To my untrained eye, this looks better than horizontal.Thanks Pete!-Jim W.-Original Message-
From: P Merryman
Sent: May 8, 2010 6:57 PM
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
Sorry I'm a month late posting, I'm "catching up" on
Thanks for the link. Great looking bike
From: P Merryman
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 5:57:40 PM
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
Sorry I'm a month late posting, I'm "catching up" on a few months of
Sorry I'm a month late posting, I'm "catching up" on a few months of
non-lurking. Anyway, wanted to point out that, if I'm reading this right,
Riv has done it before. From the web-archive.org of the Riv site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030804115752/www.rivendellbicycles.com/gallery/bigbike/big
r me. Those
> are nice looking bikes.
>
>
> From: William
> To: RBW Owners Bunch
> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:53:14 PM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
>
> It would likely look really similar to a 1993 XO-3
>
> Like this:
>
> ht
, for taking the time to look those pix up for me. Those are
nice looking bikes.
From: William
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:53:14 PM
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
It would likely look really similar to a 1993 XO-3
o see a photo of those reversed Alba bars. Do you have any?
> Or a link? Are you using thumb shifters?
>
>
> From: Ginz
> To: RBW Owners Bunch
> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 7:17:34 AM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
>
>
I'd sure like to see a photo of those reversed Alba bars. Do you have any? Or
a link? Are you using thumb shifters?
From: Ginz
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 7:17:34 AM
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
> It see
Riv frames have in the past typically had shorter TT's. I've read many
complaints about this. It's good they've made some longer ones now.
They have sufficient variety in frames to fit about anyone.
Longer TT's are perfect for using Albatross bars and such. To me a
bike is better balanced with a
> It seems to me that because of the long top tubes most of Rivendells
> frames are not designed for drop bars. With the long top tubes you
> need bars that come back towards you to provide a comfortable reach.
Agreed.
If you've got the long arms, then a slightly shorter stem (Nitto Dirt
Drop)
Double top tubes seem fairly common here in Singapore. I've see quite
a few. Many are old and made by Raleigh. They all seem to have seen
years of use. People just ride them to get where they are going.
Rivendell may have a more world view of bikes. I like the way they
look and seem to take a be
I'm pretty stoked about the longer tt. The 58 was the right length, but not
enough standover. Plus I didn't want the double tt (I like flexy bikes!).
The 54 had the right standover, but wasn't long enough. Voila, now a 54 is
back in play for me!
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, happyriding wro
On May 4, 10:40 am, CycloFiend wrote:
> on 5/4/10 6:23 AM, Rene Sterental at orthie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That's the concept that I liked; the long diagonal.
>
> Breezers (original like that one) had a long diagonal (i.e. headtube to rear
> dropout), but they were separate parrallel tubes. A b
On May 4, 12:47 pm, William wrote:
> Mike
>
> I'm a terrible double-replyer, so I'm sorry about that. I just called
> Keven and he said that the 54 and 58 prototypes were built correctly
> to the numbers that are currently on the Riv-site. The finals will be
> longer, so the numbers are changing
Rene: William is right- the *actual* TT length on the 60cm B'dil is
61cm, but the theoretical horizontal measurement is 63cm
On May 4, 5:21 pm, Rene Sterental wrote:
> I thought I read in the Bomba's geometry chart that the horizontal top
> tube was 61cm. I'll recheck it again when I get hom
Rene
Your 60cm Bombadil has an effective top tube length of 63cm. So the
58cm Hunqapillar will be 1cm shorter in reach than your Bombadil, and
the 58cm Hunqapillar will have 2cm more standover clearance than your
Bombadil. Seems like the 58 Hunqa fits nicely between a 56 Bomba and
a 60 Bomba. M
That would be too long for me, as the Bombadil 60 has a top tube of 61 and I
wouldn't be able to use a shorter frame. The 54 would end up being quite
low, forcing a lot of seat post/stem to show to reach the right height and
bar/saddle height ratio...
