-roadish bike. 
>>
>> I get the need to raise the bars, but I don't want a situation where the 
>> bars are 5" above the saddle. 
>>
>> Any thoughts on other ways to get this bike to fit better?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> --Eitan (in Los Angeles)
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5bd62136-e1ed-4c78-8286-313b183f97f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

Oops.  Never mind.  Don't know why I thought that's what I was looking at.  
Something about the angle of the photo and frame color made my mind jump to 
something that wasn't there.  Being distracted while typing on my 
phone  It all makes more sense now.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4ef184e9-1f4b-44ce-93cf-d6b84bafcc6fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Susie / Gus questions

[iamkeith]

Paul's analysis is spot-on in my experience.  Nonetheless:  here's a 26.8 
droppee opton.  Original and still the best.  (Or you could use a hite-rite 
too, wich I suppose is the REAL original.  I think I'll end up with one of 
those on my Susie, eben though it won't be my trail bike)
On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 9:58:23 AM UTC-6 Paul Clifton wrote:

> I just want to reiterate my thoughts on droppers, because there's a lot of 
> dropper evangelism in this thread, and I know Eric isn't saying droppers 
> are necessary, and I do agree with everyone that they're nice to have, 
> BUTT I tend to side with Grant on this:
>
> Lower the seat 1.5 to 2 cm from your normal seat height and just leave it 
> there.
>
> That will probably give you enough room to move around on the bike to ride 
> everything short of really steep stuff.
>
> Modern MTBs basically require a dropper post, because it's nearly 
> impossible to stand and climb, especially with rear suspension, regardless 
> of linkage design. They are made for seated climbining, but to keep the 
> front wheel on the ground while you're climbing seated, you have to get 
> your weight over the front wheel, which requires a HIGH seat. And to get 
> back far enough to go downhill, that HIGH seat has to get out of the way, 
> so you have to drop it or you'll endo.
>
> The Gus doesn't work that way. You can climb seated or standing, and a 
> sort of in between seat height allows that. Same for descending, you're not 
> going over the bars, so you can descend seated on smooth stuff and if it 
> gets chunky or steep a slightly lower saddle gives you the space to stand 
> up and move back enough.
>
> It's really only when stuff gets scary steep and you want your butt way 
> behind the saddle that it's a problem, and if that's less than 10% of your 
> riding, a QR (or a wrench) will be sufficient.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:13:16 AM UTC-4 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> A real dropper is a lot handier to use, especially when the trail is 
>> rolling up and down. Being able to push a button on the bar and drop the 
>> saddle for a quick slope or hard corner is great. It’s not about riding up 
>> and then down. It’s up down up down up down….
>>
>> Eric
>> Now a dropper fan 
>> In Ohio where the hills roll. 
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022, Erik  wrote:
>>
>>> Not only do I have a quick release, I picked up an old Hite-Rite to go 
>>> with it!  I salvaged the quick release from an old Bridgestone that’s been 
>>> in my shed for a long time.  It’s certainly an option, but I did have 
>>> problems with the post slipping.  Given that I’m not out charging around, 
>>> stopping to set the seat height isn’t that onerous a task.  I have 
>>> occasionally stopped and dropped the saddle with a hex key for longer 
>>> descents.  Maybe I’m just overthinking the dropper post thing and need to 
>>> embrace the quick release! 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-7 mkernan...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Erik,   Sweet looking Gus!In reading your post it seems like 
 your missing a dropper option,   Have you considered putting on a quick 
 release at the seatpost binder bolt?   You said you’ve been riding many 
 iterations of MTBs since the 80s so I’m sure you’ve had a bike with one 
 before.I put one on my Atlantis and it’s great for dropping the seat 
 post tool- free when I want to get back a little.I think Riv might 
 sell 
 something on their site.   It’s no dropper but it is helpful in some 
 situations.-Mike  

 Sent from my iPhone
 visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0CC5EF6D-3C23-402C-B55D-A09DBD7AC46B%40gmail.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/82c589e9-f9b1-484c-933c-9d16d3e22631n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2b4c07c7-d057-4e23-be2c-3f5d4cba5d9fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Susie / Gus questions

[iamkeith]

Oops.  Forgot the link: to gravity dropper  but Danny was posting it 
simultaneously.

ht




On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:18:22 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

>
> Paul's analysis is spot-on in my experience.  Nonetheless:  here's a 26.8 
> droppee opton.  Original and still the best.  (Or you could use a hite-rite 
> too, wich I suppose is the REAL original.  I think I'll end up with one of 
> those on my Susie, eben though it won't be my trail bike)
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 9:58:23 AM UTC-6 Paul Clifton wrote:
>
>> I just want to reiterate my thoughts on droppers, because there's a lot 
>> of dropper evangelism in this thread, and I know Eric isn't saying droppers 
>> are necessary, and I do agree with everyone that they're nice to have, 
>> BUTT I tend to side with Grant on this:
>>
>> Lower the seat 1.5 to 2 cm from your normal seat height and just leave it 
>> there.
>>
>> That will probably give you enough room to move around on the bike to 
>> ride everything short of really steep stuff.
>>
>> Modern MTBs basically require a dropper post, because it's nearly 
>> impossible to stand and climb, especially with rear suspension, regardless 
>> of linkage design. They are made for seated climbining, but to keep the 
>> front wheel on the ground while you're climbing seated, you have to get 
>> your weight over the front wheel, which requires a HIGH seat. And to get 
>> back far enough to go downhill, that HIGH seat has to get out of the way, 
>> so you have to drop it or you'll endo.
>>
>> The Gus doesn't work that way. You can climb seated or standing, and a 
>> sort of in between seat height allows that. Same for descending, you're not 
>> going over the bars, so you can descend seated on smooth stuff and if it 
>> gets chunky or steep a slightly lower saddle gives you the space to stand 
>> up and move back enough.
>>
>> It's really only when stuff gets scary steep and you want your butt way 
>> behind the saddle that it's a problem, and if that's less than 10% of your 
>> riding, a QR (or a wrench) will be sufficient.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:13:16 AM UTC-4 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> A real dropper is a lot handier to use, especially when the trail is 
>>> rolling up and down. Being able to push a button on the bar and drop the 
>>> saddle for a quick slope or hard corner is great. It’s not about riding up 
>>> and then down. It’s up down up down up down….
>>>
>>> Eric
>>> Now a dropper fan 
>>> In Ohio where the hills roll. 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022, Erik  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not only do I have a quick release, I picked up an old Hite-Rite to go 
>>>> with it!  I salvaged the quick release from an old Bridgestone that’s been 
>>>> in my shed for a long time.  It’s certainly an option, but I did have 
>>>> problems with the post slipping.  Given that I’m not out charging around, 
>>>> stopping to set the seat height isn’t that onerous a task.  I have 
>>>> occasionally stopped and dropped the saddle with a hex key for longer 
>>>> descents.  Maybe I’m just overthinking the dropper post thing and need to 
>>>> embrace the quick release! 
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-7 mkernan...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Erik,   Sweet looking Gus!In reading your post it seems like 
>>>>> your missing a dropper option,   Have you considered putting on a quick 
>>>>> release at the seatpost binder bolt?   You said you’ve been riding many 
>>>>> iterations of MTBs since the 80s so I’m sure you’ve had a bike with one 
>>>>> before.I put one on my Atlantis and it’s great for dropping the seat 
>>>>> post tool- free when I want to get back a little.I think Riv might 
>>>>> sell 
>>>>> something on their site.   It’s no dropper but it is helpful in some 
>>>>> situations.-Mike  
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> visit 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0CC5EF6D-3C23-402C-B55D-A09DBD7AC46B%40gmail.com
>>>>>  
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0CC5EF6D-3C23-402C-B55D-A09DBD7AC46B%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> -- 

[RBW] Re: Clemuno Jr

[iamkeith]

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 9:17:44 AM UTC-6 jake...@gmail.com wrote:

> I stopped by Riv and talked to Will last week. He said they're redesigning 
> the Roaduno to be more of a Homer single speed (HomerUno doesn't sound 
> quite right...) with caliper brakes rather than the "ClemUno" design they 
> shared that had v-brakes. He said he liked the redesigned model slightly 
> more. I tried to hide my disappointment for the ClemUno that wasn't. 
>
>
That is disappointing.  Did he say if 50mm tires are even still in the 
mix?  I guess this helps me with decisions in some ways.  When the fully 
-lugged clemuno concept was floated, I abruptly halted restoration on my 
quickbeam, thinking I'd prefer a long bike.  (Or maybe decide that I like 
both, but wanting to make sure I had money set aside).  I'm sure the 
homeruno will be an improved design but, like so many things, it sounds too 
incremental of an upgrade for me to bother.  And the quickbeam has cantis!

I don't doubt your intelligence either.  (And the whole point of this 
thread is to share speculation) But I suppose it does make sense  to see 
what shakes out in the end, before giving up.  Anything could still 
change...

 

> Jake
>
> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:39:01 PM UTC-4 Doug H. wrote:
>
>> I'm already budgeting for this bike. I too wonder which crankset they 
>> will offer on a complete build but I'm sure it will be good.
>> Doug
>>
>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:34:33 PM UTC-4 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>> *Joe grabs his lovely singlespeed* 
>>>
>>> "Joe, where are you going?" 
>>> .
>>> OUT FOR A WALK
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 5:52:57 PM UTC-7 Doug H. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe, all single speeds really have three speeds. Seated, standing and 
>>>> walking.
>>>> haha
>>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 8:36:02 PM UTC-4 Ryan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I should consider that...I have a 93 X0-1 38. 38 X 52 
>>>>> chainrings...just need the DOS freewheel...I'm quite familiar with WI 
>>>>> freewheels. I have a single 20(I think) on my Peugeot...other thing on 
>>>>> the 
>>>>> X0-1 right now that I DON'T love are the 26 X 1.5 Compass-branded McClure 
>>>>> Pass tires which attract glass, small stones, etc. like a magnet. I've 
>>>>> never had worse luck with tires 
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW...I live in Winnipeg which is flat (but is windy)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 6:24:51 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meh, don't beat yourself up.  It's neat from a historical standpoint 
>>>>>> but, without the correct fork, that value is sorta lost.  A Quickbeam, 
>>>>>> SimpleOne, Frank Jones or this new one all seem nicer.  As do some from 
>>>>>> Crust, Surly and others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, if someone really likes the idea of a singlespeed, 26"-wheeled 
>>>>>> XO-1, the magic two-speed gear ratio (for not needing is a tensioner) is 
>>>>>> 38&35T chainrings with a 19&16T dos uno freewheel.  I had my daughter's 
>>>>>> set 
>>>>>> up that way for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:14:51 PM UTC-6 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah I messed up selling that one. I live in some hills now but at 
>>>>>>> that time I was at the top of a VERY steep one, the bike was literally 
>>>>>>> unrideable for me. Live and learn! 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-7 Ryan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be still my beating heart❤
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:49:55 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ryan, it looked (and was sized like) a 52cm XO-1 with horizontal 
>>>>>>>>> dropouts glommed on, I suspect it used that fork. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 2:33:58 PM UTC-7 Ryan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah I remember that now...wonder what the original fork 
>>>>>>>>>> looked like? 

Re: [RBW] Re: Susie / Gus questions

[iamkeith]

Actually, it looks to me like steel blades in an aluminum crown - not 
unlike the bontrager composite forks that were popular upgrades in the 
early 90s.  I kind of dig it.  To each his own  but I also really like the 
dropouts.  Reminds me of sturdy bmx forks - as well as early klunker 
upgrade forks - not wallmart.  Clearly I'm swooned by historical references 
though.

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 1:03:39 PM UTC-6 lconley wrote:

> Looks like a torture device. The only thing that rides worse than straight 
> aluminum forks, would be straight aluminum disc forks. I know:
> [image: IMG_0387 (2)s.JPG]
>
> Laing
>
> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 2:37:11 PM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:
>
>> Here's a recent teaser photo of the Crust AL bike:
>>
>> [image: crustbikes-al.jpg]
>>
>> -Dave (looking at too many bikes while finalizing parts for a Platy build)
>>
>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 11:34:04 AM UTC-4 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately there are no details yet, just teasers. Supposed to be 
>>> something like the purple M2 specialized he’s been riding but with 27.5 up 
>>> to 2.6” tire and some tweaks he thinks will make it better. My favorite 
>>> rides are mountain goating around and having to carry through sections. 
>>> Exploration rides. So the light bike seems like it would be fun for that. 
>>> But there are only 50 frames made for the first run. Made by a guy in 
>>> Vermont I think. They will likely sell in seconds. No idea on a price for 
>>> the frame/fork yet so who knows. Similar ugly as sin front dropouts as the 
>>> Wombat is the only downside I could see from the teaser. Looks like 
>>> something on a bike from Walmart. There is a picture on the ronsbikes 
>>> instagram. 
>>>
>>> I looked but couldn’t find the full picture I had seen somewhere, sorry!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:04:21 AM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>>
 I haven’t heard of the Ronnie aluminum ATB. Any details you can post? A 
 link? 

 On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 6:26:46 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> The only conclusion I can come up with is N+1. I thought, maybe I’ll 
> just sell my Susie, I absolutely love my Clem H. Had to take the Clem 
> apart 
> for service, it’s getting a new fork and a full powder coat job. Tried to 
> throw the 2.5 Ehline from my Susie in just to see. Honestly a bit tight 
> for 
> my comfort. The Susie has tons of tire clearance for mud side to side, I 
> couldn’t get much more height because I’m within 3mm of the brake (rubber 
> boot, without I guess a 2.8 would fit with similar room) in the rear. 
>
> My Susie rides more lively and (likely the tire size) smooth. Unless I 
> decide to have a custom frame made or go with something from Tanglefoot 
> (71 
> degree seat tube angle!), I can’t see selling the Susie. I just kinda 
> wish 
> it was 27.5” in my size.  I like the smaller wheel for the exploration 
> riding I do. The Susie has more clearance and the tubes flex a lot to 
> give 
> a nice ride. The Clem is stout and ready for anything. They are both such 
> great bikes, if they fit your bike needs. But, catch me on the right day 
> and a large gold Susie might be for sale!
>
> Anybody else excited to see the new Ronnie Romance aluminum (gasp!) 
> ATB bike? 27.5x2.6 capable rim brake adventure bike. Nice. 
> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 4:33:36 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> The only conclusion (?) I can get from this tire discussion on Susie 
>> / Gus & possibly Clems is - get a duplicate set of wheels. One for 
>> pavement 
>> / gravel, and a dedicated set for MTB with proper knobbies. Anything 
>> less 
>> seems a compromise?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2022, at 12:14 PM, Brian Turner  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> I’m running the Ehline 27.5 x 2.5 on my Gus currently. I had them on 
>> a previous bike that was a dedicated trail bike, and I liked them for 
>> that 
>> purpose a lot, so I knew what to expect. So far, I’m riding my Gus 50/50 
>> dirt/pavement and I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised at how well 
>> they 
>> roll on paved surfaces. Pretty quiet, too. I doubt I’m going to be doing 
>> any long paved rides, but for knocking around town and shorter paved 
>> trips 
>> 30 mi or less, they are quite enjoyable. 
>>
>> All this said, if Jan H. decided to make a tire slightly bigger than 
>> the Umtanum or Fleecer Ridge in the 2.5” / 2.6” range, I would buy them 
>> in 
>> an instant. Those RH knobbies perform equally well and roll fast and 
>> quiet 
>> on all surfaces in my opinion and experience.
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Ryan Frahm  wrote:
>>
>> I’ll chime in on the Teravail Ehline vs the Ranger. Granted, I ran a 
>> 3” Ranger tough vs the Light 2.5 Ehline

[RBW] Re: Just thinking - Rivendell mini-velo?

[iamkeith]

I realize this is just a fun thought-exercise, but I think I can 
confidently say that they wouldn't even consider the idea.  The reason 
being that Grant has made it clear that he doesn't like the proportions of 
small wheels on a big frame - even when "small" means 26"/559 wheels.   I'd 
guess that he's had several thousand requests to re-make 26" All-Rounders 
and has, as far as I can tell, refused.  Even the Saluki/Hilsen frames in 
the larger sizes went from 650b to 700c, so his preference now seems  to be 
to use as large a wheel as can fit.  That doesn't mean that 559 and 650b 
aren't preferable for smaller frames built for smaller riders, but it's a 
whole different equation, now that 700c tires are so readily available in 
large volume casings, than it was when the X0-1, All-Rounder and Saluki 
were first designed.

As one of the vocal small-wheel prostheletizers, I once looked at those VO 
mini-velos with some interest and curiosity.   After studying the geometry, 
it turned out they weren't nearly big enough, despite looking so huge.  (My 
rivendell roadish-bikes are roughly 60cm st with 59cm tt, so not even extra 
large by any means. The VOs capped-out at the equivalent of about a  
56cm-ish frame, if I recall correctly.)  So I think that even they looked 
at it and decided that larger frames would look too ridiculous to bother.  

