In starting this thread, I wanted to share that my tastes for the aesthetics
have changed. I used to think 2TT looked funny. Now it's getting to be the
other way around. Purely aesthetic considerations, no claims about
function-based design or engineering, were the implication.
I was amused whe
Too hoppy?! Nearly impossible.
Now THERE's an O/T post I can get into! Now we just need to mull over
whether or not a helmet is needed...
(OK, now I'm just blatantly trolling...)
On 2/2/2013 11:32 AM, Jim M. wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:52:18 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:52:18 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> too-stiff design *isn't going to make it better for me*.
>
>
Thank you, those are the words I was looking for. I'll buy you a beer next
time you're in the neighborhood and we can argue whether West Coast IPAs
are too h
Double Dave Yeah !!!
I'm so appreciative that Grant has the balls to do the 2 TT thing. So
much of bike design is Human see-Human Copy. Flat TT's are another "old
school" thing. See-copy-see-copy.There's lots of ways to make frames
! Just do it Grant ... just keep doing it !
On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 10:41 -0800, Jim Mather wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote:
> > And you then know exactly how I feel about excessive stiffness. Do you
> > dispute that double top tubes would increase the stiffness of the top
> > tube?
> >
>
> I don't dispute th
Nope, Steve, you've captured the functionality completely. You like 2TTs
for loaded touring bikes and hate them for light roadish/randoish bikes.
It's unfair for people to label you as a universal 2TT denier, because you
aren't. You like the 2TT for touring bikes, as do I. You like more flex
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote:
> And you then know exactly how I feel about excessive stiffness. Do you
> dispute that double top tubes would increase the stiffness of the top
> tube?
>
I don't dispute that double tt adds stiffness. What I dispute is you
judging it exces
On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 09:19 -0800, Jim M. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:11:43 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> What functionality would that be? Excessive top tube
> stiffness?
>
>
> Yes, Steve, we know your negative opinion of double TT since you
Both are becoming tediously repetitive; it's approaching rake & trail,
speed shimmy, and helmets.
One could ask what the point of lugs is, too. Most of their benefit is
theoretical. I don't know anyone who's broken a TIG'd frame, but
they're bland looking. Grant wanted to make some stuff wi
ahahaahahhaa
like ... why question light bulbs when candles worked so well !! ;)
--
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+uns
Come now. If snarkiness is bad one way, it is bad the other way. Let's
keep this clean. If we can have routine ecstatic praise of 2 tts, we
can have even routine questioning of them.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jim M. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:11:43 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar w
Forget the 2TT, I'm gonna get my frame pump painted Sam green and go 3TT.
--
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...@googl
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:11:43 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
>
> What functionality would that be? Excessive top tube stiffness?
>
>
Yes, Steve, we know your negative opinion of double TT since you take every
opportunity to denigrate the design. But I don't recall you ever saying
yo
I'm not a little guy, and, I tend to overpack, and, sometimes, don't use
due finesse over roughish sections.
So, I could understand and appreciate and wanted the 2TT when I initially
ordered a Bombadil to be a camping bike.
However, when the diaga-tube version was introduced, I called up an
Do the top tubes, particularly in the smaller (I mean, less huge) sizes
have an engineering function, or are they largely for looks? Don't even 56
Sams have 2 tts?
Me, I don't mind a bit of frame flex.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:52 AM, James Warren wrote:
>
> Something weird happened. I wasn't so
I also appreciate the parallel 2TT Bombadil.I was sold on the
aesthetics as soon as it was introduced, but came to appreciate it even
more after having ridden it.Handles great as an unloaded MTB, yet is
especially nice when loaded for camping. I can be pretty careless about
load balanc
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:11:43 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
>
>
> What functionality would that be? Excessive top tube stiffness?
>
>
>
Excessive TT stiffness ? Not at all and never, from this owners
perspective :) I consider the Bomba Perfect !! an absolutely perfect
bal
On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 02:52 -0800, James Warren wrote:
>
> Another generation-gappy thing: youngsters and old folks embrace the
> functionality of double sloping top tubes, yet crotchety middle agers
> still hold out.
>
What functionality would that be? Excessive top tube stiffness?
And when d
Something weird happened. I wasn't so big on the 2TT. Now for a month I've been
riding my parallel TT, double TT Hunqapillar.
I was home and walked by the single TT 60 cm Hillborne sitting in my entrance
hall. As I walked by, I subconsciously thought, "something looks funny on that
bike with i
19 matches
Mail list logo