I guess that will still keep my best fitted on
That is roughly how my 60 Bombadil fits me, although I believe that with the
Marathon Supreme 700x50 I actually get about 1 inch. (I ride a 61
AHH). Still, when I straddle the bike I can feel the top tube right in
"there". I get the extra lift by pushing hard against my bones just like
Grant states
Mike
I'm a terrible double-replyer, so I'm sorry about that. I just called
Keven and he said that the 54 and 58 prototypes were built correctly
to the numbers that are currently on the Riv-site. The finals will be
longer, so the numbers are changing. The Hunqa numbers claim that the
54 has a 58
Michael
The 54 will absolutely be a single top tube. When Keven said that the
54 will be 1.5 cm longer, it did not occur to me to ask if the first
prototypes were built 1.5cm too short or if they changed the number
from the PDF file on the Riv site to 1.5cm longer.
With my PBH of 87, standing ov
Will the 54 still be a single top tube or will it have the diagonal
tube also?
If what Keven says is true I should get the 54 also ( 86 PBH but long
torso/arms).
Any news on the delivery date of the final production versions?
~Mike~
On May 4, 11:04 am, William wrote:
> Jim
>
> I just did th
Jim
I just did the same thing this morning (rode the 54 and 58), and had
the same reaction (I liked the cockpit size of the 58 but was freaked
at the standover). My PBH is 87. Keven pointed out to me that the
final 58 will be 2 full centimeters longer in the top tube, and the 54
will be 1.5cm lo
That design sure looks like this photoshop proto by Marty:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32306...@n07/4492630025/in/pool-1358...@n23
My PBH is on the cusp of 54/58. I test rode both last Saturday. Both
are great handling, stable bikes but I prefer the 58. The 54 feels
just a little cramped for my t
While maybe less aesthetically pleasing than the "camper", this design
is probably lighter and just as stout and stable. Plus, most of the
time, you will be looking at the bike from atop it!
Oliver
On May 4, 6:23 am, Rene Sterental wrote:
> That's the concept that I liked; the long diagonal.
>
>
It looks rather odd like that .. like the diagonal tube should be
extended. Loss of a prime bottle spot? Curious.
I'm with Rene .. I'm really really glad to have a Bombadil :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post
> I once thought Rivendell bikes were ugly and look at me now... like we say in
> Venezuela... "¡Nunca
> digas que de esta agua no beberé!"
And I, like usual, find myself thinking the opposite...saying that
without knowing spanish, but longing for the pre-double-toptube days.
No disrespect
I'll want to see the finished product but I like it better.
Also he mentioned the next batch of Sam's... side pulls in big sizes
and Canti equipped Waterford built frames too.
~Mike~
On May 3, 5:47 pm, James Valiensi wrote:
> Hey,
> Looks like a Joe Breeze mountain bike from 1978 or so.
>
> On
Not awful but I am glad I ride a smaller frame.
On May 3, 6:54 pm, William wrote:
> The Hunqapage on the Rivsite now has a photo of the design sheet for
> the Diagonal 2TT.
>
> http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/hunqapillar/50-713
>
> In related news, Grant's post about the ropeswing says that
> > > > I missed this from Garth earlier. Couldn't one say the same about any
> > > > > Riv design, or, for that matter, lugged steel bike? If lugged steel
> > > > > bikes are sold in mass, I have yet to see them.
>
> > > > > Bikes
? If lugged steel
> > > > bikes are sold in mass, I have yet to see them.
>
> > > > Bikes with extra tubes are more expensive to make, and thus buy. They
> > > > are also heavier than most bikes. Many people never ride with loads
> > > > and to
ouldn't one say the same about
> any
> > > > > Riv design, or, for that matter, lugged steel bike? If lugged steel
> > > > > bikes are sold in mass, I have yet to see them.
> >
> > > > > Bikes with extra tubes are more expensive to make, and thus buy.
> The
steel bike? If lugged steel
> > > > bikes are sold in mass, I have yet to see them.
>
> > > > Bikes with extra tubes are more expensive to make, and thus buy. They
> > > > are also heavier than most bikes. Many people never ride with loads
> > > >
Many people never ride with loads
> > > and to places such a bike would be needed. For those few who do,
> > > having some attractive priced options from Riv make sense.
>
> > > On Apr 7, 6:40 pm, James Dinneen wrote:
>
> > > > Good point about the wate
ptions from Riv make sense.