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:11:19 PM UTC-7 lconley wrote:

> I was not thinking that it would be "mini". I was thinking that you could 
> get the advantages of the long chain stays, long top tube and long 
> wheelbase, in the overall length of a "normal" non-Riv bike. It would then 
> be more usable when transporting on public transportation and easier to 
> navigate a tight stairwell or tight living quarters with. It wouldn't be so 
> wide on a back of the car bike rack. It would fit more easily inside my 
> Element. I have zero expectation that Riv would actually do one. Riv 
> obviously doesn't have a stack of unused, long steering tube 20" wheel 
> forks sitting around to do a run of Rosco Bubbes with. One a the few 
> persistent complaints that I hear about Rivendells on this site is about 
> the overall length and the possibly mis-named Mini-velo concept might cure 
> that without a lot of other compromises. Just the rambling thoughts of an 
> old gear-head.
>
> Laing
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:51:02 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> I think it would be an interesting exercise and in the current "they all 
>> sell out" climate Riv would probably do ok with one, but you'd have to 
>> convince Grant there's a reason to own one. I had a VO Neutrino for a 
>> while, which I bought online, and was quite surprised to discover how 
>> not-all-that-mini it was. I'm not convinced a 20-inch-wheel Riv with long 
>> stays and a long toptube is going to be notably more compact than one with 
>> 26 or 27.5. Now if he wanted to do it with separators to break it in half 
>> like a Moulton, I'm in! 
>>
>> Joe Bernard 
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:02:51 AM UTC-8 lconley wrote:
>>
>>> I have wondered what a Rivendell version of a mini-velo would be like. A 
>>> mini velo is a small tired, non-folding but full size bike like the VO 
>>> Neutrino, BikesDirect also had one some years back. You could have the long 
>>> Riv wheelbase and ride, without the actual total bike length being any 
>>> longer that a "normal" bike. And, of course the low top tube.
>>> I do have a folding Bike Friday and a VO Neutrino. Too heavy for the 
>>> Bike Friday now, but the Neutrino seems stout enough.
>>>
>>> Laing
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3251aa78-c744-415b-b536-d04557c6a6f3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: How you choose 2 Rivendells?

[iamkeith]

People typically choose two Rivendell bikes by thinking about what the 
eventual third one will be, and by calculating how they will all complement 
each other and round things out.

This sounds sort of tongue-in-cheek, but it's common in practice because of 
the addiction/collector gene that all bike geeks possess.   N+1 is real.  
You're always going to "think" you need another:  One that's lighter and 
suited for long, fast paved trips; or one that has fatter tires and is 
better suited for exploring dirt roads and trails;  or better equipped for 
loaded touring; or one that's equipped as a town bike for shopping and 
carrying things; or one that's robust and fendered for winter commuting.  
So what seems like an obvious answer is to get two models that are as 
different as possible - like a Roadini and a Gus - to cover all bases 
but this thinking is a trap.  

The problem is that you end end up with bikes that are specialized  or 
optimized for one thing but don't get ridden enough because -  in the end - 
you're ALWAYS  going to just grab the one you like best and fits the best 
and that you are most familiar with.  The one that has become an extension 
of you.

My advice would be to do the opposite:  Think about the range of riding 
that you do on a *regular* basis, and pick two models separated only by 
that degree of optimization.   If you don't regularly do group rides with 
roadies, you really don't need that Roadini.  If you don't live in the 
mountains, you really don't need that Gus.  If you don't plan to tour - or 
could get by with a lighter load or credit card the one time you do - then 
you don't really need an Atlantis.  You can ALWAYS do those things on any 
other Rivendell model.  You might just go a tiny bit slower.  

With this thinking, you'll admittedly end up with bikes with a lot of 
functional overlap, but I promise you'll use both of them more.  If you 
tinker with one at a time, you can also experiment with things like 
different cockpit setups and gearing and tires to your heart's content, 
without finding yourself without a bike to ride mid-project, while you're 
tracking down some obscure spacer or ferrule that you didn't know you 
needed.  

So unless you really DO participate in those more extreme activities, you 
could maybe get a Sam if your tire and fender clearance are good but you 
think you'll regularly need a stiffer frame than the Platypus.  Or get a 
Clem L if you like the step-through but regularly need fatter tires than 
the Platypus.

Leah, when faced with your exact quandary, did the smartest thing ever and 
just got a second Platypus!  

I started accumulating rivendells (and other bikes) at a different time.  
Compared to the much older and more speciaiized ones that I own, the 
current range of Rivendell bikes - with the longer top tubes and longer 
chainstays and slacker head angles and increased tire clearance - across 
the entire range -  are SO good.  Combined with the ready availability of 
quality, fat tires now on the market, it's hard to make a mistake.  I often 
think how much simpler my life would be if I got rid of most of what I have 
and chose one new one - but I'm too emotionally attached still.   So many 
now hang un-used... making me feel guilty... while I inevitably grab the 
"one." 



On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 10:52:42 PM UTC-7 Masa wrote:

> Hi all, I would like to ask you how you would choose 2 Rivendells if you 
> could own.
>
> Which models? What kind of purposes? What kind of weather? What kind of 
> roads? Any definition is welcome.
>
> I'm currently riding a Platypus and I feel like I can ride it everywhere 
> for any purpose as Riv says it's an All-rounder so I just would like to 
> know how you would add one more Riv or how you are riding 2 Rivs already as 
> a reference (possibly for my future 2nd Riv).
>
> I hope you enjoy the topic!
>
> Masa
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/16df088b-4c96-4d68-8d29-9cc2b0692704n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: New Roaduno Dropouts

[iamkeith]

Makes sense, but it's still curious to me that they only used the Frank 
Jones Sr. dropout on that one model.  (Or, maybe a Rosco model, too?).  Im 
kind of suspecting that, with 3D design printing capabilities, it might be 
just as easy to come up with a new part if and when it is needed.

I'm curious to see if this means there'll be some extra cable routing 
options on the Roaduno, or if that'll be left to clamp-on devices or zip 
ties, for someone who wished to use a derailleur.   Part of the beauty of a 
single-speed is the cleanness of not having unused stops.   On the other 
hand, I'm brazing on some extra housing stops to my Quickbeam - but for a 
Sturmey Archer 3-speed, not a derailleur.

The "chain tensioner" feature doesn't make sense to me.



On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:38:07 AM UTC-7 Shoji Takahashi wrote:

> I'm also v interested in RoadUno as "my last Riv"... 
>
> Spec'ing a hanger on these trackends means that Riv can use it for other 
> frames-- maybe they'll make a 135-spaced frame using these? Or someone will 
> request a custom? 
>
> That said, these are prototypes, so who knows what will show up in the 
> final form. 
>
> Looking forward to it!
>
> Anyone ride the prototypes RoadUno frames at RivHQ? How does it compare to 
> the Quickbeam? or present offerings? 
>
> shoji
> arlington ma
>
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:05:56 AM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> The print does say for a chain tensioner or derailleur. That's quite 
>> straight forward to me. Sun XCD does make a 120mm cassette hub. Customize 
>> your own cog set and there 'ya go. 
>>
>> So why call it a Road-UNO ?  Because it can be a seamless single 
>> speed and just because it can be used as such doesn't mean it 
>> can't/shouldn't have a hanger for a tensioner or derailleur. It adds to the 
>> versatility of the frame, very good idea ! Don't let the 
>> words/definitions/descriptions yank you're chain, so to speak. 
>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:58:19 PM UTC-5 velomann wrote:
>>
>>> Just dropping a little bomb here to see where the comments lead, for 
>>> S**ts and giggles, mostly.
>>>
>>> The latest blagh shows the 3D printed track dropouts for the new 
>>> Roaduno. It has a derailleur hanger. For a 120-spaced single speed. 
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> (And to tag onto another posting ("choose two Rivendells") I own several 
>>> bikes but only one Riv (last release of the Sam Hillborne.) I plan to do 
>>> everything in my power to snag a purple Roaduno, regardless of dropout 
>>> style. And at this point in my life that's the last new bike I plan to buy*
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike M
>>>
>>> * But who am I fooling?
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c75c229e-5fe5-4f83-85b6-d9b64f490a3dn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: New Roaduno Dropouts

[iamkeith]

Another thought:  Does the presence of a hanger mean that the dropout will 
be oriented more horizontally than the QB/SO dropouts?

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:33:14 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> Makes sense, but it's still curious to me that they only used the Frank 
> Jones Sr. dropout on that one model.  (Or, maybe a Rosco model, too?).  Im 
> kind of suspecting that, with 3D design printing capabilities, it might be 
> just as easy to come up with a new part if and when it is needed.
>
> I'm curious to see if this means there'll be some extra cable routing 
> options on the Roaduno, or if that'll be left to clamp-on devices or zip 
> ties, for someone who wished to use a derailleur.   Part of the beauty of a 
> single-speed is the cleanness of not having unused stops.   On the other 
> hand, I'm brazing on some extra housing stops to my Quickbeam - but for a 
> Sturmey Archer 3-speed, not a derailleur.
>
> The "chain tensioner" feature doesn't make sense to me.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:38:07 AM UTC-7 Shoji Takahashi wrote:
>
>> I'm also v interested in RoadUno as "my last Riv"... 
>>
>> Spec'ing a hanger on these trackends means that Riv can use it for other 
>> frames-- maybe they'll make a 135-spaced frame using these? Or someone will 
>> request a custom? 
>>
>> That said, these are prototypes, so who knows what will show up in the 
>> final form. 
>>
>> Looking forward to it!
>>
>> Anyone ride the prototypes RoadUno frames at RivHQ? How does it compare 
>> to the Quickbeam? or present offerings? 
>>
>> shoji
>> arlington ma
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:05:56 AM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>>
>>> The print does say for a chain tensioner or derailleur. That's quite 
>>> straight forward to me. Sun XCD does make a 120mm cassette hub. Customize 
>>> your own cog set and there 'ya go. 
>>>
>>> So why call it a Road-UNO ?  Because it can be a seamless single 
>>> speed and just because it can be used as such doesn't mean it 
>>> can't/shouldn't have a hanger for a tensioner or derailleur. It adds to the 
>>> versatility of the frame, very good idea ! Don't let the 
>>> words/definitions/descriptions yank you're chain, so to speak. 
>>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:58:19 PM UTC-5 velomann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just dropping a little bomb here to see where the comments lead, for 
>>>> S**ts and giggles, mostly.
>>>>
>>>> The latest blagh shows the 3D printed track dropouts for the new 
>>>> Roaduno. It has a derailleur hanger. For a 120-spaced single speed. 
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> (And to tag onto another posting ("choose two Rivendells") I own 
>>>> several bikes but only one Riv (last release of the Sam Hillborne.) I plan 
>>>> to do everything in my power to snag a purple Roaduno, regardless of 
>>>> dropout style. And at this point in my life that's the last new bike I 
>>>> plan 
>>>> to buy*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike M
>>>>
>>>> * But who am I fooling?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/be8cc2da-86bc-4d09-8817-5f5aacb666a8n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: New Roaduno Dropouts

[iamkeith]

Doh.  You're right - i forgot about that possibility.  I'm so obsessed with 
IGHs, i completely overlooked front-shifting possibilities.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 3:02:59 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:

> It's an outlier as far as what most people are looking for in a frame like 
> this, but a member here many years ago put an old rear derailer (Shimano 
> 200GS I think) with a bolt on hanger on a Quickbeam so he could use a 
> wide-range double crank with fd derailer to give it a big top gear plus 
> hill climber granny (it was in a Rivendell Reader). 
>
> I'm guessing after all the 2-speed experiments Grant and Will have done 
> with chain tensioners they figured it couldn't hurt to have the option on 
> RoadUNO. 
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:33:14 PM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> Makes sense, but it's still curious to me that they only used the Frank 
>> Jones Sr. dropout on that one model.  (Or, maybe a Rosco model, too?).  Im 
>> kind of suspecting that, with 3D design printing capabilities, it might be 
>> just as easy to come up with a new part if and when it is needed.
>>
>> I'm curious to see if this means there'll be some extra cable routing 
>> options on the Roaduno, or if that'll be left to clamp-on devices or zip 
>> ties, for someone who wished to use a derailleur.   Part of the beauty of a 
>> single-speed is the cleanness of not having unused stops.   On the other 
>> hand, I'm brazing on some extra housing stops to my Quickbeam - but for a 
>> Sturmey Archer 3-speed, not a derailleur.
>>
>> The "chain tensioner" feature doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:38:07 AM UTC-7 Shoji Takahashi wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also v interested in RoadUno as "my last Riv"... 
>>>
>>> Spec'ing a hanger on these trackends means that Riv can use it for other 
>>> frames-- maybe they'll make a 135-spaced frame using these? Or someone will 
>>> request a custom? 
>>>
>>> That said, these are prototypes, so who knows what will show up in the 
>>> final form. 
>>>
>>> Looking forward to it!
>>>
>>> Anyone ride the prototypes RoadUno frames at RivHQ? How does it compare 
>>> to the Quickbeam? or present offerings? 
>>>
>>> shoji
>>> arlington ma
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:05:56 AM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>>>
>>>> The print does say for a chain tensioner or derailleur. That's quite 
>>>> straight forward to me. Sun XCD does make a 120mm cassette hub. Customize 
>>>> your own cog set and there 'ya go. 
>>>>
>>>> So why call it a Road-UNO ?  Because it can be a seamless single 
>>>> speed and just because it can be used as such doesn't mean it 
>>>> can't/shouldn't have a hanger for a tensioner or derailleur. It adds to 
>>>> the 
>>>> versatility of the frame, very good idea ! Don't let the 
>>>> words/definitions/descriptions yank you're chain, so to speak. 
>>>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:58:19 PM UTC-5 velomann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just dropping a little bomb here to see where the comments lead, for 
>>>>> S**ts and giggles, mostly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest blagh shows the 3D printed track dropouts for the new 
>>>>> Roaduno. It has a derailleur hanger. For a 120-spaced single speed. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> (And to tag onto another posting ("choose two Rivendells") I own 
>>>>> several bikes but only one Riv (last release of the Sam Hillborne.) I 
>>>>> plan 
>>>>> to do everything in my power to snag a purple Roaduno, regardless of 
>>>>> dropout style. And at this point in my life that's the last new bike I 
>>>>> plan 
>>>>> to buy*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>
>>>>> * But who am I fooling?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f8f4b940-387e-4a22-9d40-477227757f8fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Cliffhanger alternatives?

[iamkeith]

I used the Nimbus Dominator Unicycle rims on my Susie.  42mm outside /.32 
inside.  They don't offer the machined sidewall version anymore, but I 
haven't had braking issues.  I can detect the pinned joint at times, but 
it's not a detractor.  They're stronger than any other rim  (they're meant 
to carry a rider's e tire weight on one unsuspended wheel) but feel MUCH 
lighter in reality than they do on paper.  I wasn't too concerned about 
long-term aesthetics, but the brake surface has held up remarkably well.  
 It's a good anodizing.  I have anodized rims on one of my most used bikes 
from 1997 where the finish has held up well, too.  In both cases, the 
blemishes occur when you use them in wet, muddy conditions and get grit on 
the pads. I have some Kris Holm 29er unicycle rims too, that are even wider 
and DO have a machined braking surface, but they'd be hard to find. 

Ive posted pics of my susie a few times here over the past couple of years, 
but can try to take some more if you're interested.
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:41:01 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:

> 2mm wider.
>
> Laing
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:39:16 AM UTC-5 lconley wrote:
>
>> Alex DM-24. When I was deciding what rims to get built for the 
>> Hubbuhubbuh, Rich said that the Alex rims were slightly wider - 1mm -> 32 
>> mm wide.
>>
>>
>> Laing
>> Delray Beach FL
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:29:31 AM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2.5"-2.6" tires seem to be at the very upper limits for the venerable 
>>> Cliffhanger. Is anyone aware of a 700c  rim brake rim that is a bit wider? 
>>> I have not found one.
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d91467c0-ef91-4c39-bfc0-085390b4610fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Cliffhanger alternatives?

[iamkeith]

I should add:  i built my wheels while waiting for my first-run susie to 
arrive.  (I think I got the rims before the pre-sale even)
  I wanted to max out tire width and couldn't imagine a 2.8 tire working 
well on a cliffhanger.  I like wide rim-to-tire ratios for numerous 
reasons.  Now that I've done it, I feel like 2.8 is too much tire for this 
bike.  At least with the V speedster tires I have.  They steer funny and 
raise the bb too much.  So now I'm looking for a good 2.6 tire  which I 
think will be about right.  I just haven't found a tread pattern that 
appeals to me.  My humble, layman's prediction this size is likely where 
the industry will shake out, and tires will be available for a long time, 
too.  It's rare that I ever feel like a bike has more tire clearance than I 
need  but this was a pleasant exception.  So narrower rims "might" have 
worked for me too.

"
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:01:29 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

>
> I used the Nimbus Dominator Unicycle rims on my Susie.  42mm outside /.32 
> inside.  They don't offer the machined sidewall version anymore, but I 
> haven't had braking issues.  I can detect the pinned joint at times, but 
> it's not a detractor.  They're stronger than any other rim  (they're meant 
> to carry a rider's e tire weight on one unsuspended wheel) but feel MUCH 
> lighter in reality than they do on paper.  I wasn't too concerned about 
> long-term aesthetics, but the brake surface has held up remarkably well.  
>  It's a good anodizing.  I have anodized rims on one of my most used bikes 
> from 1997 where the finish has held up well, too.  In both cases, the 
> blemishes occur when you use them in wet, muddy conditions and get grit on 
> the pads. I have some Kris Holm 29er unicycle rims too, that are even wider 
> and DO have a machined braking surface, but they'd be hard to find. 
>
> Ive posted pics of my susie a few times here over the past couple of 
> years, but can try to take some more if you're interested.
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:41:01 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:
>
>> 2mm wider.
>>
>> Laing
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:39:16 AM UTC-5 lconley wrote:
>>
>>> Alex DM-24. When I was deciding what rims to get built for the 
>>> Hubbuhubbuh, Rich said that the Alex rims were slightly wider - 1mm -> 32 
>>> mm wide.
>>>
>>>
>>> Laing
>>> Delray Beach FL
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:29:31 AM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2.5"-2.6" tires seem to be at the very upper limits for the venerable 
>>>> Cliffhanger. Is anyone aware of a 700c  rim brake rim that is a bit wider? 
>>>> I have not found one.
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/615f9878-3538-4896-83ba-cfa83830bc83n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Cliffhanger alternatives?

