> not to beat a dead horse... but the double top tube road bike is just
> plain marketing schtick, nothing else.
I just got back from a 2 week bike tour in the Yucatan and took many pictures
of bikes owned by economically poor locals. Nearly every bike had double top
tubes.
Ray
Lisbon, CT
--
I guess I don't really take Grant's comment that "this is the kind of bike
guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten" as an assertion that RBW
is marketing the bike to that guy. I take it more as a commentary on the
fact that many of the guys who buy those bikes would be much better off wi
On Apr 18, 7:24 am, bfd wrote:
>
> This is too easy, we all know that the guys looking at $6K carbon
> bikes are never going to go for rack mounts:) Good Luck!
Dude, I doubt people looking at $6k carbon bikes are the target
audience for this bike anyway. This bike with it's quill stem, low B
...because the guy looking at $6k carbon bikes take their cue from
Tour de France racers. You have to convince somebody to win the Tour
de France with fenders and racks before you can convince the $6k
carbon market sector that it might be cool to have them. Lood Guck!
On Apr 18, 7:24 am, bfd wr
On Apr 18, 7:08 am, Mike wrote:
> Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't mind the double TT but if you're gonna
> overbuild it why not just make it more rack/load friendly?
This is too easy, we all know that the guys looking at $6K carbon
bikes are never going to go for rack mounts:) Good Luck!
-
Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't mind the double TT but if you're gonna
overbuild it why not just make it more rack/load friendly? It doesn't
need to be as sturdy as a Saga but maybe in-between that and their ES
sport road bike.
On Apr 18, 5:12 am, newenglandbike wrote:
> It'll be a good looking, c
Matt has a good point. And, rack mounts would serve a greater purpose than the
2TT.
From: newenglandbike
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:12 AM
Subject: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I thi
It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the
San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and
add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear.
-Matt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" gr
Guess I see the undertube as marketing in this case. Not to keep the
bike different than a MCFB but to do something different than Surly,
Salsa, or Raleigh. Personally, I see this bike competing more with
the Pacer, Casseroll or Port Townsend than a typical off the shelf
racing bike. And maybe S
on 4/17/11 11:25 AM, Jeremy Till at jeremy.t...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better.
Yeah, I'm actually a bit curious as to how the specific sizing on this
bicycle will turn out. I've ridden one, and it was a pretty spritely little
beast.
http://rambli
That double top tube does serve a purpose and it really depends on how
you load your bike and how heavy or light the rider is. I for one
would prefer the double top tube because of aesthetics, novelty and
function. True it doesn't fit most peoples idea of how a frame should
look and it might appea
I've got to agree, the "undertube" on a roadbike is silly, and smacks
of fashion over function.
I was considering this frame, but color me gone.
Greg
On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume wrote:
> I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page:
>
> http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/knot
What no one is talking about yet is how it will be built out,
component-wise. Sure, some will go the full-Riv route - Nitto
noodles, bar-end shifters, Sugino triple, B17 saddle, etc., at least
those who read this list and buy it frame-only from Riv if it's sold
that way. I can see many shops who
s :-)
>
> On 4/17/11, Bruce wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any
> > day.
>
> >>
> >>From: Philip Williamson
> >>To: RBW Owners Bunch
> >>S
; OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any
> day.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>From: Philip Williamson
>>To: RBW Owners Bunch
>>Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM
>>Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
&g
OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any
day.
>
>From: Philip Williamson
>To: RBW Owners Bunch
>Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
>
>I was disappointed by
Amen. I was looking forward to this bike and actually building a Road
bike per say. I just can't do the double top tube thing. I don't need
them or like the look, so I'm out.
On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, rob markwardt wrote:
> The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the
> cream he
On Apr 17, 10:39 am, William wrote:
> bfd
>
> I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is
> not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards
> the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even
> 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's
I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike
identified as "road-only."
Philip
Philip Williamson
www.biketinker.com
On Apr 17, 10:47 am, Ron MH wrote:
> "It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike,
> just a really nice and versatile road frame ki
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:40 -0700, rob markwardt wrote:
> The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the
> cream head tube.
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-
The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the
cream head tube.
On Apr 17, 11:10 am, cyclotourist wrote:
> Nailed it.
>
> On 4/17/11, William wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bfd
>
> > I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is
> > not marketing the San Marcos
I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better.
Unfortunately, probably not in the cards for me financially anytime
soon. Although maybe i can do a frame on layaway.
On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume wrote:
> I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page:
>
> ht
Nailed it.
On 4/17/11, William wrote:
> bfd
>
> I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is
> not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards
> the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even
> 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's
"It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike,
just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the
Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and
had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with
fenders, or 35mm withou
What baffles me about the second top tube on a road bike is what
problem it is trying to solve? The Atlantis and bikes like the Co-
Motion Americano are plenty strong enough to load up and take on an
extended tour. Maybe on a very large size, like 67, a second top tube
makes sense but it certainl
bfd
I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is
not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards
the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even
'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's their bike. Grant 'specifically'
said that those
I totally dig the double parallel top tubes especially the Sam
Hillborne I saw recently. In fact I wish the new Simple one had that
feature. I wonder if Waterford would make a Simple one in that
configuration with somewhat beefier tubing. I'm not fond of the
diagonal tubes of the Hunqa or Bomba but
On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike wrote:
> I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug
> the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but
> i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it
> probably works better on a mountain/all-pu
I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug
the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but
i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it
probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also
drawn to the plain-gauge tub
On Apr 17, 8:01 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Me, too. The second top tube is a deal killer. Sorry to be grousy but it's
> a dumb idea except maybe for cargo bikes.
>
Agree. I can see 650b for smaller size, but the 700c bikes getting a
second top tube is too much! I don't get Grant when he says:
Eric
I shared your reaction to the 2TT on the San Marcos. A second top
tube sounds very much unnecessary and out of place on a 59cm road bike
that is sturdy enough for fenders but not racks. I'll keep saving for
a Roadeo or a custom (or the next thing I can't live without).
On Apr 17, 7:13 am,
31 matches
Mail list logo