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:40 pm, James Dinneen wrote:
>
> > > Good point about the water bottles. In particular, a touring bike should
> > > have multiple, easily available water bottles. Jim D.
> > > Massachusetts
>
>
:
>
> > Good point about the water bottles. In particular, a touring bike should
> > have multiple, easily available water bottles. Jim D.
> > Massachusetts
>
> > --- On Tue, 4/6/10, Garth wrote:
>
> > From: Garth
> > Subject: [RBW] Re:
Good point about the water bottles. In particular, a touring bike should have
> multiple, easily available water bottles. Jim D.
> Massachusetts
>
> --- On Tue, 4/6/10, Garth wrote:
>
> From: Garth
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
> To: "RBW Owner
bviously be
> disagreements), it is a grand slam home run.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of happyriding
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
> To: RBW Owners Bunch
> Subject: [RBW
Good point about the water bottles. In particular, a touring bike should have
multiple, easily available water bottles. Jim D.
Massachusetts
--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Garth wrote:
From: Garth
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
To: "RBW Owners Bunch"
Date: Tuesda
On Apr 7, 2:12 am, CycloFiend wrote:
> on 4/6/10 2:22 PM, happyriding at happyrid...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 2:34 pm, Rene Sterental wrote:
> >> I will apologize first, but do think this "triangapillar" is just
> >> taking the discussion to a silly level.
>
> > Somewhat. But from an eng
on 4/6/10 2:22 PM, happyriding at happyrid...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2:34 pm, Rene Sterental wrote:
>> I will apologize first, but do think this "triangapillar" is just
>> taking the discussion to a silly level.
>>
>
> Somewhat. But from an engineering standpoint, three triangles are
> s
I think Rivendell has this diagonal 2tt wrong on the wrong bike.
It makes more sense to put the diagonal top tube on the Bombadil--if
indeed it makes the frame stiffer. With the diagonal top tube on the
Hunqapillar what is Rivendell going to say, "Our stout road bike is
stronger than our mounta
> From what I've read that affects the handling--negatively. A
> large frame should have a 12, 13, or 14 cm stem so that one's weight
> is distributed properly between the front and rear. It seems like the
> Bombadil was designed for mustache bars that extend backwards, but how
> does that affec
On Apr 6, 2:34 pm, Rene Sterental wrote:
> I will apologize first, but do think this "triangapillar" is just
> taking the discussion to a silly level.
>
Somewhat. But from an engineering standpoint, three triangles are
stronger than two. So technically, it is a stronger design than the
diaga-pi
> As a Bombadil owner I didn't see the point of "copying" the design and
> making it $500 cheaper in Taiwan, even though I wish the Bombadil
> sizes were adjusted to match the new proposed Hunqa sizes.
With you on that. The Hilborne does Hilsen things but its design is
notably different. I had t
If they're going diagonal . what do they do about water bottles ?
Design is one thing, but what about practicality?
While I agree with GP that triangles look better, and bicycles are all
about triangles .. more of them doesn't necessarily mean better.
Double top tubes parallel
looks mascu
Behalf Of EricP
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:58 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
I'm owning up. It's me that has the refund. Mainly due to the
thought that this is not the bike I pre-ordered. It may be good, but
not what I was lead to expect from the init
On Apr 5, 6:16 pm, William wrote:
> Eric
>
> I don't think anyone should or would fault you for not wanting to
> follow through on buying a bike that changed into something you don't
> like.
>
> Personally, the only thing you said that I thought was a bit unfair
> was the statement that the bike s
Wow! I like this idea, especially since it would be different from
other Rivendells and other bikes. I hope they do it. I wonder if
they'll do the same for the smaller sizes.
On Apr 5, 9:01 am, William wrote:
> No choice Grant and Keven make is going to make everybody happy.
>
> On Apr 5, 8:27
Eric-- I say good move and I think most people (including the people
at Riv (warning: speculation)) would do the same thing and that most,
good, honest businesses would WANT to give you your money back. There
is no blame here-- you ordered something and it changed and you no
longer wanted it. That
Eric
I don't think anyone should or would fault you for not wanting to
follow through on buying a bike that changed into something you don't
like.