[iamkeith]

The Dominators aren't technically tubeless.  I suppose ghetto technique is 
always an option.  I've decided I hate tubeless though, and am reverting to 
tubes on my bikes that are tubeless.  On my Susie, I used some of those 
new-at-the-time polyurethane tubes from Tubolito, to save weight.  I can't 
technically endorse these because they're not supposed to be used with rim 
brakes.  But, once again, I've had no issues and am super happy with them.  
I just don't bomb downhills where Id generate high brake temps..   It's a 
joy to NEVER have to pump up your tires... in contrast to tubelss where I 
have to do it all the time.  I figure the bigger volume helps dissipate 
heat, too.

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:07:31 AM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey Keith, are those rims tubeless compatible? 
>
> As for machined sidewall, neither set of my cliffhangers have them and 
> braking hasn’t been an issue even with the ice and snow. I have seen 
> plenty of 2.8” tires successfully run on a 25mm ID (like the cliffhanger) 
> rim so i wouldn’t worry much there. You just can’t go quite as low with the 
> tire pressure or they get a bit squirmy. Rider weight makes a big 
> difference on that though at a certain point as well. 
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:01:29 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>
>>
>> I used the Nimbus Dominator Unicycle rims on my Susie.  42mm outside /.32 
>> inside.  They don't offer the machined sidewall version anymore, but I 
>> haven't had braking issues.  I can detect the pinned joint at times, but 
>> it's not a detractor.  They're stronger than any other rim  (they're meant 
>> to carry a rider's e tire weight on one unsuspended wheel) but feel MUCH 
>> lighter in reality than they do on paper.  I wasn't too concerned about 
>> long-term aesthetics, but the brake surface has held up remarkably well.  
>>  It's a good anodizing.  I have anodized rims on one of my most used bikes 
>> from 1997 where the finish has held up well, too.  In both cases, the 
>> blemishes occur when you use them in wet, muddy conditions and get grit on 
>> the pads. I have some Kris Holm 29er unicycle rims too, that are even wider 
>> and DO have a machined braking surface, but they'd be hard to find. 
>>
>> Ive posted pics of my susie a few times here over the past couple of 
>> years, but can try to take some more if you're interested.
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:41:01 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:
>>
>>> 2mm wider.
>>>
>>> Laing
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:39:16 AM UTC-5 lconley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex DM-24. When I was deciding what rims to get built for the 
>>>> Hubbuhubbuh, Rich said that the Alex rims were slightly wider - 1mm -> 32 
>>>> mm wide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Laing
>>>> Delray Beach FL
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:29:31 AM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2.5"-2.6" tires seem to be at the very upper limits for the venerable 
>>>>> Cliffhanger. Is anyone aware of a 700c  rim brake rim that is a bit 
>>>>> wider? 
>>>>> I have not found one.
>>>>
>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9435fe8b-5d27-4142-a610-c84a9606764bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Cliffhanger alternatives?

[iamkeith]

I don't know.  Like  @frahm30 (sorry, don't know your actual name) said, I 
think rider weight might have a lot to do with it.  I had RTPs on my All 
Rounder, using 17mm rims, and absolutely hated it.   I moved them over to 
an old mountain bike with wider rims and they're great.   On the narrow 
rims, I had to pump them up so high to avoid squirming while cornering that 
it felt like I was riding on a pair of basketballs.  Bouncing down the 
road.  Before 2.6 and 2.8 tires were a thing, I settled on 2.4 Ardents on 
Velocity Dually rims as my mtb tire of choice, because I liked what the 
over-size rim did for them.   I could air them down as far as I wanted, 
without worry about rolling a tire off the rim.   (This is where I do 
appreciate  tubeless, because I'd get pinch flats otherwise.)Part of my 
preferences might be influenced by my huge fear of rolling tires though.  
Any squirm or collapsing of the sidewall  send shudders through me and 
makes me ride tentatively.  I've rolled tires right off the rim a couple of 
times, and have never recovered physically from one of the resultant 
accidents. 

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:05:16 AM UTC-7 Mackenzy Albright wrote:

> IME: type or riding pending rim width in popular bike market is a bit 
> inflated. I run 2.5's on 19mm inner width with no issues. Ive ran rat traps 
> on 17mm inner width tires. The main issue is rolling at low pressure if 
> running tubeless. I've gotten over the perks of tubeless because I like to 
> self service my bike. With tubes if the pressure is kept in check I've had 
> no issues. 
>
> Ive also asked Jam Heine about this early on when rat traps came out. The 
> width changes the tire shape and ride characteristics. A narrower rim gives 
> better pneumatic suspension, restricts footprint,  but will roll at low 
> pressure. Wider rims spreads tires giving a larger foot print, ability to 
> run lower pressure without rolling, but sacrifice some of the squish. 
>
> I wouldn't run narrow rims on a downhill bike with 2.6 tires. But for slow 
> trail mashing over rocks and roots.
>
> I think that bike industry wants to cover it's ass for legal reasons and 
> sell you specialty parts. There's a lot of wiggle room. 
>
> *Based on experience and opinions. There are a lot of variables in play 
> here, so it's not going to be universal for everyone. Just a counter point 
> to everyone thinking they need 25mm internal width rims. 
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-8 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I can’t imagine not having tubeless with bigger tires 
>> especially. Been tubeless for about 10 years and have never had one issue. 
>> I did have trouble with my first set needing to be pumped back up every few 
>> days for the first month or so. A shop set those up though. I have found 
>> that using a tube for a quick ride to make sure the tape is set to be a 
>> key. Shops do not take the time for that. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:25:41 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good to know!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Ryan Frahm  wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard, my 2.5” Ehline measures right at 2.5”. They are huge sitting 
>>> next to the Fleecer Ridge 55mm. They roll very fast compared to the Maxxis 
>>> tire as well. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-8 Ryan Frahm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Keith, are those rims tubeless compatible? 
>>>>
>>>> As for machined sidewall, neither set of my cliffhangers have them and 
>>>> braking hasn’t been an issue even with the ice and snow. I have seen 
>>>> plenty of 2.8” tires successfully run on a 25mm ID (like the cliffhanger) 
>>>> rim so i wouldn’t worry much there. You just can’t go quite as low with 
>>>> the 
>>>> tire pressure or they get a bit squirmy. Rider weight makes a big 
>>>> difference on that though at a certain point as well. 
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:01:29 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I used the Nimbus Dominator Unicycle rims on my Susie.  42mm outside 
>>>>> /.32 inside.  They don't offer the machined sidewall version anymore, but 
>>>>> I 
>>>>> haven't had braking issues.  I can detect the pinned joint at times, but 
>>>>> it's not a detractor.  They're stronger than any other rim  (they're 
>>>>> meant 
>>>>> to carry a rider's e ti

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[iamkeith]

Joe,

before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:

I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
consideration of that question.


*"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. They're 
the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the year or 
more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an retro-grouch 
like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
weight. Then they quit riding them. 

*Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE advances 
in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat bike tires 
were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 2008, maybe? 
Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which was 
similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really plan 
on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no longer 
any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires that give 
you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the problems. If you 
think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" than 650b, right? 
They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 

*Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes is 
that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. But 
it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to really take advantage 
of this. Almost as much hassle as dealing with shock rebound rates and 
pressure settings, etc. on a true full-suspension bike. When you get tire 
pressure >just< right, you don't bounce at all, and you don't have funny 
steering or excessive rolling inefficiency. But the optimum pressure 
requirement changes depending on terrain and load, so you end up fussing 
with it a lot. (or giving up and getting frustrated with the ride qualities 
- a la the "novelty wearing off topic." ) The REALLY important thing to 
keep in mind here is that the bigger the tire volume / cross section, the 
more sensitive it is  to pressure adjustments, and the more you need to 
mess with it. So you're absolutely better off only getting as much tire as 
you really need! 4" is really overkill most of the time, now that there are 
intermediate options.

*Geometry considerations (and Pugsley concern)*: You specifically asked 
about the Puglsey. I'll venture that is probably NOT the bike for you. I 
had a first generation pugsly at one point (with canti brakes!) . The thing 
about wrist pain - as you know from Grant teaching us - is that it's more 
of an issue of frame geometry than it is of tire plushness or vibrations 
and impacts being transferred through the bars. In particular, it comes 
from bikes with too-low handlebars and too-steep seat tubes angles and 
twitchy steering geometries, all conspiring to require you to put lots of 
your body weight on the handlebars. They may have gotten better since mine, 
but the thing about pretty much ALL surly bikes is that they have extremely 
short head tubes and stack heights. You can add 4" of stem spacers and a 
high-rise stem but, at some point, you're probably fighting the design 
intent of the bike. 

Similarly and, as CJ noted, many accomplished snow bike racers prefer short 
chainstays, and it's probably valid.. to a point. I've had that same 
conversation with Mike Curiak and Jay Petervary. The think to keep in mind 
is that these are extremely fit riders who have the strength to shift their 
weight fore and aft as needed, as a technique for staying on top of the 
snow. AND they're riding in the iditarod, for christ's sake. For most of us 
mortals - and for someone who's not really even riding on snow - that's 
much less

[RBW] Re: Roller-Cam brakes

[iamkeith]

Those can be great brakes.  You're fortunate that the posts are located on 
the seat stays. Most often they are on the bottom of the chainstays and are 
difficult to work on just because of lack of space.  There are two slightly 
different versions of those sun tour brakes, with one generally being 
considered superior.  I don't know enough to identify which yours is  but 
there's info out there.  There are also U-brakes that look like giant 
frame-mount center-pull caliper brakes, which use the same mounting 
standard, but I don't know that they're an improvement at all.  They're 
bulky and have limited clearance.  There are also super sought-after roller 
cams made by WTB/Charlie Cunningham/DKG machine, but they'd be a couple 
thousand dollars each  IF you could even find them.  The sun tours are a 
licensed version of those, and are pretty neat for a runabout hobby bike.

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7 James wrote:

> This isn't a Rivendell related question, and for that I apologize, but 
> ya'll are the most bike-savvy people I "know".  I see a lot of value in a 
> cheap, knock-around, lock-up-anywhere bike, so I have my eyes on a local 
> Schwinn High Sierra.  It has roller-cam brakes and I have know experience 
> with those.  What is yawls experience with roller-cam breaks and due to the 
> placement of the mounts on the frame, what other brakes may be compatible? 
>  The mounts seem higher on the frame than cantilever mounts.  Would center 
> or side-pull brakes work?  What other options do I have?  Thank you
>
> Picture: https://imgur.com/0IqjRl1
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3b5fb892-4d9c-440e-8501-12eacba7ebefn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: cassette advice?

[iamkeith]

My only advice is to run your proposed chainrings and sprockets combination 
through Sheldon's gear calculator or something similar, to make sure you 
don't have a bunch of redundant gear combinations.  To me, the only reason 
for having a close-ratio cassette is to be able to have more incremental 
cadence options.  When you have a complete, mainstream, racer wannabe 
component group  this is usually worked out.But sometimes the more 
versatile chainring setups like yours (and mine) end up yielding too many 
combos that are almost identical.  At that point, you don't really gain 
anything by going with smaller cogs.

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:45:56 AM UTC-7 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm thinking about changing up the cassette on my Hillborne this winter. 
> I'm currently running an 11-32 (9sp) with 48/36/26 in front.
>
> I've moved to the midwest, and now the closest thing I see to a hill is a 
> freeway overpass. I'd like to try a more compact cassette, thinking 
> something like a 13-28. I somehow have only ridden wide range cassettes, so 
> this is new territory to me. Any advice on this swap?
>
> I also realize the triple front is superfluous, but don't want to swap it 
> unnecessarily, the cassette is getting old, cranks seem fine.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam - just back from a ride through Chicago snow.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9e0c4e82-6a43-4853-b25d-0a57f4e140e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Roller-Cam brakes

[iamkeith]

Winner winner, chicken dinner.  That's one of the nicest bikes I've ever 
seen.  Good trade!

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 6:27:06 PM UTC-7 WilletM wrote:

>
> I don't get a chance to share pics of my Ritchey Annapurna all that often, 
> but this is a good illustration of the pricey WTB rollercams front and 
> rear, with the rear being chainstay mounted.  This frame was originally 
> built up with a Campy Euclid gruppo, but the original owner (who must've 
> been flush with cash, is all I can think) decided to bling it up with WTB 
> and other top-of-the-top-shelf items, which necessitated also ordering a 
> second Annapurna fork with rollercam mounts in the correct positions.
>
> Back in the early 1990's, I was in the right place at the right time and 
> traded a nice-but-nothing-too-special Bridgestone RB-1 and $600 for this 
> Annapurna and a mint Cinelli Supercorsa with Campy NR/SR.  Those were the 
> days.
>
> Willet M.
>
>
>
> [image: Dinner 015.jpg]
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 3:23:37 PM UTC-7 James wrote:
>
>> This is encouraging information!  Thanks for sharing the knowledge. 
>>  Hoping to see the bike this week
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:48:12 PM UTC-5 Greg J wrote:
>>
>>> James, if the picture you attached is the actual bike you're looking at, 
>>> those are the nice ones.  You should have no issues with those brakes. 
>>>  They work great, they take normal brake shoes, and there are plenty enough 
>>> of them for spare parts (although they're pretty well built).  Good luck!
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those can be great brakes.  You're fortunate that the posts are located 
>>>> on the seat stays. Most often they are on the bottom of the chainstays and 
>>>> are difficult to work on just because of lack of space.  There are two 
>>>> slightly different versions of those sun tour brakes, with one generally 
>>>> being considered superior.  I don't know enough to identify which yours is 
>>>>  
>>>> but there's info out there.  There are also U-brakes that look like giant 
>>>> frame-mount center-pull caliper brakes, which use the same mounting 
>>>> standard, but I don't know that they're an improvement at all.  They're 
>>>> bulky and have limited clearance.  There are also super sought-after 
>>>> roller 
>>>> cams made by WTB/Charlie Cunningham/DKG machine, but they'd be a couple 
>>>> thousand dollars each  IF you could even find them.  The sun tours are a 
>>>> licensed version of those, and are pretty neat for a runabout hobby bike.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:39:26 AM UTC-7 James wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't a Rivendell related question, and for that I apologize, but 
>>>>> ya'll are the most bike-savvy people I "know".  I see a lot of value in a 
>>>>> cheap, knock-around, lock-up-anywhere bike, so I have my eyes on a local 
>>>>> Schwinn High Sierra.  It has roller-cam brakes and I have know experience 
>>>>> with those.  What is yawls experience with roller-cam breaks and due to 
>>>>> the 
>>>>> placement of the mounts on the frame, what other brakes may be 
>>>>> compatible? 
>>>>>  The mounts seem higher on the frame than cantilever mounts.  Would 
>>>>> center 
>>>>> or side-pull brakes work?  What other options do I have?  Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>> Picture: https://imgur.com/0IqjRl1
>>>>>
>>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c99b0a2b-33f8-4df5-ad36-43034c457ed1n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Are Billy Bonkers narrower than listed?

[iamkeith]

Don't give up.  I've had this same question.  I put the 2.1 GKs on my 
Allrounder last summer.  They fit the frame ok, but are too tight with 
fenders.  For what it's worth, the 2.1 GKs are bigger than the 2.1 Rat Trap 
Pass tires that were on there previously, which kind of bummed me out.  I 
thought 2.1 would be the magic size.  So I'm (purely) guessing the BBs will 
be smaller - even if that just means true to size.  If not  maybe RTPs will 
work instead of the NPs?  If not, we're all just waiting for 26x1.95 which, 
at one point, was the dominant size produced.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:11:54 AM UTC-7 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Thanks Garth.  They mounted to the RIM with no tools and minimal effort.  
> It has to do with clearance issues with the frame and fork.  I used to run 
> 26 x 50 Schwalbe kojaks with no issue in aeroheat and cliffhanger rims, so 
> I presumed the 26 x 2.1 gravel kings would work.
>
> Anyone want to trade new folding Billy Bonkers, gently used Natches Pass, 
> or new Homage tires for a new pair of Gravel Kings?
>
> Or, I may just be done with idiosyncratic bikes (e.g. Quickbeams and 
> Xo-3s).
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 3:26:25 AM UTC-6 Garth wrote:
>
>> As for the tire mounting, those Kool Stop Tire Jacks are designed to 
>> assist in just what you describe, very difficult "I can't, it won't, etc" 
>> tire mountings. 
>>
>> Schwalbe states their tires are "usually" a little narrower, but not 
>> every specific tire is like that. They state a variation of +/-3mm.  No 
>> experience with the Billy Bonkers from me.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 7:10:32 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just tried to mount Gravel King 26s to to Dyad rims on my '94 XO-3--no 
>>> dice.  Does anyone have experience with Billy Bonkers?  My history with 
>>> Schwalbe is tells me that in practice their tires are reliably narrower 
>>> than listed.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e868954d-ac69-46f0-878a-d9e048ec1c15n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Are Billy Bonkers narrower than listed?