Personally, the only thing you said that I thought was a bit unfair
was the statement that the bike seemed like a 'half-hearted copy' of
another bike.
I don't like it. I view the functionality of any bike that I can't
throw over my shoulder and run with, or climb up and down stairs
easily, as pretty limited. This has a direct correlation with the
places I go and where I live though.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
I'm owning up. It's me that has the refund. Mainly due to the
thought that this is not the bike I pre-ordered. It may be good, but
not what I was lead to expect from the inital .pdf. The new bike is
also too jarring to me visually.
Sorry to the list if I've made too much and lead to discord.
If I had a deposit, I'd keep it in there until one of these comes off
the boat. I'll bet they'll look pretty awesome. Having ridden the
prototypes, I'll say that they are SOLID. This diagonal-fest will
only make them more solid. And more awesome.
And these were never svelte bikes. They are in
Man...it sure must be nice to have a PBH above 75. All the choices you
75+ PBHers have in bike frames makes me delirious and jealous and
still not tall.
Meanwhile, on back on the little ol' Betty (whichfunny isn't
it..the Hunq is beginning to ever-so-slightly
resemble...muhuhuwahahaha.)
O
I think it's a waste of energy to get upset about something like
this. First, it's a bicycle. Bicycles are fun. Second, if you're
upset about it, give it a few days and see if you still feel the same
way. It's going to be a nice bike.
On Apr 5, 1:50 pm, happyriding wrote:
> Just read that mys
i hope there's no serious hard feeligns..
the new design is just that, a new design. it's different than what
was initially shown during the presale and all the here's da hunka
stuff. If someone doesn't like the changes ( i haven't made up my mind
yet ), I don't see anything wrong with them asking
Just read that myself. It seems like some hard feelings are being
formed.
On Apr 5, 3:28 pm, William wrote:
> .and Grant posted about the various opinions, and indicated that
> one refund was given already. I think that's too bad, but nobody
> should buy a bike that they cannot like.
>
>
.and Grant posted about the various opinions, and indicated that
one refund was given already. I think that's too bad, but nobody
should buy a bike that they cannot like.
On Apr 5, 8:27 am, Dan Abelson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, EricP wrote:
> > Having looked at the first moc
On Apr 5, 1:06 pm, William wrote:
> And here's the fantasy decal for the Diagonpillar:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/45758...@n04/4494550338/
>
Ha ha ha!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email
And here's the fantasy decal for the Diagonpillar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45758...@n04/4494550338/
On Apr 5, 11:52 am, Esteban wrote:
> I like all of the tt configurations imagined here, far better than the
> parallel... This bike is meant to be a beast! The extra structure is
> intere
On Apr 5, 12:08 pm, james black wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:48, happyriding wrote:
> > Oh, yeah. Here is james black's suggested tube orientation--the two
> > triangles are better than one geometry:
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/49416...@n00/4494282750/
>
> Thanks for mocking that up! I
I like all of the tt configurations imagined here, far better than the
parallel... This bike is meant to be a beast! The extra structure is
interesting and functional. Cool like interesting duthh bikes.
Unique l! Diagonal-ize!
On Apr 5, 11:08 am, james black wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10
Danged! If that diagonal tube had been on the docket last week during
the pre-deal, it might well have pushed me over the edge!
FWIW, I saw a campeur in a (cool) shop in Paris last year - Rando Cycles
http://www.flickr.com/photos/66275...@n00/4494454218/
... I think it was the owner's bike. Big/ta
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:48, happyriding wrote:
> Oh, yeah. Here is james black's suggested tube orientation--the two
> triangles are better than one geometry:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/49416...@n00/4494282750/
Thanks for mocking that up! It doesn't look as good as I had imagined
when I de
bw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
[mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com]on Behalf Of happyriding
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:49 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
On Apr 5, 9:51 am, Garth wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Riv isn't going to make any drastic changes to the Hunq, or
On Apr 5, 9:51 am, Garth wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Riv isn't going to make any drastic changes to the Hunq, or else
> they'd have to call it something else.
>
> What you see here is pure fantasy. One thought about TT's not being
> parallel and all of the sudden we have a whole new frame?
> Nah.