[iamkeith]

I meant that the 2.1 Gravel Kings are bigger than the 2.3 Rat Trap Pass 
tires

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:49:56 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> Don't give up.  I've had this same question.  I put the 2.1 GKs on my 
> Allrounder last summer.  They fit the frame ok, but are too tight with 
> fenders.  For what it's worth, the 2.1 GKs are bigger than the 2.1 Rat Trap 
> Pass tires that were on there previously, which kind of bummed me out.  I 
> thought 2.1 would be the magic size.  So I'm (purely) guessing the BBs will 
> be smaller - even if that just means true to size.  If not  maybe RTPs will 
> work instead of the NPs?  If not, we're all just waiting for 26x1.95 which, 
> at one point, was the dominant size produced.
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:11:54 AM UTC-7 captaincon...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Garth.  They mounted to the RIM with no tools and minimal effort.  
>> It has to do with clearance issues with the frame and fork.  I used to run 
>> 26 x 50 Schwalbe kojaks with no issue in aeroheat and cliffhanger rims, so 
>> I presumed the 26 x 2.1 gravel kings would work.
>>
>> Anyone want to trade new folding Billy Bonkers, gently used Natches Pass, 
>> or new Homage tires for a new pair of Gravel Kings?
>>
>> Or, I may just be done with idiosyncratic bikes (e.g. Quickbeams and 
>> Xo-3s).
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 3:26:25 AM UTC-6 Garth wrote:
>>
>>> As for the tire mounting, those Kool Stop Tire Jacks are designed to 
>>> assist in just what you describe, very difficult "I can't, it won't, etc" 
>>> tire mountings. 
>>>
>>> Schwalbe states their tires are "usually" a little narrower, but not 
>>> every specific tire is like that. They state a variation of +/-3mm.  No 
>>> experience with the Billy Bonkers from me.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 7:10:32 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just tried to mount Gravel King 26s to to Dyad rims on my '94 
>>>> XO-3--no dice.  Does anyone have experience with Billy Bonkers?  My 
>>>> history 
>>>> with Schwalbe is tells me that in practice their tires are reliably 
>>>> narrower than listed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ed569170-9f61-4f98-a8a7-714d33f8bdafn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Are Billy Bonkers narrower than listed?

[iamkeith]

Please let us know how the Billy Bonkers work out.

The Naches Pass size is interested.  I haven't tried them, but I have the 
original "Compass" model, which were in fact based on the 1.75 Pasellas.  
Same mold and tread, but more supple casing.  They were/are nice (that's 
what I used before the RTPs and then, again, before the Gravel Kings),  but 
I keep wanting to max out my frame clearance a bit more. They look so small 
in there.   It's odd that Jan would pay for a whole new mold that only 
gained  .05" in size over its predecessor. My only real frustration is that 
the sidewalls are rotting out before the tread wears out.  But that's often 
the case for me because of high UV exposure where I live and due to having 
too many bikes in rotation.  Based on this though, I'd have to say Pasellas 
are a good choice.  Or black sidewalls.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-7 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I just ordered Billy Bonkers on Amazon for ease of returning them if they 
> don't work out.  I like the idea of Renee Herse tires, but they are 
> relatively expensive and I've read enough negative feedback about them that 
> I have always chose another option.  In this case, I'd probably but 
> panaracer pasela 1.75s and concede the .05 of width that the Natches Pass 
> tires offer.
>
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:52:56 AM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Typo: Mine are *41 mm on 21 mm OW rims.*
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:51 AM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>
>>> ... (mine are 42 mm on 21 mm OW rims) ...
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/97966dc9-410e-4046-b882-46e69b107e64n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Gus and Susie ride off into the sunset

[iamkeith]

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:59:23 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> I am feeling so very lucky to have found a Gus. On the subject of 
> Gus/Susie bikes; who among us are using a crankset with shorter than 165mm 
> cranks in an effort to improve pedal clearance on rough trails? I’ve been 
> researching available cranks and finding interesting possible benefits 
> other than pedal clearance.
>
>
Have you tried a longer crank, or are you just building yours up for the 
first time and assuming you'll want more clearance?  (Based perhaps on 
experience with other rivendell models.)  My single conplaint about my 
Susie is that the botgom bracket is too high.  Its not at all like my Clem 
or my other most-ridden mountain bikes from other companies, that are all 
much lower..  I've probably  learned to adjust my pedaling technique from 
previous experience, and my huge 2.8 tires probably have something to do 
with it too but, in case you haven't done so, you should try it with 
normal/long* cranks to see if it is really an issue. (*mine are 175)

On topic - it is definitely sad to see these go.  Grant orginally said that 
it might only be the first batch that was fillet brazed, but didn't suggest 
that the models would just "disappear."  Seems a shame to throw in the 
towel and not keep them going in some form, even if they're just tigged.  
That's how the Charlie Gallop - with similar top tube curve -  will be 
built, right?  With the Clem(entine) moving further away from its original 
mountain/hill bike concept, and with the Hunquapillar long gone, this just 
feels like a slot that needs filled to me.
 

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 8, 2023, at 11:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:
>
> Apparently the fillets cost more to do, the Gus/Susie are already $250 
> more than the lugged frames and were going to go higher if they did another 
> run. These are great frames, if money/opportunity ever lines up for me I'm 
> going to grab a Gus. If you want one now and have the cash, buy it! 
>
>
> Joe Bernard 
>
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:18:04 PM UTC-8 Luke Hendrickson wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I guess the frame builders prefer making lugged framesets over 
>> fillet brazing. Too bad, but looking forward to the bike Riv makes that’s 
>> sorta between the Susie & Gus. 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:32:22 PM UTC-8 Paul M wrote:
>>
>>> If you read the current Rivendell Blahg (Grants blog) he mentions that 
>>> the last fillet brazed Hillibikes, the Gus & Susie shipment that just 
>>> arrived, will be it for that those models being made. So last chance at 
>>> owning a beautiful ATB frameset.
>>
>> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fdd4b8d7-d50b-4cd0-9ef5-5ddc11addb5an%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/52f97926-e1e6-4064-b3da-325e782d07d2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[iamkeith]

I haven't fully read this thread, but have been tempted to discuss my 
Scapegoat.  I have the Gen 2 and, as I've stated in other threads, it is 
one of the best bikes I've ever owned.  I was slow to investigate or buy it 
- despite wanting the exact thing - because it is so ugly.  I finally 
jumped on one just before the pandemic hit, when Crust was moving, and had 
them on sale.  I had contemplated the Tumbleweed Prospector and a couple of 
other, similar bikes - including the Chumba Ursa and the Analog/Tanglefoot 
Moonshiner - before looking past the paint job, really studying the 
Scapegoat's geometry chart, and realizing it was just what I wanted.  

Unfortunately, the new version un-did most of what I sought out and like 
about my Gen 2 and made it different than other offerings.It had a much 
lower BB, and a longer TT  than the new version.   The fact that the bb is 
now higher and the HT angle is now slacker than the Prospector (which is 
high in order to accommodate the squish of a suspension fork if so 
outfitted)   really tells me how much the Gen 3 has changed.  (Assuming 
that's accurate.) The top tube on the Gen 2 large was longer than the one 
on the Gen 3 XL.  The longer chainstay on the Gen 3 is probably good.  But 
unless someone actually owns the new Gen 3, I think it's going to be tough 
to get a good review. 

It really depends on what you want, but the prospector might once again be 
king of the hill for my tastes.   Unless you can find a Gen 2 Scapegoat - 
then get that!.  That's my suggestion anyway.  The stooge Scrambler has a 
great geometry too, but it still doesn't a have enough clearance for the 
rear tire.  The reason the Scapegoat works so well is that they used flat 
yoke plates on BOTH sides where the chainstays connect to the bb.

Regarding the chain tensioning options:  Owning bikes with: (1) an 
eccentric bb [a  Jones 29]; (2) sliding dropouts [my actual fatbike, a 
lynskey]; and (3) rocker dropouts [the Scapegoat], I'd say that the 
eccentric bb is my favorite in terms of hassle-free, set-it-and-forget it 
ease.   The only bad thing is that I position it with a rear bias to yield 
a longer front-center measurement (ideal for me) which means that the rear 
center / effective chainstay length gets shorter (bad).  The other two 
mechanisms allow you to lengthen the later measurement by itself (good).

In case you haven't shopped for off-the-shelf wheel sets lately, boost 
wheels are now easier to find and do help a tiny bit with drivetrain 
clearance.  The prospector is still 135 only because it works best with 
Rohloff.  

FWIW, I have my scapegoat set up with 27x3.25 wheels, 3x drivetrain and 
full fenders - not 26x4 wheels.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:48:56 AM UTC-7 Joe D. wrote:

> Another question for you Crust Scapegoat owners... Crust released an 
> updated version last Fall (https://crustbikes.com/products/scapegoat). 
> Compared to the Tumbleweed Prospector,  the new Scapegoat has 1.5 degree 
> steeper head tube angle, 1 degree slacker seat tube angle, and the 
> wheelbase is 50mm shorter in size L (
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=63613a1388731d001d710fb5,61bf4058e6ec02001cccd3cf,).
>   
> There's also the rocker/sliding dropouts of Scapegoat vs standard 
> dropoust/EBB of the Prospector. And the Prospector's ability to run 135mm 
> spaced wheels front and back vs Boost spacing of the Scapegoat.
>
> The slacker head tube angle of the Prospector makes me think it'd handle 
> singletrack better than the Scapegoat. Any merit to that? Any other ride 
> differences you all imagine between the two?
>
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:03:30 PM UTC-7 cjus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You guys have it right for ball parking limits based on something in the 
>> 26x~4" range based on my experience.
>>
>> As stated before, my custom Clockwork Dirt Fat 1x (SqT White Industries 
>> Road Cranks w/76bcd spider & 1x ring) with narrow Deda stays has a Q of 
>> ~180mm and looking at the space needed for tire, space, stays (modern yokes 
>> giving a little more here when used), space and arms, 170mm was what I was 
>> thinking for theoretical minimum with a SS or Rohloff.  Sounds like Zach is 
>> confirming 168mm really pushes that limit.
>>
>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-6 Joe D. wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Zach! The Tumbleweed is definitely appealing, especially with a 
>>> 29 x 3 dirt tire and 26 x 4 in winter.
>>>
>>> I wonder if 26 x 4 with reasonably big rims (64mm or full 80mm) would 
>>> work with a modified cassette, like the setup Crust bikes talk about here: 
>>> https://www.tumblr.com/crustbikes/159521355676/the-stubby-cassette. I'd 
>>> be fine with only 5-7 gears. And I think a Q factor closer to 180-185 would 
>>> be ok. It sounds like it'd definitely be a no-go at your Q factor of 174.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:23:35 AM UTC-7 Zach Roeder wrote:
>>>
 I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q of

Re: [RBW] Which Paul brakes for a Quickbeam or Simple One?

[iamkeith]

Since the Quickbeam has a nice, built-in cable hanger at the rear (whereas 
the Simple One relies on an ad-on hanger installed at the seatpost clamp 
bolt), I think it's nice to use canti brakes.  Just my opinion.  I had wide 
profile brakes, like the neo-retro, both front and rear on my Quickbeam 
(and will again when I finish rebuilding it) and never had heel clearance 
problems.   I do have another bike where I needed to use the touring on the 
rear with the neo retro on the front.

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 12:01:17 PM UTC-7 eliot...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Why not do the motolite V brakes ? I bet they rock
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:19 AM Drew Henson  wrote:
>
>> Also depends on if you want to run fenders. I don't think the minimotos 
>> have all that much clearance depending on tire size.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 10:06:49 AM UTC-8 JohnS wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Mark, good to know.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM UTC-5 esoter...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 John,

 The Paul Minomotos are actually short-pull calipers, so you can use the 
 same short-pull levers that you would use with the touring/neo-retro 
 cantilevers. The Paul Motolites are the ones that use long-pull levers. 

 ~Mark
 Raleigh, NC


 On Jan 11, 2023, at 12:57, JohnS  wrote:

 The "are Paul's brakes worth it thread" got me thinking that I should 
 give them a try on my Quickbeam. What do people have experience with? I 
 like the idea of using touring canti's on the rear and minimotos on the 
 front as seen on this Rock Lobster build over on The Radivist.



 https://theradavist.com/cyclofunk-single-speed-rock-lobster-cyclocross-kyle-kelley/

 The only problem with that is, I'll have to get two pairs of brake 
 levels, one short pull and one long pull. I'm planning on using 
 Mark/noodle 
 drop bars, so the Tektro R340 and RL520 brake levers are at reasonably 
 priced at $30/pair.

 Any suggestions are appreciated,
 JohnS

 -- 
 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8fdc7e95-aa10-446d-97ec-695316b217d2n%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

 -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5f794274-b912-4cd8-b60b-3c2b14dcde6bn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/86dc299d-ab40-4348-b213-594a8b0338f1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Last Gus and Susie, 1/12/23, 3est

[iamkeith]

Wish I could afford to buy a second frame to keep as a spare.

Just throwing this out there in case somebody is on the fenve because what 
they really want is a Large Susie in the construction pumpkin orange color, 
but it isn't available anymore:  if you get a large dark gold frame, I will 
trade you for my orange.

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:48:09 PM UTC-7 Scott wrote:

> Anybody taking the plunge for a Gus or Susie?
>
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 06:25:04 PM MST, Joe Bernard <
> joer...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
> This is it kids, 3 Eastern, 12 Pacific. Be there. Aloha.  
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a5723461-5ecb-46a5-b2cc-913bed67fe81n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/933db864-8634-420f-842e-55f8ee65037en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Which Paul brakes for a Quickbeam or Simple One?

[iamkeith]

DIa Compe 287V still seems to be readily available.
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> To fully clean and purge all residual nuances for this discussion of the 
> bestPaul brakes for one's bike: Question: What are the several options for 
> long-pull road levers? Long ago it was Tektro and Cane Creek long-pull road 
> levers, and I used both, but that was circa 2012 when I first built my 
> first edition Fargo. Have any other long pull drop bar levers appeared in 
> the last decade? Context: I'd really love to use V brakes on my 2020 
> Matthews, but I would hate to give up my 7410-era DA levers. So I wonder if 
> anyone makes long-pull drop bar levers more like the DAs and less like the 
> CC and Tektros -- which I think were the same brake under different logos? 
> Don't want Travel Agents or similar.
>
> I expect that in 2023 we have the same options, CC and Tektro, only.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/cc2ead86-4bac-4e8d-b5a3-91c9d781182bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Gus owners, does your RD/shifter cable rub against kickstand bracket?

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 10:07:21 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:
Did you try using the other hole on the BB cable guide?


In  the case of the OP's  question, it is more an issue of vertical 
clearance than side-to-side.   That part doesn't change if you move the bb 
cable guide to the other hole.  The guide position shown on my bike is 
correct, because that's the one that routes the front derailleur cable 
properly.  I guess if I was using a rear derailleur only, I could have 
moved mine - but it still would have rubbed on the kickstand plate.


Laing

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:02:38 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
Here's what I did. (this is on my Susie Longbolts, but same thing).  This 
is a piece of 1/2" thick HDPE sheet.  I really did this to kick the cable 
outward a little, in order to clear some really wide 2.8" tires and, now, 
fenders.  But it had the bonus of "lifting" the cable away from the 
turned--down edge of the bracket, too.   If you don't need the width 
clearance, you could also just use a small piece of cable housing liner 
tube.  I do that often because, like you, I don't like the idea of cables 
rubbing on the frame.  You just have to check it every few years to make 
sure it hasn't worn through.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:
Which hole in the under BB cable guide are you using?

Pictures are always helpful.

Laing

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-5 Scott wrote:
Gus owners,

When doing a trial run of my RD/shifter cable from the BB cable guide to 
chain stay housing stop, it contacts underside of the kickstand bracket. 
Not proper in my mind.

If you have same situation, how are you going to correct it, or just leave 
it? What say you?

Scott

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4b37fba1-759e-4329-ad93-739047ab3b17n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Gus owners, does your RD/shifter cable rub against kickstand bracket?

[iamkeith]

...  The guide position shown on my bike is correct, because that's the one 
that routes the front derailleur cable properly.  I guess if I was using a 
rear derailleur only, I could have moved mine - but it still would have 
rubbed on the kickstand plate.



(But "yes," I did try the other hole. )


 
Laing

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:02:38 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
Here's what I did. (this is on my Susie Longbolts, but same thing).  This 
is a piece of 1/2" thick HDPE sheet.  I really did this to kick the cable 
outward a little, in order to clear some really wide 2.8" tires and, now, 
fenders.  But it had the bonus of "lifting" the cable away from the 
turned--down edge of the bracket, too.   If you don't need the width 
clearance, you could also just use a small piece of cable housing liner 
tube.  I do that often because, like you, I don't like the idea of cables 
rubbing on the frame.  You just have to check it every few years to make 
sure it hasn't worn through.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:
Which hole in the under BB cable guide are you using?

Pictures are always helpful.

Laing

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-5 Scott wrote:
Gus owners,

When doing a trial run of my RD/shifter cable from the BB cable guide to 
chain stay housing stop, it contacts underside of the kickstand bracket. 
Not proper in my mind.

If you have same situation, how are you going to correct it, or just leave 
it? What say you?

Scott

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5d685952-2b93-42d0-b58d-2da80a7c764an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Gus owners, does your RD/shifter cable rub against kickstand bracket?

[iamkeith]

FWIW, @brokebike's reply reminded me:  With the guide shifted outward like 
this photo, my derailleur cable DID land right at the edge of the kickstand 
plate. So the wear to the cable and frame could have been worse.  I think 
the contours of the fillet on my bike made it less-than perfect in that 
position, too.  So all things considered and trying different options, the 
position in my photos worked best for me.

Also, I did briefly attempt to drill holes in the turned-down edges on the 
kickstand plate, in an effort to "tunnel" the derailleur cable through it.  
(I seem to recall having some similar detail on a chainstary brace on an 
old Ritchey mtb at some point.)  Because it was hard to get a drill (or 
center punch) at the correct angle, it became evident pretty quickly that I 
was going to mess up some paint somewhere.  Plus, it would have fixed the 
cable position permanently.  So the HDPE guide was actually my fix option 
#4 or #5.  It's pretty perfect, I think. 

(Also, when I say "fix", I don't really mean there is a design flaw in the 
bike.   It's just one of those things you need to discover and work out, 
same as any bike)

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-7 Scott wrote:

> Richard,
>
> I don't think that's correct hole in cable guide to pass screw through. If 
> you position cable guide using that hole, it moves guide (for FD cable) 
> more inboard and your FD cable will likely interfere with whatever you 
> mount on underside of down tube cage bosses. Eyeball the line of site from 
> cable guide along underside of down tube to see what I mean.
>
> As always, I may be incorrect...
>
> Scott
>
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 11:53:31 AM MST, Richard Rose <
> rmro...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
> Very interesting. My rear derailleur has yet to arrive but this got my 
> attention! So I installed the guide to eyeball the situation. It does not 
> look like it will be an issue but it certainly will not take me by 
> surprise.:)
> [image: image0.jpeg]
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2023, at 10:48 AM, 'Scott' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Gus owners,
>
> When doing a trial run of my RD/shifter cable from the BB cable guide to 
> chain stay housing stop, it contacts underside of the kickstand bracket. 
> Not proper in my mind.
>
> If you have same situation, how are you going to correct it, or just leave 
> it? What say you?
>
> Scott
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7f8e3d1c-fac3-4c44-9ac5-de599f656dd5n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
> -- 
> 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/QbyCzNq6o3Q/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/B6BA8A98-5C92-47E1-9AFE-AE43ABF554AE%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9cc86391-be85-45e6-ac3c-ab5f2a5010bcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Are Billy Bonkers narrower than listed?

[iamkeith]

Did you ever try the Billy Bonkers and do you have any feedback about how 
they compare in size?  Any measurements or photos would be appreciated.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-7 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I just ordered Billy Bonkers on Amazon for ease of returning them if they 
> don't work out.  I like the idea of Renee Herse tires, but they are 
> relatively expensive and I've read enough negative feedback about them that 
> I have always chose another option.  In this case, I'd probably but 
> panaracer pasela 1.75s and concede the .05 of width that the Natches Pass 
> tires offer.
>
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:52:56 AM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Typo: Mine are *41 mm on 21 mm OW rims.*
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:51 AM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>
>>> ... (mine are 42 mm on 21 mm OW rims) ...
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0bab4962-013f-41b0-9b45-8e40d775be03n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: What's up with welded Nitto parts?

[iamkeith]

Joe is usually right.  In this case, I hope he is, but my worrisome mind 
went somewhere else:

I imagined that it might mean a global change to how what Nitto continues 
producing, as well as how they do it.  I was thinking that maybe some of 
the skilled welders and brazers are retiring and not being replaced, or 
that supply chain issues have made some products untenable. 

Part of that is because I'd LIKE to imagine that Riv would always be 
prioritized as a customer by Nitto, even if it meant others had to be 
sacrificed.  There are a lot of companies and collaborators carrying nice 
Nitto products now, but Rivendell was the one who stuck by them for so long 
when they weren't so in vogue as they are now.  I kind of feel like if 
ANYONE should get dibs on a limited inventory, it should be them.
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:37:21 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:

> The way I read it - a completely wild guess - is the supply has been 
> terrible for years and most of it has gotten too pricey to try to sell. Riv 
> has been slowly replacing everything welded with cheaper/more plentiful 
> options, I imagine they're going to keep the forged stems and that's about 
> it. Guessing! 
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 2:28:29 PM UTC-8 JohnS wrote:
>
>> Anyone know what's going on here???
>>
>> From Will's January update email...
>>
>>  *Anything Nitto makes that's welded might get scarce soon. We still 
>> have big back racks, fillet stems, bullmoose bars, 32F mini front racks, 
>> brake hangers, and lugged stems and posts; If you've been eyeing something 
>> on that list, I'd get it now.*
>>
>> That's kind of scary! Nitto parts are my favs.
>>
>> JohnS
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/59d609c7-45a0-42ca-82ea-5b15381c521an%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Nice Rivendell, Goodrich and Sevens for Sale

[iamkeith]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 4:55:01 AM UTC-7 Frank Brose wrote:
Buy the Goodrich if it fits and can handle the tires you want to run. They 
are rare and built by a true craftsman. The quality of Curt's builds are 
second to none and most custom builders would attest to that and they have 
a ride to match. I know because I had Curt build me a 650b bike that would 
fit 42's back when the 650b's were just starting to become popular. I've 
had at least 6 different Riv's. All fine bikes but not as fine as a 
Goodrich. You won't be disappointed and if you are you'll certainly be able 
to find someone to take it off your hands. 

As a point of fact, the All Rounder might very well have been made by Curt 
Goodrich.  If not him, then Joe Starck or, maybe Richard Sachs.  If the 
builder is an important consideration to you (and I'd agree it might as 
well be), then you won't go wrong with that one. 

The Ram is one of the earlier ones - probably orange prior to the re-paint 
(and brake mod?).  It and both of the Homers (or Homer and re-painted 
Saluki) are Toyo built.  Also very high quality.  (The lugs are the 
giveaway)
 

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 11:42:52 AM UTC-6 mmille...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all. A local STL fellow just posted some bikes 
 
for sale locally. I just talked with him and am going to go look at them. 
There are a couple frames I'm not familiar with. Since this is where all 
the experts are, is there anything I should be looking for? I assume the 
grey AHH and the brown Ram are custom paint jobs. Is the orange one likely 
custom or an early Riv? And thoughts on the Goodrich? They all look to be 
fairly similar builds, and I'm wondering if nothing differentiates when I 
ride them, if I should consider anything else before buying (assuming the 
boss OKs it. Ha). I do see the brakes are different on the AHH models. 
Thanks, everyone.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/60e32300-acac-4194-8efc-c0c14db9cd61n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Red Toyo Atlantis?

[iamkeith]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 2:29:49 PM UTC-7 homer...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, you guys really are the source for all things Rivendell!!… I mean 
seriously, tracking down the original owner?… Smart!
Thanks to your assistance, I’ve decided to pass on this opportunity for the 
moment…

 I think I’m going to wait for a 60cm and honestly I need to sell or trade 
my Jones LBW first, not only for the Atlantis money, but more importantly 
just to keep my wife happy🙄🙂
Again, Thank You So Much!


My hunch is that it'd be a tad too small, but wanted to add one more 
comment before you give up:  You mentioned wanting to wait for a 60cm, but 
there actually wasn't such a thing in this era Atlantis.  Even though they 
came in the normal-for-the-time 2 cm increments, there was an odd 3 cm jump 
between this one (58) and the next one (61).  Standover and some other 
dimensions took an odd turn at that increment.  You should fig up the old 
geometry charts from Jim's Cyclofied website to make sure it would work - 
or that this one wouldn't (assuming you have your heart set on this 
vintage.)

I remember this all too well, because I wanted one so badly, stared at the 
charts forever, and tried to rationalize buying one even though I fell 
squarely between sizes.  I was convinced it was some sort of conspiracy by 
Grant, that started with the missing size 57 cm XO-1 years earlier.  I 
never got the Atlantis, but did end up with a 60 Ram, a 60 quickbeam, a 60 
Saluki and  60 All Rounder... because I couldn't have "the one."  They all 
fit me great, but the Atlantis just wouldn't have.  (FWIW, I'm 6'-1 1/2" 
and have an 87 PBH.  All torso)




 
“Maranatha”!


On Jan 31, 2023, at 12:42 PM, Jeremy Till  wrote:

I *think* this bike was formerly owned by (former list member?) Gino 
Zahnd, as evidenced by this photo from 2013, which I faved at the time: 

https://flic.kr/p/f8fyGT

Gino does reference selling it in the comments on the photo.  

-Jeremy Till
Sacramento, CA

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-8 homer...@gmail.com wrote:
I very curious about this bike. Honestly, I’ve just never seen a red 
Atlantis?
Does Anyone know what year this bike was made?

Thanx folks 

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/d/vallejo-rivendell-atlantis-58/7578102714.html

-- 
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/ZFCG-KExORw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a1fc8cc2-177a-48a7-b9d9-7ca438c3fbd0n%40googlegroups.com
 

.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/311b23f3-5b21-4eb2-8387-cadb08fdf649n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Red Toyo Atlantis?

[iamkeith]

Ooh!  Sorry to derail things but, Miles, what bars are those?  They look 
great.

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:46:18 AM UTC-7 Miles wrote:

> [image: E1A443FE-8A4C-4111-B54B-B89B6697EDCF.jpeg]Another Toyo Atlantis 
> owner chiming in here, since this thread seems to be morphing into a good 
> resource. I’m 6’0 with around an 87 PBH and my 58 feels perfect as my 
> all-around gravel bike. I wouldn’t hesitate to tour it either. It might 
> look smaller fit-wise than how Grant would size it, but I think it’s the 
> perfect bike. 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 2:22:40 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 2:29:49 PM UTC-7 homer...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>> Wow, you guys really are the source for all things Rivendell!!… I mean 
>> seriously, tracking down the original owner?… Smart!
>> Thanks to your assistance, I’ve decided to pass on this opportunity for 
>> the moment…
>>
>>  I think I’m going to wait for a 60cm and honestly I need to sell or 
>> trade my Jones LBW first, not only for the Atlantis money, but more 
>> importantly just to keep my wife happy🙄🙂
>> Again, Thank You So Much!
>>
>>
>> My hunch is that it'd be a tad too small, but wanted to add one more 
>> comment before you give up:  You mentioned wanting to wait for a 60cm, but 
>> there actually wasn't such a thing in this era Atlantis.  Even though they 
>> came in the normal-for-the-time 2 cm increments, there was an odd 3 cm jump 
>> between this one (58) and the next one (61).  Standover and some other 
>> dimensions took an odd turn at that increment.  You should fig up the old 
>> geometry charts from Jim's Cyclofied website to make sure it would work - 
>> or that this one wouldn't (assuming you have your heart set on this 
>> vintage.)
>>
>> I remember this all too well, because I wanted one so badly, stared at 
>> the charts forever, and tried to rationalize buying one even though I fell 
>> squarely between sizes.  I was convinced it was some sort of conspiracy by 
>> Grant, that started with the missing size 57 cm XO-1 years earlier.  I 
>> never got the Atlantis, but did end up with a 60 Ram, a 60 quickbeam, a 60 
>> Saluki and  60 All Rounder... because I couldn't have "the one."  They all 
>> fit me great, but the Atlantis just wouldn't have.  (FWIW, I'm 6'-1 1/2" 
>> and have an 87 PBH.  All torso)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> “Maranatha”!
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2023, at 12:42 PM, Jeremy Till  wrote:
>>
>> I *think* this bike was formerly owned by (former list member?) Gino 
>> Zahnd, as evidenced by this photo from 2013, which I faved at the time: 
>>
>> https://flic.kr/p/f8fyGT
>>
>> Gino does reference selling it in the comments on the photo.  
>>
>> -Jeremy Till
>> Sacramento, CA
>>
>> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-8 homer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I very curious about this bike. Honestly, I’ve just never seen a red 
>> Atlantis?
>> Does Anyone know what year this bike was made?
>>
>> Thanx folks 
>>
>>
>> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/d/vallejo-rivendell-atlantis-58/7578102714.html
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/ZFCG-KExORw/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a1fc8cc2-177a-48a7-b9d9-7ca438c3fbd0n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a1fc8cc2-177a-48a7-b9d9-7ca438c3fbd0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/27fce146-6625-48b0-a861-3020add0cf30n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Simworks Ramble Bar experiences

[iamkeith]

If you still have buyer's remorse after receiving them, let me know.  I 
wasn't aware of these, but they look to be very much what I wish for on a 
daily basis.  (Essentially, a really wide albatross bar.)  Wish they had a 
25.4 or 22.2 clamp area, and the grip area looks too short.  Actually, they 
even admit that part.  But you could always use extenders to lengthen them 
if you don't want bar end shifters.  

Funny that they recommend a specific stem length.  That's really going to 
depend on the bike, the desired position, and the particular rider's 
physiology.  I think you'll still have to experiment with stems, just like 
any bar. It's not like we're living in the 90s when every bike had the 
exact same geometry.

The reason those look appealing to me is because I'm a big-ish guy with 
broad shoulders and a proprtionally long torso that puts my ideal grip 
posiition further forward than most would want.  The last half-decade or so 
has been a godsend for me with bars getting wider, but most (like the 
tosco) sweep back without sweeping forward first, which means I need a 
longer tem - which are hard to find.

Let us know what you think.



On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:55:15 AM UTC-7 Damien wrote:

> Hi! I'm curious if anyone has experience with these bars? I was able to 
> track down a pair and I pulled the trigger on them without any real thought 
> and had immediate buyers remorse. That said, I'd still love to hear others 
> thoughts on them before I go down the dark path of buying parts to switch 
> out my drop bars. How do they ride? Are they too wide? How did you set them 
> up (i.e., stem length, etc.)? Recommend?
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Oh, and for reference, here they are: 
> https://sim-works.com/en/news/golden-pliers-x-simworks-ramble-bar
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/30bdb3d5-2c74-409c-921d-20d468baac83n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Charlie H Gallop?

[iamkeith]

Wow, that's awesome.  In a recent thread, i put together a quick photo 
montage showing what I imagined to be the history and lineage of the 
"swoop-tube" idea, but I left out the "no idea is new" example.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 10:01:27 AM UTC-6 John Johnson wrote:

> Seen in Paris near Stalingrad...
>
> [image: 20230629_175431.jpg]
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/cc0cce5c-5672-4235-8a3b-5c875d35b36fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 650b Gravel Bikes?

[iamkeith]

I've not read the gravel bike threads because I don't have a subscription 
to the NY times that will let me read that article , so I might be missing 
something.  Like Ted, I've just always interpreted that term to be a 
marketing effort by the mainstream bike industry (and adjacent industries, 
like media publishing) to re-quoin and popularize the "all-rounder" or 
"country bike" or "hybrid" or "monster-cross" or "all-road" concept, or 
what most of the people on this list simply call a "bicycle."  I think 
there's an argument that the very first 650b-specific bike in the era of 
that wheel size's modern resurgence - the Saluki - WAS a gravel bike.  

With disc brake-equipped bikes, couldn't most any gravel-labeled bike with 
adequate tire clearance and a reasonably high bottom bracket be converted 
to 650b?  To me, that flexibility has always been the single best argument 
for disc brakes in the first place.  For mainstream manufacturers, low 
bottom brackets (that might otherwise make conversion a bad idea) are still 
rare  because of fear of liability or complaints of riders getting pedal 
strikes while attempting to pedal through a turn.

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:06:34 PM UTC-6 Robert Tilley wrote:

> Black Mountain Cycles new Mod-Zero frame can be set up with 650B. Tires 
> max out at 2.25” with that wheel size. A A29er setup would max out at 2”. 
>
> [image: DSC09104.jpg]
>
> Mod Zero 
> blackmtncycles.com 
> 
>
>
> Robert Tilley
> San Diego, CA
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 1, 2023, at 1:47 PM, George Schick  wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about "gravel bikes" on this blog 
> lately, but has there been any consideration given to a 650B gravel bike, 
> so to speak?  IOW, are there any bikes set up like a 650B and with 
> available "gravel accommodating" tires available?  Maybe I've missed 
> something in the discussion threads, but I can't recall seeing this.
>
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b7a8ff2c-8657-40c4-845e-a0a3416bed20n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a768b6e6-41e4-496e-acf4-7e7e36aafcc3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: soma-champs-elysees-mini-front-rack On a Sam

[iamkeith]

I've got an unused one I can sell you cheap.  I can take measurements if 
you need.  It is indeed sturdier than the nitto racks, both because of the 
fixed strut and the thicker diving board.  I got it for my Saluki.  The fit 
was spot-on (I suspect it was designed for the Rivendell-standard), but the 
diving board interfered with my Paul Racer brakes.  I don't think any other 
brakes should be an issue, but measurements should confirm.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:08:09 AM UTC-6 Davey Two Shoes wrote:

> Hi All,
> I'm thinking about this rack, but I'm a little shy to pull the trigger 
> since its not adjustable. It seems sturdier than the M-18 and I like he 
> look. Does anyone run this on a Sam, did it fit without issue? I run Paul 
> Mini Moto brakes, I dont expect an issue there but who knows.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e14a8115-0eff-4191-b8df-c1127277b0bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: 2023 Riv Geo Chart

[iamkeith]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:05:15 AM UTC-6 Hetchins52 wrote:

Interesting to see that the chart shows a 2.5" max tire width for the 
Gus/Susie lineup.
The RivBike site says 2.6" max and when the frames first came out they were 
expected to fit up to 2.8". That was ... optimistic!
And, the website no longer shows a 60cm option for the GBW frames.
David (Susie in 53/650b) Lipsky
Berkeley


I have 2.8s on my Susie.  With fenders.  I wont claim the fenders were easy 
or that the steering is ideal, but they fit fine.  Still, 2.5 max is 
interesting.  




 

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-7 steve...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for sharing this Max.  I enjoy geeking out on the numbers!

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:50:46 PM UTC-4 maxcr wrote:

Here's a little nugget from Will's email, I know a few people were looking 
for the geo charts of the new frames.
Max

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/73a8a7d2-b418-4951-93d0-c9b77c250f5cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Roaduno

[iamkeith]

Changing subject slightly - there have been some comments worrying that 
this will simply be a homer and the logical "why bother"  question implied, 
given that it's no longer a true single speed.  I have no inside knowledge, 
but suspect it will be different.  Specifically, I'd supect it to have a 
higher bottom bracket than the homer, to accommodate those who want to use 
it as a fixie. 

 The Quickbeam had a higher BB, and I can't help wonder if that's the thing 
that made it's ride quality so magic and so unique compared to other 
contemporary models.  (That was my riv era, so I also have a ram and a 
saluki and, as similar as they are on paper, they just feel totally 
different.) 

My newer rivs are the long, hilli bike type (susie/clem) instead of the 
road type.  Because those are what I prefer most of the time is why I was 
excited about the first Roaduno concept /prototype.  But, since it's now 
different, I just can't imagine it being less than a  improvement to the 
QB/SO.   