Did you
Eric,
Riv isn't going to make any drastic changes to the Hunq, or else
they'd have to call it something else.
What you see here is pure fantasy. One thought about TT's not being
parallel and all of the sudden we have a whole new frame?
Nah.
--
You received this message because you are subscrib
Luggage style makes sense in that scenario, no matter the weight -
having a bike swinging around near head height in crowds might make
people nervous :-)
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:27 PM, William wrote:
> Bill
>
> Yeah, luggage style. My BART bike tends to be in the 45-50lb range
> loaded with a
On Apr 5, 11:14 am, Bill Connell wrote:
> In my case, there are at
> least a couple of places around town where trail access involves a
> long staircase or (on one offroad trail) a long log crossing, so i
> shoulder the bike, cyclocross-style. I don't use a tt-mounted pump on
> most bikes for this
Bill
Yeah, luggage style. My BART bike tends to be in the 45-50lb range
loaded with all my work related stuff. My shoulder couldn't take
that.
other Bill
On Apr 5, 10:14 am, Bill Connell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM, William wrote:
> > When I portage my Hillborne up and down the
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM, William wrote:
> When I portage my Hillborne up and down the long steps of the South
> Hayward Bart station, I grab it hard on the seat tube and loop my
> thumb into the top loop of the King cage that is bolted to the seat
> tube. If I'm wearing knit gloves, it's
Wow-- great mock up! I'll admit that it is much better than I expected
it to look, but i still don't get it. I am sure it is stronger, but
how much and is it necessary and isn't the Bomba pretty darn strong
with the parallel tt's? There are definite disadvantages to the
design, including bottle pla
ctional. For those
> > who agree with the first two judgments (and there will obviously be
> > disagreements), it is a grand slam home run.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.c
added in as
> > > well? Pretty good I think and a better support for the seat tube when
> > > going trail bombing under big loads
>
> > >
> > > From: Marty
> > > To: RBW Owners Bunch
> > > Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:06:11 AM
> > > Subject: [RBW]
or those
> who agree with the first two judgments (and there will obviously be
> disagreements), it is a grand slam home run.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of happyriding
> Sent
I may have missed this earlier in the discusion, but I assume that the 54 would
still have only one top tube. Is that the current understanding as far as we
know?Jim D Massachusetts
--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Bill Connell wrote:
From: Bill Connell
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
o:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of happyriding
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
Just an opinion, and not meant to insult anyone...but that is the
ugliest bike I've ever seen. Sorry. Just one opinion.
I suspect one reason Rivend
Can't decide if I have a preference between the parallel vs. the
diagonal 2nd top tube. Aesthetically, I didn't like the 2nd top tube
at all when the first Bombadil pictures "dropped". Now I don't mind
it. In fact I kind of like how it looks. I kind of think that the
diagonal 2tt might grow on me i
Just an opinion, and not meant to insult anyone...but that is the
ugliest bike I've ever seen. Sorry. Just one opinion.
I suspect one reason Rivendell might like to do the diagonal 2tt is
marketing: it helps differentiate the Hunaqpillar from the Bombadil--
even if it doesn't improve on it. B
No choice Grant and Keven make is going to make everybody happy.
On Apr 5, 8:27 am, Dan Abelson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, EricP wrote:
> > Having looked at the first mockup, I'm not convinced. Jars my view
> > too much. Also makes it look like it's a "fatty" bike. Fine. I'm
>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, EricP wrote:
> Having looked at the first mockup, I'm not convinced. Jars my view
> too much. Also makes it look like it's a "fatty" bike. Fine. I'm
> fat. That's been established. Don't like the idea that I'm stuck
> riding a "special" bike.
>
> With full-l
Having looked at the first mockup, I'm not convinced. Jars my view
too much. Also makes it look like it's a "fatty" bike. Fine. I'm
fat. That's been established. Don't like the idea that I'm stuck
riding a "special" bike.
With full-length twin laterals, ala the Singer camping, or the
origina
The mockups are really helpful, thanks for putting them together. I
have to say, i greatly prefer the look of parallel top tubes, if a
double TT is the plan, but i'm not on the Hunq list, so my vote is
more theoretical.