Like most, I tired of the single speed limitations, and have spent years 
planning to add gears to my QB - via IGH in my case.  This is despite 
owning the Saluki and Ram.  It's just such a good ride, I can't imagine 
getting rid of it.  The long winded point of this is that i totally 
understand the addition of features for adding gears.  If the bike ends up 
being a "keeper " most are going to get there eventually.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d4131248-9384-438d-83c0-c4b69a08d7d9n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Early 80's Specialized Sequoia

[iamkeith]

Were there different versions of the Sequoia?  The one I was familiar with 
was a dark metalic grey one, but I think it came in dark blue, too.  It wA 
a fantastic bike, built by Toyo if I remember correctly. But I thought it 
was a full-on touring bike, with heavy tubing, low bottom bracket  shallow 
seat tub angle - compared to sportier bikes of the era.  My friend used his 
for numerous, long, heavily-loaded tours, including a months-long, 
dirt-road (mud) trek from Montana to Alaska and back.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 11:31:13 AM UTC-6 Ted Durant wrote:

> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 11:57:41 AM UTC-4 Peter Bridge wrote:
>
> Did your noticeably heavy Sequoia perhaps have heavy wheels or thornproof 
> tubes or a spring Brooks saddle or some such?  I find Sequoias to be 
> sportingly light. 
>
> No, it was the stock parts that came with it. Fairly light wheels, Turbo 
> tires. I would make the same statement about Heron #1, the prototype, which 
> is a Road frame built with Touring stays at the rear. Both frames are a joy 
> to ride. 
>
> Interestingly, I read somewhere that the Sequoia was designed with a bit 
> heavier down tube and chain stays. Recently I posted on a frame building 
> forum a query about the ratio of stiffness among the frame tubes. If you 
> look at older Reynolds tube set specs, they have .1mm thicker down tubes 
> than top and seat. Or, if you like, their top and seat tube walls are .1mm 
> thinner than the down tube. All other tube manufacturers, and even Reynolds 
> now today, specify tube sets with equal wall thickness around the main 
> triangle. It's also important to note that the down tube and seat tube were 
> always 1/8" larger diameter than the top tube. Lately it seems steel 
> builders have been experimenting away from that, but I haven't seen any 
> discussion of why they would do that. For my Rivendell Road, for example, 
> Grant spec'd the exact same tube for both top and down tubes. So, that goes 
> the other direction, making the top tube exactly the same stiffness as the 
> down tube. BUT, because the top tube is shorter than the down tube, there 
> is less butted section remaining in the top tube. Anyway, my hypothesis is 
> that the relative stiffness among the tubes has an effect on how the frame 
> feels, and the a stiffer down tube and chain stays is what produced the 
> "magic" feel of a Reynolds frame. Perhaps backing up this hypothesis is the 
> "Spine" line of frames that Trek built, with steel or titanium down tubes 
> and chain stays, and carbon tubes elsewhere. Their marketing touted the 
> effect that had on the feel of the frame. A friend has the titanium one and 
> he loves it.
>
> Sorry for the meandering detour. I just found the Specialized Sequoia 
> frame to feel heavy when lifting, compared to some other steel frames. But 
> I loved the way it rode.
>
> Ted Durant
> Milwaukee WI USA
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6eda4be4-d5bd-4260-9cf7-b63659672029n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: tube tear at valve stem base — any ideas why and how to fix?

[iamkeith]

I began having this problem frequently, about 5 years ago.  Nothing else 
about my skills or habits or rims changed from the previous four decades, 
so I've concluded that there is likely a manufacturing issue.  
Thinner/less/more brittle rubber at the base of the stem or something.  
There have always been the occasional "slices" due to tube rotating around 
the rim, or due to too-sharp edge at the valve stem hole on an aluminum 
rim, but this is different, and happened like you describe, one tube after 
another.  I could be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to fix them.

Knowing that doesn't help solve your issue though.  Here's what I started 
doing, and it's pretty much solved the issue for me:

When you install a new tube, keep the knurled nut on the stem, snug it 
lightly, and install the tube with the nut INSIDE of the rim.  Keep the nut 
from the old tube, and intall on the outside of the rim, the normal way, 
and snug firmly.  This will ensure that only the metal stem will ever 
contact the sharp or abbrasive part of the hole in the rim, which is now 
sandwiched between two nuts.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:03:27 PM UTC-6 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I had the same thing John P describes, tire rotating in rim, tugging the 
> tube along, causing the valve to tilt then tear at the base.  I also had it 
> happen twice in a day until I decided I was running the tires at too low a 
> pressure.  Increasing PSI solved the problem.  
>
> Jim in Rochester NY
>
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-4 John P. in SF wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> If what is happening to you is what happened to me, your tire is rotating 
>> on the rim. 
>>
>> This sometimes happened when I was using an undersized tube like Patrick 
>> M. mentioned, but it happened a lot to me when using modern tires on older 
>> rims, and less when using a tubeless compatible rim. Flats generally 
>> occurred when riding somewhere that involved heavy braking, and occurred on 
>> around three different bikes I have or have had. Like the one time I got a 
>> front flat at this spot 
>> .
>>   
>> I sometimes speculate that the rim heating up somehow aids with making the 
>> tire rotate, which then tears the stem, but that is just a guess.
>>
>> Moving to a tubeless setup was the only cure I found.
>>
>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I was inspired by Matthew's "Patch or Replace Tire" thread, but 
>>> didn't want to usurp it with my question/issue, so I'm starting a new one. 
>>>
>>> My tire went flat during a recent ride on my Hunq. Upon inspection I saw 
>>> that there was a tear near where the valve stem attaches to the inner tube. 
>>> No biggie. I replaced the tube with a spare, got back to riding, but within 
>>> 15 minutes, another flat. Same tear in the same location. I replaced the 
>>> tube with yet another spare. This was starting to feel weird. The same 
>>> thing happened within a few more miles, another tube gone. 
>>>
>>> I had no more spare tubes, but a buddy gave me one that is specced for 
>>> narrower tires. I managed to get back home without incident.
>>>
>>> The attached pic shows where the tear occurred in each instance.
>>>
>>> But three flats on a single ride! I replaced the tubes the way I always 
>>> do. Nothing dramatic about it. I used a pump to inflate two, and a C02 
>>> cartridge to inflate another. I snugged the valve nut like I always do, not 
>>> too tight, not too loose. I handled the valve stem carefully, no jerking or 
>>> bending it. The air pressure was about medium, not too high, not too low. 
>>>
>>> I used three different types of tubes, one a Schwalbe, another was a 
>>> no-name, and the other was a Teravail. I inspected the 50mm Schwalbe 
>>> Marathon tire carefully and found nothing of concern, no glass, screws, 
>>> metal, shards, etc. The Lesnik-built wheel itself had run fine for many, 
>>> many miles with no issues, no flats, nothing, and is in excellent 
>>> condition. I had been riding on smooth pavement when the flats occurred, 
>>> and there was nothing remarkable on the road.
>>>
>>> But suddenly, on that day, all inner tube hell broke loose. I'm stumped. 
>>> I don't know what to do differently so I've been thinking about the saying 
>>> (misattributed to Einstein): "Insanity is doing the same thing over and 
>>> over again and expecting different results."
>>>
>>> I'd be grateful for any ideas you might have or experiences you can 
>>> share. 
>>>
>>> Thanks!!
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_8384.jpg]
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.go

Re: [RBW] Re: What to get, what to get....

[iamkeith]

I too think the 59 Clem perfectly describes what you're looking for - 
except I assume that's what you call unwieldy, having had direct 
experience.  As Johnny says  the revised, lugged Susie/gus might work, but 
it's a long way off and we can only make educated guesses about what it'll 
be.  I think that, with your experience and criteria  you might be a 
candidate for a custon riv.  

If you don't want that, the ONLY option I  can think of is an expensive 
one:  Jones makes the LWB in a large, spacframe version, but in titanium 
only.  Not a true stepthrough, but close and with most of the benefits.  
Accommodates disc brakes and rohloff and BIG tires.  Long by 
industry-standards, but not as long as a clem.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:02:20 PM UTC-6 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:

> Ha! It’s not out of the question that I would do such a thing! I have a 
> recurring nightmare that my bike gets stolen and then somehow by the end of 
> the dream I find an extra frame in the garage and it’s ok. But I think 
> Ariel had a 60, so too big!
>
> Kiley, I hope you find your dream Riv soon! 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 21, 2023, at 1:28 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>
> Leah,
>
>
> Mine is going to a sweet kid down in Los Angeles as his first Rivendell, 
> couldn't be more happy for him.
>
> Kiley was offered first right of refusal on Ariel's bike, I will be 
> listing hers in the next day or so. I did however have a dream last night 
> that you purchased it as some sort of reserve of Platypus goodness
>
> jared
>
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:42:49 AM UTC-7 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>
>> I see Jared’s 60 Platy sold…are you the lucky new owner, Kiley? 
>> 😍Leah
>>
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:53:21 PM UTC-4 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> @ Kiley - a Rivendell Clem 59cm would fit you best only in size, but 
>>> your all around needs as stated by Johnny.
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel
>>> Yelm, WA. 
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:37:46 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 Rivendell is going to replace the Susie/Gus line with something lugged 
 (I think) but that is going to be far down the line. You said you lusted 
 after a Clem L. What about one of those? They are at least related to the 
 hillybike family (susie/gus) and would meet everything you seem to want.

 On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:25:15 PM UTC-4 jaredwilson wrote:

> Piggybacking on what Joe just said, PM sent :)
>
> jared
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:19:25 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Did you like the Cheviot? The current (slightly longer) version is 
>> the Platypus; now with canti/v-brakes I would consider it a low-stepover 
>> equivalent to Appaloosa. You would probably ride a 60cm. 
>>
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:39:50 PM UTC-7 Kiley Demond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi- Formerly an active participant, I am now merely an inconsistent 
>>> lurker so I may well be asking questions already addressed. I will 
>>> gracefully accept links to previous conversations that answer the 
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Since I am approaching this with a wide range of 'acceptable' 
>>> answers, no need to limit responses to Rivendell-only possibilities. I 
>>> know 
>>> that you know what I mean when asking for certain things, such as a 
>>> steel 
>>> step-thru frame with great ride-ability and room for wider tires 😁. I 
>>> don't have to explain why those things are important. 
>>>
>>> My dream is a step-thru frame that is long enough in the chain stay 
>>> to be stable and handle-well, but not so long as to be cumbersome. With 
>>> a 
>>> PBH of 91 on a 5'10" person, I need all the help I can get with a large 
>>> bike that remains wieldy (I assume that is a word). Ideally, it could 
>>> be 
>>> fitted to be a pedal-assist electric bike at some future time.
>>>
>>> Riding: 20% pavement, 60% gravel/sand/dirt, 20% trails. Want 
>>> wide-ish tires but don't want to be a slug on pavement. (Of course, 
>>> what I 
>>> want and physics may not agree.)
>>>
>>> 1. Is there a new Riv bike on the horizon? I vaguely remember 
>>> reading about one, but I could be out of step with reality. This Q is 
>>> the 
>>> real impetus of this post.
>>> 2. In the non-Riv world, is there anything along these lines? 
>>> Perhaps one that may have (the pleasantries of) disc brakes and an 
>>> internal 
>>> hub?  
>>> 3. Step-thru frames for the tall?  Perhaps available in northern 
>>> Europe where the bike-lovers are frequently tall? I once imported a 
>>> Dutch 
>>> bike, so purchasing options don't have to be restricted to the U.S. (It 
>>> did 
>>> not handle particularly well and made my Cheviot look positively 
>>> svelte.)
>>>
>>> My actual Riv experience has been a Cheviot I owned for a couple of 
>>> ye

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

I like it too.  Interesting evolution.  I like the fact that Riv shares it 
with us, even if it occasionally means that you get attached to something 
that won't happen.   I imagine this helps keep the lug manufacturer busy 
and committed.  Plus, VO sort of stole some thunder when they knocked off 
the original charlie prototype as the low-kicker.  This is more true to 
their signature - although, yes, I see Joe's influence.

What I'm really wondering now, is if the Susie/Gus hybrid will go the same 
way.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:00:12 PM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I prefer a full low mixte or the swoopy hillybike style to a higher angle 
> but Rivendell doesn't do anything I would consider unpleasing to the eye. I 
> will need to see full geometry but it seems like this is just a Platy with 
> a slightly higher top tube. I doubt the tube set is different so weight 
> would be similar (just trying to think of roady considerations) Actually 
> its probably closer to a Cheviot.
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:05:21 PM UTC-4 J Schwartz wrote:
>
>> guess so
>> I think it looks so much better this way personally 
>>
>>
>> [image: Screenshot 2023-08-26 at 12.04.33 PM.png]
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:01:25 PM UTC-4 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting!  I wonder if they've pivoted on what the Charlie is going 
>>> to be.  Going lugged at the head tube, like the new Gus batch, is great but 
>>> losing the swoop tube would be a real shame (no offence Joe!  Your custom 
>>> pulls it off better than this Charlie IMO).  I would love to see it just be 
>>> a roadish version of the new Gus! 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 09:59:19 UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
 Right?? 😬

 [image: Screenshot_20230823_095848.jpg]

 On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:56:23 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:

> Reminds me of a certain gray and red Rivendell Custom.
>
> Laing
>
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:05:09 PM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I mean...thats lugged and has a cream headtube. I don't care what the 
>> decal says, that can't be a Gallop.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-4 maxcr wrote:
>>
>>> From the Blue Lug instagram post, it seems like a proto Charlie with 
>>> a straight top tube at RivHQ:
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1965.jpg]
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1966.jpg]
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> PS. Apologies for the bad photo quality but it's hard to grab a post 
>>> from a video in IG.
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a2bdc6ca-2677-4f4c-b0f5-0137c62a10bcn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Favorite shifters yet, for Bosco bars

[iamkeith]

My hand does move slightly forward to shift one direction, and slightly 
back to shift the other.  But both positions are comfortable and natural. 
Getti g leverage is easy both ways without having to let go of the bar 
while shifting, which is one of the problems I have the single thumb lever, 
sepending on where it is in the throw.

In fact, my default grip when actuall riding along is forward, at the curve 
of the bar.  I agree that the gpal is to maintain all the potential grip 
positions, which is why I like the fact that they're on the inside of the 
bar)

The grip flange is soft enough that it folds under my palm and doesn't 
bother me.  In reality, those grips were just another item from my parts 
bins though.  I thought I'd use them until I got everything dialed in, and 
eventually create permanent grips with tape and padding.  This is working 
so well, that I think placement is already good, and I like the grips 
enough (they're extra long to take advantage of the whole straight section) 
) that I may end up just putting some cloth tape on the curve and calling 
it good.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:59:04 PM UTC-6 DavidP wrote:

Great that you not only found a setup that works well for you, but that 
uses those neat shifters. A pair of the Diacompe wing shifters just went 
for a steal over on the iBob group.

Do you shift your hand forward to use the forward "wing" of the shifter? 
Does the grip flange interfere?

My Bosco bar bike uses a cheap Sunrace friction thumbie positioned on the 
ramp of the bars so it doesn't interfere with a range of hand positions but 
is also accessible from my primary cruising grip, which is a bit forward on 
the bar.

-Dave

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:35:01 PM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:

Short story, I stumbled on the realization that butterfly shifters work 
very well on Bosco bars. I think dia compe has re-released something 
similar, and may be worth considering if, like me, you love bosco bars but 
never found the ideal shifter setup

I've tried thumb shifters in a variety of configurations over the years - 
inside, outside, reversed L-R and otherwise, with and without offset 
mounts, located on the straight grip section, the forward sloped area, and 
next to the stem clamp.   I was never satisfied though, and this feels the 
most natural yet.  

Longer story is that I had these bars on a Clem that I loved but imagined 
could be improved;  regreatably gave that frame away thinking I could just 
move all my parts to a Susie;  discovered that those were very different 
bikes and that the bosco bars didn't work as well; replaced those bars with 
tosco bars that are much better, but left the rest of the cockpit in 
place.  Then, my beloved Clem  frame was returned to me!!  I had the bosco 
bars, but needed new brakes and shifters;  didn't have the budget to buy 
new;  rummaged through my parts bins and found these old, lightly-used 
suntour butterfly shifters and 4-finger shimano levers, and LOVE them.

Ironically, the reason I have these is that I could never get them to feel 
right on drop bars as they were intended.  It always seemed like the levers 
were angled backward and would have worked better on the opposite sides.  
It felt the same here!  Since it had been working so well with left and 
right levers reversed on the clem, and then susie, i just did the same 
thing here and use them in friction mode.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0803fbb8-b83b-41c6-ae13-735170c82cfen%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Favorite shifters yet, for Bosco bars

[iamkeith]

Sorry for all the typos.  Hopefully that made sense. Responding on phone in 
bright sunlight

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:41:10 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> My hand does move slightly forward to shift one direction, and slightly 
> back to shift the other.  But both positions are comfortable and natural. 
> Getti g leverage is easy both ways without having to let go of the bar 
> while shifting, which is one of the problems I have the single thumb lever, 
> sepending on where it is in the throw.
>
> In fact, my default grip when actuall riding along is forward, at the 
> curve of the bar.  I agree that the gpal is to maintain all the potential 
> grip positions, which is why I like the fact that they're on the inside of 
> the bar)
>
> The grip flange is soft enough that it folds under my palm and doesn't 
> bother me.  In reality, those grips were just another item from my parts 
> bins though.  I thought I'd use them until I got everything dialed in, and 
> eventually create permanent grips with tape and padding.  This is working 
> so well, that I think placement is already good, and I like the grips 
> enough (they're extra long to take advantage of the whole straight section) 
> ) that I may end up just putting some cloth tape on the curve and calling 
> it good.
>
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:59:04 PM UTC-6 DavidP wrote:
>
> Great that you not only found a setup that works well for you, but that 
> uses those neat shifters. A pair of the Diacompe wing shifters just went 
> for a steal over on the iBob group.
>
> Do you shift your hand forward to use the forward "wing" of the shifter? 
> Does the grip flange interfere?
>
> My Bosco bar bike uses a cheap Sunrace friction thumbie positioned on the 
> ramp of the bars so it doesn't interfere with a range of hand positions but 
> is also accessible from my primary cruising grip, which is a bit forward on 
> the bar.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:35:01 PM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:
>
> Short story, I stumbled on the realization that butterfly shifters work 
> very well on Bosco bars. I think dia compe has re-released something 
> similar, and may be worth considering if, like me, you love bosco bars but 
> never found the ideal shifter setup
>
> I've tried thumb shifters in a variety of configurations over the years - 
> inside, outside, reversed L-R and otherwise, with and without offset 
> mounts, located on the straight grip section, the forward sloped area, and 
> next to the stem clamp.   I was never satisfied though, and this feels the 
> most natural yet.  
>
> Longer story is that I had these bars on a Clem that I loved but imagined 
> could be improved;  regreatably gave that frame away thinking I could just 
> move all my parts to a Susie;  discovered that those were very different 
> bikes and that the bosco bars didn't work as well; replaced those bars with 
> tosco bars that are much better, but left the rest of the cockpit in 
> place.  Then, my beloved Clem  frame was returned to me!!  I had the bosco 
> bars, but needed new brakes and shifters;  didn't have the budget to buy 
> new;  rummaged through my parts bins and found these old, lightly-used 
> suntour butterfly shifters and 4-finger shimano levers, and LOVE them.
>
> Ironically, the reason I have these is that I could never get them to feel 
> right on drop bars as they were intended.  It always seemed like the levers 
> were angled backward and would have worked better on the opposite sides.  
> It felt the same here!  Since it had been working so well with left and 
> right levers reversed on the clem, and then susie, i just did the same 
> thing here and use them in friction mode.
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6899ef40-5dc8-47ea-b99d-7b797ae98d81n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] WTB: Tosco-moose Bars, Threadless for the Gus

[iamkeith]

Something to consider is that, unlike the normal Bosco, the normal Tosco 
has a knurled section at the clamp area  and is oversized 31.8 diameter.  I 
agree that the bullmoose works best in terms of stiffness and inability to 
slip on the Bosco.  The it's the only version of that bar that I could get 
to work.  However, I have the steel, normal (clamp-on) Tosco on two bikes - 
a susie and another mountain bike - and have had none of the flex or 
slipping issues I had with a normal Bosco.  I'd suggest trying it if you 
know that's what you want, if you can't find a bullmoose version.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:38:26 AM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Erik. I don’t have one (Tosco-Moose) but I have almost made the same 
> request several times since building my Gus. I would still be curious to 
> try one but think I’ve settled on the next best alternative, the Nitto V-5 
> stem. It’s very solid with my 580 Bosco bar & only slips a little if I 
> forget to unweight my hands doing a drop. I did try a Boscomoose on my Clem 
> & could not deal with the fixed angle - I need the tips downs a  bit. It 
> would be nice if doing a lot of the rough stuff to not have to think about 
> the bar slipping.
> Good luck with your search. I think Will told me that Grant has one on a 
> tandem. Maybe you could talk him into parting with it.:)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 28, 2023, at 11:46 PM, Erik  wrote:
>
> I know this is a long shot, but I would love to land a Tosco-moose 
> threadless handlebar.  I think they were sold briefly around the time of 
> the first run of the Gus Boots Wilsen.  I'm looking to swap out my current 
> Gus cockpit for a swept-back option, but I want the moose configuration's 
> sturdiness.  
>
>
> Let me know if you have one burning a hole in your bike parts stash.  
>
> Erik 
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/31777b76-e712-4cd9-992d-d228a5df4cc2n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/cf90d653-0bcc-4fa5-9997-7557fc95ab18n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
couldn't.   

That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that are 
improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
strapped to the seatposti front.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>
> Hey group,
>
>
> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 to 
> support it.
>
> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
> if need be.
>
> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>
> Thanks :)
>
> jared
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/28c1a41e-b632-4f05-abc2-15974b1fbf13n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

My own question got me searching the web for pictures of the R10 working 
adequately.  I didn't see anything that convinced me it would, however I 
did find this neat alternative:

Simworks burrito rack.

https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934



On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:47:22 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
> couldn't.   
>
> That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that are 
> improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
> saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
> mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
> strapped to the seatposti front.
>
> If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
> two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
>> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
>> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>>
>> Hey group,
>>
>>
>> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 to 
>> support it.
>>
>> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
>> if need be.
>>
>> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>>
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> jared
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

The burrito does look like it has a concave shape side-to-side.  But, 
realistically, you just need something to stabilize the bag - not support 
it with a full "platform," right?  This does cuts into tire or fender 
clearance though, i suppose.   It does NOT seem to have the angled-up part 
at the rear, which seems to me like it would work better with a 
flat-bottomed saddlesack.  But the front of the bag would still get 
scrunched in the middle, like Vince's that Dorothy posted.  That's the 
trouble I had.  It took away a lot of volume and seemed like it would rub 
through eventually, if stuffed regularly.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:49:53 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hmm, I looked at the burrito but decided it was the same as a r10 but with 
> that “scooped” platform?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 2, 2023, at 2:43 AM, iamkeith  wrote:
>
> My own question got me searching the web for pictures of the R10 working 
> adequately.  I didn't see anything that convinced me it would, however I 
> did find this neat alternative:
>
>
> Simworks burrito rack.
>
> https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:47:22 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
>> couldn't.   
>>
>> That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that 
>> are improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
>> saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
>> mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
>> strapped to the seatposti front.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
>> two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.
>>
>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
>>> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
>>> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey group,
>>>
>>>
>>> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 
>>> to support it.
>>>
>>> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
>>> if need be.
>>>
>>> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>>>
>>> Thanks :)
>>>
>>> jared
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/236504c8-65bd-494c-9965-e6aec67dcaebn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:07 AM UTC-6 Justin Kennedy wrote:



The two bikes hanging behind Will in the pic are the lugged Susie/Gus 
hybrids. The swoop tube stays. 


I was just reading this thread on a full computer screen, instead of my 
phone, for the first time and noticed the unique colors on those frames.  
Hadn't even considered the frame details, but you're right!  Good eye. 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e7f04273-d63b-4af2-985c-714110541fb2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

.. does that mean the weight limit on those is going to be even lighter 
than before? Do you need to be a 150 lb rider to ride one now? I 
specifically chose the Gus because of all the discussions around the 
purported weight limits they placed on the 



Ok..  what I'm wondering *now*, is if there will still be a Gus too, after 
all.  I may have not followed closely enough and don't want to go back and 
search old info, but I thought the reason that we all assumed the Gus and 
Susie were merging into a single model was because a blug blurb said 
something about a "hybrid."   But could that have meant a hybrid in terms 
of lugs PLUS fillet welds? That's what these samples appear to be. 

Regarding weight limits, it seems that - with a couple of notable 
exceptions discussed in the group - the original Susie was alot stronger 
than anticipated.  So I wouldn't fret too much if you're considering 
getting one.  I'm a big guy myself, and certainly have no qualms riding my 
own Susie in rough conditions. It doesn't flex nearly as much as other 
bikes I own.   

I kind of thought the biggest difference between the gus's and susie's 
relative frame stregths came from their tubing diameters - especially the 
downtube, but including the headtube.   Maybe they could just thicken guage 
of  the smaller-diameter tubing if they wanted to make the susie stronger?  
Or make thin the gauge of the gus if they wanted to make it lighter?   But 
the later would require new lugs and we know Grant doesn't like thin, 
easily-dented tubing.

The oddest thing about not having a Gus Boots Willsen model is going to be 
explaining to people where Susie W Longbolts and Wolbis Slugstone derived 
from.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0ce3846a-3399-43c5-9c0e-b9b71e46ddb1n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

Veering ever-so-slightly off topic, and apologies to those who don't have 
facebook, but check out the bike in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1148753762570679?mibextid=9drbnH


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fd51189d-3d26-4e2c-85a2-443962a30701n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bicycle Solidarity in Ukraine

[iamkeith]

Thanks for sharing this.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:14:39 PM UTC-6 John Rinker wrote:

> Stumbled across this bit of reportage after checking out Nick P's link to 
> arte.tv
>
> Ukraine: Bicycle Solidarity 
> 
>
> Cliché I'm sure, but bikes make a difference. 
>
> Cheers, John
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7a32afd7-8cb1-4d80-854b-c8653f793c98n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Homers Going Live in a Few Minutes

[iamkeith]

Let me help.  :-)



On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:52:43 AM UTC-6 Dorothy C wrote:

I have been wondering all week what G.A.S. meant, and ran across it on the 
Path Less Pedalled Sam thread - gear acquisition sydrome... the Purchase 
Justification Machine I have 5 Rivendells now, and I am trying to quell 
the urge to replace sizes on two of them where technically the next 
size up would be a better fit and would open up 27.5 mountain bike tire 
sizes... my Appaloosa is one of 2 bikes I own that can squeeze inside my 
Scion xB


What you need is a circa 2006-8 Saluki, which was the old name for the 
Homer.  650 wheels, but shorter chainstays so it will fit your car (and 
give you some variety) and was available in the same butternut/mustard 
brown/yellow that the new batch of homers comes in.  Maybe by the time you 
find one, your desire will have cooled off.   Probably not, but always good 
to have a reason not to make spontaneous purchases - even ones you won't  
regret.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0cebd0fb-9313-4738-ae81-53d91c8fa0a2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: New Platypus Lug

[iamkeith]

Interesting how our tastes are so individual.  I greatly prefer the lugged 
joint.  I was looking at the pictures in the newsletter, without 
consciously noticing what had changed, and thinking to myself:  "why did I 
dismiss this model until now?  These are just about perfect."  Does anybody 
know if the bottom bracket shell is lugged?  Tigged?  Fillet brazed?
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 5:44:36 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:

> Gonna say I’m also more a fan on the fillet brazed variant but I can 
> understand from a cost and production standpoint why they might have 
> switched, lugs being easier to produce with less skill (relatively 
> speaking). Shame, though. The fillet brazing on the Gus was one of the big 
> attractions to me. It really enhances that swoopy, flowy look to me.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:28 PM Jason Fuller  wrote:
>
>> I hadn't noticed this! I liked the fillet brazed junction better too but 
>> it definitely looked like a pain in the butt to fabricate. The new lug (old 
>> lug - I am sure Allan's right) does have a clean and tidy look too.  A 
>> friend's Platy has a pretty noticeable blem in the brazing too, maybe 
>> evidence it was problematic for Maxway. 
>>
>> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 06:54:04 UTC-7 Marc Irwin wrote:
>>
>>> Cost was probably involved.  The fillet brazing on the original Platypus 
>>> would be very time consuming and more difficult in a factory setting than 
>>> connecting a few tubes with lug.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:50:25 PM UTC-4 allan@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 [image: 0F3B224F-E805-48D6-9A22-8F51C4323F9C.jpeg]Perhaps they dusted 
 off the Betty Foy/Yves Gomez lug…

 On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 3:23:46 PM UTC-4 CoalTrain wrote:

> Looks like the new run of Platy's are getting a lugged top/seat tube, 
> where as the previous models were welded. Very nice.

 -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8d73b56b-02b6-40a0-8cb1-527062b80239n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c5e53463-ce0e-4512-ae6c-e04faeca58f2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Considering trading my Ram for a Lightning Bolt

[iamkeith]

Alex, your modified Ram is outstanding.  Probably the most nicest, modified 
Rivendell I've ever seen.

This whole thread inspired me to wrap up a few things on my own 650b 
conversion project, an RB-1, and to ride my Ram one last time this 
weekend.  (It's supposed to start snowing this weekend, so season's over 
I'm affraid).

Interesting thing about the Ram, that strikes me every time, is how 
comfortable or "plush" it feels, despite only having 33.33 tires.  I don't 
understand why.  When it was new, it made "normal" road bikes, with 23 to 
28mm tires look positively silly.  As the rest of the industry has caught 
up and embraced fatter tires, the Ram now "looks' outdated next to a lot of 
other, newer bikes I saw.  My own tendency is almost always to choose 
something with fatter tires, too.  But as I said, I'm struck every time by 
how well it rides and how relevant it still is.  I don’t think I'll ever 
sell it, even if I have to be "prompted" to ride it once in a while.  I 
think if I ever felt differently, I'd now consider Alex's example.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-6 Applegate wrote:

> Hey Max,
>
> I sort of love this dilemma. As much as my platonic ideal of a bike has 
> been shaped by Jan Heine, featuring skinny, thin-wall tubing and a flat top 
> tube, I will definitely back a 650b Ram. I would wholeheartedly recommend 
> MAFAC Raids (or go all-in with the Compass/Rene Herse updates). I have a 
> couple pairs of Raids I'm reconditioning with brass bushings/washers and 
> could probably ship one your way for a reasonable fare. Not the point of me 
> posting though.
>
> I had a V1 XL Canti Bolt for 14 months, using it for randonneuring as well 
> as some gravel rides and mixed terrains touring (with smallish front 
> panniers on a lowrider rack). It was nice to look at and often felt great, 
> but it never really fit me (too long of top tube, seemingly resolved in 
> current geometry). I think I put just over 4k miles on it in that timespan, 
> which is probably the fastest mileage rate of any of my bikes to date.
>
> However, I also got a 62 (so 60 C–C, as it would happen) Rambouillet about 
> the same time, and the connection felt deeper, sooner. It was stripped to 
> the bare steel and was sporting an eccentric genius 650b build, courtesy of 
> @shredportals Lyle. I rode it as a be-basketed commuter and overnighter, 
> and knew the fit and ride quality was something I wanted to hold onto. I 
> asked Erik Billings for a small litany of BQ-rando-style frame 
> modifications (fork re-rake and all), and got new paint and decals from 
> Rick Stefani. It's now replaced my Crust Canti Lightning Bolt as my 
> midcentury French cosplay randonneuring bike, and I was very happy with the 
> more upright fit when I rode it for Paris–Brest–Paris.
>
> This is all subjective and fit-oriented, etc, but I support trying a 650b 
> conversion on your Ram first. It might just be the ticket for great joy; if 
> nothing else, then you have a 650b wheelset for your next bike? The most 
> ideal is if you could *somehow* have both built up and in your possession 
> at the same time, for some fun back-to-back testing.
>
> Anyway, here are some pics. Yes, I re-sold the Waterford Homer you sold me 
> (great bike though—don't try to 650b that one) Good luck with your process 
> here!
>
> Alex
> Berkeley, CA
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/87f948e7-3df6-456c-9c1a-2a2c67b7b97bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 58cm 650B AHH F/F/HS

[iamkeith]

A 56 center-to-center seat tube measurement would likely equate to a 57 
center-to-top measurement as tyically used by Rivendell.  But that actually 
jives with the chart at the link you provided.  There is a 57 but not a 56.
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:36:44 AM UTC-7 Dan wrote:

> Good morning. I was told that the measurements didn't come through clearly 
> in the pictures, so I remeasured and this is a 56. It's squarely 56cm, 
> measured center to center. When I posted yesterday I misremembered and 
> unfortunately I can't change the subject line.  *It is a 56cm.* 
>
> The seat tube measures 56cm CTC and the TT (CTC, but there's a 2* slope) 
> is about 562. Riv's geo chart is here: 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170602082329/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>
> And here's the geo on BikeInsights (comparing the 56 and the 58): 
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5a1e69902a0c030014708caa,5a1e69902a0c030014708cab,
>
> Finally, here's the product page from that same archive/same era is here: 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170704042854/https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/a-homer-hilsen
>
> The only picture with the measuring tape I can discern is the headtube 
> (~246mm), which is not a helpful measurement, IMO, but I know a lot of 
> people look at that like gospel.
>
>
>
> Daniel in LA, CA, USA
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 4:52:13 PM UTC-8 Dan wrote:
>
>> I have a 2017 58cm AHH that is I'm ready to pass along to a new home. 
>> This is a 58cm 650B A. Homer Hillsen, which I believe makes it a 
>> Waterford.  Frame shows some chips and wear but no dents, no rust. Seatpost 
>> not included. Additional parts are available; let me know what you might 
>> need. Asking $1400 + shipping. Price includes frame, fork, and Tange 
>> headset. 
>>
>> For +$300 (only with the frameset), I'll include wheels and tire. Wheels 
>> are all silver with Velocity rims, SP dynamo, Bitex cassette rear, wrapped 
>> in (white) Soma Grand Randonneur tires, plus 1 extra tires (still in 
>> wrapper). 
>>
>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/WygAM61nM5u6uiNJA
>>
>> Daniel
>> LA, CA, USA
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/63e20122-7e66-44e7-aab7-18b2c591b089n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 58cm 650B AHH F/F/HS

[iamkeith]

Upon second look, I take part of that back.  You obviously knew this but, 
at that time  there appears to have been both a 56 in 700c and a 57 in 
650b.  I didn't remember that, and it’s odd because the 650b  saluki (which 
morphed into the AHH) came in the even size increments.  Still, a Riv size 
should measure c-t-t.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:52:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

>
> A 56 center-to-center seat tube measurement would likely equate to a 57 
> center-to-top measurement as tyically used by Rivendell.  But that actually 
> jives with the chart at the link you provided.  There is a 57 but not a 56.
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:36:44 AM UTC-7 Dan wrote:
>
>> Good morning. I was told that the measurements didn't come through 
>> clearly in the pictures, so I remeasured and this is a 56. It's squarely 
>> 56cm, measured center to center. When I posted yesterday I misremembered 
>> and unfortunately I can't change the subject line.  *It is a 56cm.* 
>>
>> The seat tube measures 56cm CTC and the TT (CTC, but there's a 2* slope) 
>> is about 562. Riv's geo chart is here: 
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170602082329/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>>
>> And here's the geo on BikeInsights (comparing the 56 and the 58): 
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5a1e69902a0c030014708caa,5a1e69902a0c030014708cab,
>>
>> Finally, here's the product page from that same archive/same era is here: 
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170704042854/https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/a-homer-hilsen
>>
>> The only picture with the measuring tape I can discern is the headtube 
>> (~246mm), which is not a helpful measurement, IMO, but I know a lot of 
>> people look at that like gospel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel in LA, CA, USA
>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 4:52:13 PM UTC-8 Dan wrote:
>>
>>> I have a 2017 58cm AHH that is I'm ready to pass along to a new home. 
>>> This is a 58cm 650B A. Homer Hillsen, which I believe makes it a 
>>> Waterford.  Frame shows some chips and wear but no dents, no rust. Seatpost 
>>> not included. Additional parts are available; let me know what you might 
>>> need. Asking $1400 + shipping. Price includes frame, fork, and Tange 
>>> headset. 
>>>
>>> For +$300 (only with the frameset), I'll include wheels and tire. Wheels 
>>> are all silver with Velocity rims, SP dynamo, Bitex cassette rear, wrapped 
>>> in (white) Soma Grand Randonneur tires, plus 1 extra tires (still in 
>>> wrapper). 
>>>
>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/WygAM61nM5u6uiNJA
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>> LA, CA, USA
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bf15fa22-1ee2-421c-b7e3-0a96a32c7b80n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: I only have 1 chance to get a Rivendell.. which would you recommend?

[iamkeith]

Welcome, and what a solid bunch of advice you're already getting.  Two 
thoughts and my own recommendation:

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Sam Hilbourne was originally 
conceived as a less-expensive A Homer Hillsen.  Fewer sizes offered, 
simpler paint and details, and different country of manufacture.  It's 
always been  interesting to me that, after morphing and changing so much, 
they've both stayed around.  Other similar instances (Romulus as a 
less-expensive Rambouillet, Bleriot as a less-expensive Saluki) didn't last 
once the original rationale ceased to exist.  This is over-simplifying, but 
the main point - which is evidenced by your interest in both - is that 
there is still a lot of overlap and similarity.

So, between those two, I'd personally make the decision based on brake 
preference and tire/fender clearance, and the Hillbourne wins for me 
personally.  You can always use a smaller tire if you want.  If you think 
you will lean more toward wanting an actual "road bike" experience, for 
paved-surface riding, then the Homer is maybe a little more elegant and 
lighter?

All that aside, I'd really say get whatever fits the best.  There's nothing 
like a bike that  fits without compromises, and you would choose it over 
any other bike in real-life practice if you had more than one, regardless 
of any other limitations it might have.

Finally:  unless you subscribe to the mainstream belief that bikes are for 
going fast first of all, and should be as light as possible (which it 
doesn't sound like you are), then the Playpus really seems like the perfect 
answer to the "if I could have only one" question.  Speaking for myself 
again, who owns seven Rivendells.  If I HAD to choose, I'd give them all up 
and get the Platypus (which I don't have and haven'tactually ridden, but 
can extrapolate pretty well).  It combines the best parts of all my 
favorite bikes / other Rivendells, does everything I'd need other than 
full-on mountain biking, and I'd know that I could ride it for the rest of 
my life.
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-7 Bikie#4646 wrote:

> Dear A.H.,
> Welcome!  I can't speak to the Platypus except it has wide acceptance 
> here. However, I do have both a Sam Hillborne and a A.H. Homer Hilsen. Both 
> are capable on pavement and dirt roads/rail trails, etc. The lighter tubing 
> on the Homer makes it a bit more lively but the Sam is more capable for 
> touring. 
> My bikes both date to 2015 and before. So, the Sam has Paul center pulls 
> and the Homer was converted to Paul Touring cantilevers. Both have fenders 
> and use 38mm tires. Both use moustache bars (for different reasons).
> So, I'd say, "pick your poison" depending on the type of riding you expect 
> to do and what you intend to carry.. (And maybe your personal body weight. 
> I am 170 lbs.+ -).
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/53407463860/in/album-72177720313691125/
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/53181801054/in/album-72177720313691125/
> Paul Germain
> Midlothian, Va.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2e61ec50-43cd-4c0e-aea8-6040ab4364bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Cantilevers or Direct Mount-Centerpulls

[iamkeith]

Would you gain any tire/fender clearace advantage by choosing cantilevers?  
Or will the chainstays end up being the thing that determines max size?
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 1:05:38 PM UTC-7 kyleco...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Just swooped up an old bleriot that I am going to be bringing to a local 
> frame builder to do some mods to for racks and mounted brakes. I am looking 
> to set this one up as a touring bike and torn between having cantilever or 
> centerpull brake posts installed. Any thoughts from folks who have ridden 
> both?
>
> Kyle
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/48792c69-e485-487c-bea6-0599dc1bdbb5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Stainless bottle/ cage recommendation

[iamkeith]

Salsa Nickless Cage is my favorite.  Kind of a copy of the Nitto R, with 
fatter tubing and a lot cheaper.
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7 wats...@umn.edu wrote:

> I've settled on Nitto R cages and Bivo water bottles. I like this combo; 
> no rattle yet. 
>
> I have both the insulated and uninsulated bivos that I swap depending on 
> weather. It's nice to not have ice cold water on cold days in Minneapolis. 
>
> On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 6:24:22 AM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> King Iris, Delta INOX, VO Touriste… all the same basic design but at 
>> varying price points. Personally, I have the INOX cages on all my bikes. 
>> They don’t have the shiny finish of the King, or VO versions. Most people 
>> ask me if they are titanium, but they are just stainless.
>>
>> I use the Kleen Kanteen classic stainless bottles with them, and it looks 
>> classy and doesn’t rattle.
>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2024, at 12:23 AM, Adam Moss  wrote:
>>
>> +1 for king cages and I’ve recently discovered Bivo water bottles. 
>> They’re excellent and silent. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 8:33:57 PM UTC-8 John Dewey wrote:
>>
>>> + 1 Iris. Simple, indestructible, elegant shape,
>>>
>>> Jock
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 8:07 PM John Rinker  wrote:
>>>
 I've enjoyed the Iris King cages 
 .
  
 Very secure and quite elegant looking.
 [image: Screen Shot 2024-02-25 at 8.06.35 PM.png]
 Cheers, John


 On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 7:52:55 PM UTC-8 campyo...@me.com 
 wrote:

> These have worked well for me. Adjustable fit to keep the bottle 
> firmly in place.
>
> [image: cfff0946e78b4f4406f14619c8cbfea9.jpeg]
>
> Mojave Water Bottle Cage 
> 
> velo-orange.com 
> 
> 
>  
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>
> On Feb 25, 2024, at 7:03 PM, Bernard Duhon  
> wrote:
>
> Mates, 
>  
> I would like to migrate to a stainless water bottle.  Most folks with 
> em I noticed a rattle I could not tolerate.
>  
> Recommendation for a rattle free stainless bottle & cage ( of any 
> composition)  
>  
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/SA1PR17MB54911DBFC552D6C666AC6B07CD5A2%40SA1PR17MB5491.namprd17.prod.outlook.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
> -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c0f1c64a-174f-4e7d-ac3a-ab2aca5e25a5n%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9ba91b81-cd33-42ac-9d89-096dbd1e7128n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a4f24946-fdf8-4119-a941-5ae9516555d7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones LWB, 
or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.

Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of 
it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved 
that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  

Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's 
comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're 
talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through 
scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I 
think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream 
sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't 
feel the need to produce that particular tool.

If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' bikes 
was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to make a 
29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's what 
people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.Every 
bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of every 
other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big wheels into 
as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube and 
re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work with 
the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now 
commonplace.

The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely 
mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance 
and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The 
"riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be 
perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I 
have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)

The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and, 
arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for 
others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away 
from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now 
evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and 
buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40 
years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer, 
slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike 
industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas, 
now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.  

I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also 
from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that approached 
the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and criticized to no 
end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and wheelbases - to the 
point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold the company.  They 
were probably on the right track years early, but closed-minded critics and 
a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and progress for a decade and a 
half or more.  I had to go to the wayback machine to find this, but here 
they talk about that battle.  It's interesting to read in retrospect.  
(This was the real point of my now long-winded post.)(The other interesting 
thing to look at would be the relentless vassago hate threads from 
contemporary mtbr forums.):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html

I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when, in 
reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things, 
opinions of others be damned.  And Jones, on a whole other track.

Last thought:  I have several older more-traditional rivendell models, with 
short stays and near-level top tubes.  I'm so accustomed to them after 
years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever 
upgrade.  But they look dated to my eye - not "classic."  Longer stays, 
sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me.  It's  a bit 
form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.


On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones? 
> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like crazy. 
> Switchbacks and tight turns were a chore. Up and down techy Boulder 
> sections, the bash guard was getting a workout. Stopped me dead in my 
> tracks a few times. 
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Do the

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/


THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry

The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
'05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".

When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.

Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
faithful to.

Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
Vassago riders, we confidently say;

   - 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
   - 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
   - Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
   - It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
   just numbers on paper.
   - Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
   - 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
   - The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.

So what can *WetCat* do for you?

*Climbing*
Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
grandma's house. (what you never did that?)

Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
the pedalin's done.

*Descending*
Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.

*Comfort*
9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.

*Balance*
Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
ridden.

Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.

Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
tag. You'll see what we mean.

 


A word about chainstays.

Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
climbing, we focus on that.

The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels 
by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line 
when on a steep accent.

To use another motorsport analogy, dirt bikes are converted to hill climb 
monsters by adding more power and stretching the rear wheel further out.  
When applied to mountain bikes, this means a more relaxed climbing position 
that takes the focus off of balancing the bike and lets you put all your 
energy into putting the power down.

The secondary benefit of using longer stays that you can get away with on 
29ers is the all day comfort factor. Proper butting profiles in a longer 
steel chainstay offers a level of compliance like no other

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Russell
>
> Your collection presents like an afficionado of

Re: [RBW] Re: Thinking of replaceing the clem with the gus. Thoughts?

[iamkeith]

On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 1:09:23 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

When I measured mine (a while ago) the bottom bracket on my 57(large) Gus 
was a full 2”! higher than on my 52 Clem. This single dimension makes these 
bikes quite different in my opinion. I love both bikes but use Gus for 
trail/MTB duties almost exclusively. The Clem is my bike for pretty much 
everything else. Having both I simply could not choose one to keep. 
Sophie’s Choice. I thought but cannot claim I know that Gus & Susie are 
more or less the same.
Sent from my iPhone



^ Completely concur with this.^  They are very different bikes, no matter 
what the descriptions or adjacency in the hillibike category suggests.  
Mine are both early versions, respectively.   ( clem H, and fillet susie.  
Both 700c though.)  Current versions are slightly different ( clem has 
longer front, susie has ever-so-slightly lower bb, relative to my version) 
so my observations might not be 100% accurate.  In each case, the changrs 
seem to be improvements.

The higher bb on the Susie - and thus, rider's center of gravity - is the 
biggest difference.  It's very noticable.  But the chainstay length 
difference and frame stifness are notieable, too.  I don't really feel the 
different steering geometry.

If you want to ride trails, there's no question that the Susie is better.  
I'm kind of a bike snob, so I like the fillet (and/or lugged) construction 
better.  And the current Susie colors are possibly the best ever.

All that said (and despite the fact that, on paper, Susie is my dream bike 
to grow old with), I'd  keep the Clem if I had to choose.  Or, probably, 
have a custom made that is based in it.  There's just nothing else like it 
out there.  Supremely comfortable and one of very few bikes that I choose 
automatically when going for a ride.  If I didn't have several other rigid 
mountain bikes that I can ride on trails, my answer would probably be 
different.


 

On Mar 9, 2024, at 1:39 PM, Johnny Alien  wrote:

A Susie would be a pretty lateral move from a Clem (by description and 
such) where as a Gus would be more stout. If the Clem covers the type of 
riding you like than the main difference would be style/visuals IMO. Which 
is 100% as good a reason as any other to swap frames. I love my Clem and am 
often tempted by the beauty of the Susie/Gus.



On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 12:34:49 PM UTC-5 NYCbikeguy wrote:

Regardless of the price/value of each frame, what do all of you think are 
the pros and cons of either bikes? overlaps vs. differences? Ultimately, 
which would you choose to keep?

FYI, I tend to over-build my bikes and I enjoy riding them, so any comments 
alluding to "that's too much bike" will be disregarded. 

Thanks,
IY
[image: IMG_8169.JPG]

-- 
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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4a8e1311-d774-44f2-91c3-f0ba6acfca54n%40googlegroups.com
 

.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3ce5620d-7c3d-4aae-bdb1-5a2c2bf823e4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Ron's Ortho... stem question

[iamkeith]

I can't offer much input regarding length, without knowing more about you 
and your bike, but can offer this in case it helps:  I just swapped a Ron's 
Ortho bar in place of a 65cm Riv Tosco bar, mainly because it was black.  
The two bars are almost identical in terms of rise and reach and sweep.  I 
still have the Tosco on one bike (Susie), with a 135 faceplater.  The Ortho 
is has a 120 stem, but on a frame with a significantly longer top tube 
(Scapegoat), so almost comparable reach in the end.  In both cases, I wish 
my stem was even longer, but they're hard to find and I do have a uniquely 
long torso, too.  Main point is that if  you have access to a Tosco, you 
can extrapolate safely.  Ron's has more graceful curves and doesn't have 
the fugly 31.8mm bulge at the clamp area but Tosco, being steel, is MUCH 
stiffer and therefore the superior bar from a practical standpoint. Ortho 
is too flexy, but aesthetically superior.   Either one achieves the most 
comfortable cockpit I've ever owned.  
On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

> It’s 26.0 clamp diameter.
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Richard Rose  wrote:
>
> Chris, are you changing handlebar on an existing bike or, is this a new 
> build? If the former & when I did a bar swap on my Gus, I was able to 
> determine stem length with a couple of measurements. I always prefer a 4 
> bolt stem but as I understand it the ortho bar has an unusual clamp size?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Brian Turner  wrote:
>
> 
> Without having the most important factors (frame, size, and what you’re 
> currently running), I’d say going with a faceplater type stem would be a 
> good idea because these are very wide bars, and it’s good to have a stem 
> that will clamp down on them more securely than a single bolt quill stem.
>
> I currently have Ortho bars on my 54cm Gus, and I’m using a 110mm Nitto 
> threadless stem with 4 bolts on the faceplate.
>
> -Brian
> Lexington KY 
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 1:03 PM, Chris K  wrote:
>
> Hey all, I've got some Ortho Bars in my cart and looking for stem advice 
> from those who use this bar. Obv there are multiple fit and frame factors 
> that play into something like this, but curious what people are generally 
> going with. Here are the options I'm deciding between:
>
> - Faceplater 110mm
> - Faceplater 135mm
> - Tallux 12cm
>
> Will the 110 Faceplater be too short?
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/650cf8f5-80e3-46e7-87dd-0cb5bf5543c5n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/E3BCA9D9-22A0-45C8-9079-5AA37D9F712D%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7612CA26-81A5-4D21-8937-5F4B43B90A13%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bf7d3e9c-eb31-42f2-964e-dc20fc4ae49bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv Canti/Vbrake Frame in 54/55/56

[iamkeith]

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-6 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

My dimensions have been the bane of my cycling existence, Bill! 


Bill's question and suggestion to clarify was pretty insightful then.  I 
suffer from the same handicap as you:  short legs/ long torso.  (6'2" w/ 87 
pbh in my case.)  

Knowing what I now know after many years of figuring it out,  I'd suggest 
making sure you get the biggest frame you can possibly stand over.  
Especially with the older models that tended to have proportionately 
shorter top tubes.  They might still only be marginally long enough, but 
the good news is that there was likely a size increment that worked pretty 
well.  The later, expanded-sizing models don't come in as many increments, 
but the good nees here is that if you DO happen to find one that maxes-out 
your standover height  it is likely to be the most no-compromise, best-fit 
bike you've ever owned.  Just don't settle until you find it.  

Also, FWIW, the very first run of sam hillbournes (canti versions in 
metalic orange or sagey green wihout creme headtubes and with gold decals, 
I recall), which were among  if not THE first to use the expanded sizing, 
had longer top tubes than later versions.  Im always on the lookout for one 
of those, even though i don't "need" one.




 

I'm in Atlanta GA, but I travel all over the East coast for work. Also have 
shipped plenty with bikeflights and happy to talk to folks from wherever 
about what's available!

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:

Yeah you're a fair bit taller than me and I used to ride a 58cm 700c 
original-run Atlantis.  That may be a tricky fit challenge.  I like your 
inclusion of the Platy on your list.  No standover worries with a nice big 
step through!  Last suggestion, if you mention your general location, you 
may be able to arrange test-ride try-outs on a good candidate chassis from 
a friendly RBWGroup reader.  Good luck with the search  

BL

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-7 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for the thoughts Bill! 

My saddle height is 74cm and the Atlantis I just got rid of is a 53cm. I'm 
6' with a 840 pbh, so pretty long torso and shorter legs. 

Budget is fairly open depending on what the Frame is/how rare it might be.


On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 1:10:51 PM UTC-4 Ryan wrote:

what size are you looking for?

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:55:25 AM UTC-5 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

Hey Y'all,

Recently sold my Atlantis frame that was a bit too small for me to move up 
to something that fits better. Wondering if anyone here has an Appaloosa, 
Atlantis, Plat, Sam that they're looking to move on. Also into older models 
if the sizing works/they're in good shape(Hunq, Saluki, Bombadil, etc.)

Figure this might be a long shot, but better to make it known here before 
starting to dig too deep into the corners of the internet.

- Drew

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8e79d370-c510-4f51-93eb-464b4675db00n%40googlegroups.com.