Two other observations in this discussion though:
This is the second Riv frame
Mid-head tube to mid-seat tube makes more sense to me than the
parallel top tubes. Imagine a frame built with only the diagonal
tube, no top tube or down tube. If you grabbed the head tube and seat
tube and tried to twist them side to side so that they were not
parallel, the diagonal tube would b
] Re: Diagonapillar
Marty's "Campeur Hunqa" actually looks pretty good. .. I have a feeling the
"Campeur" model would be a little
more complicated to produce and so would jack up the price.
Here's a picture of a Alex Singer camping bike from VBQ:
http://www.
Marty's "Campeur Hunqa" actually looks pretty good. The other one...
not so much. I have a feeling the "Campeur" model would be a little
more complicated to produce and so would jack up the price. I also
like the bike the way it is with parallel TTs. It'll be interesting to
see how this pans out.
loads
>
> > > ________________
> > > From: Marty
> > > To: RBW Owners Bunch
> > > Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:06:11 AM
> > > Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
>
> > > Here's my crude mock-up to show what seems to be t
hen going trail
> > bombing under big loads
>
> >
> > From: Marty
> > To: RBW Owners Bunch
> > Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:06:11 AM
> > Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
>
> > Here's my crude mock-up to show what seems to be the diagonal
> > direc
I love it. I'd put $ down on one, made like that. :)
Thanks for the Monday morning pick-me-up.
From: Marty
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:38:52 AM
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
OK - here you go - even added a second rear brake lik
Here you go, Raleigh X frame, back to the future!!!
http://oldbike.wordpress.com/1931-raleigh-cross-frame-gents/
I do like Marty's version, maybe a add water bottle bridge on the
extra stays.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
better support for the seat tube when going trail
> bombing under big loads
>
>
> From: Marty
> To: RBW Owners Bunch
> Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:06:11 AM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar
>
> Here's my crude mock-up to show what seem
] Re: Diagonapillar
Here's my crude mock-up to show what seems to be the diagonal
direction, with water bottle bosses and graphics relocated. Kind of
liking it...but keep in mind this is only my interpretation of what
has been mentioned. As Grants says, it's Keven's call.
htt
That is quite an interesting concept... and I like your mock-up! Doesn't
seem crude at all.
René
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from thi
It sounds very cool. I'm glad to hear it's a real thing- it'll make
the Hunqapillar that much more unique.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubsc
Here's my crude mock-up to show what seems to be the diagonal
direction, with water bottle bosses and graphics relocated. Kind of
liking it...but keep in mind this is only my interpretation of what
has been mentioned. As Grants says, it's Keven's call.
http://tinyurl.com/yebexd2
Marty
On Apr 5,
Will wait until a photo is there before getting too depressed by it.
However, it's turning into a different bike than the one I ordered.
Really hoping that it is going to be worth the extra wait. And since
the seat tube won't be able to take a bottle cage, the shifted 2nd tt
will hopefully have ca
Much like the old camping bikes of the 50s. Fine enough. But doesn't
that mean a diagonal lug(s) at the seat tube and head tubes?
On Apr 4, 9:30 pm, Grant Petersen wrote:
> Midpoint of headtube to midpoint of seat tube. Sorta mixte-like. (Jim
> Thrill/Hiawatha said...)
>
> Keven loves the 62 Bett
I wonder if there is a drawing, mock up, or other bike out there with
this config? It sounds kinda weird to me, but seeing it might change
everything.
cheers!
cm
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send em
parallel with the down tube might look pretty snazzy.
best,
andrew
On Apr 4, 2010, at 9:52 PM, cyclotourist wrote:
> No Kevin, don't do it.
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Esteban wrote:
> Fits the bike. Truly unique.
>
> Esteban
> San Diego, Calif.
>
> On Apr 4, 9:30 pm, Grant Pete
I like the idea.
On Apr 4, 9:52 pm, cyclotourist wrote:
> No Kevin, don't do it.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Esteban wrote:
> > Fits the bike. Truly unique.
>
> > Esteban
> > San Diego, Calif.
>
> > On Apr 4, 9:30 pm, Grant Petersen wrote:
> > > Midpoint of headtube to midp
No Kevin, don't do it.
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Esteban wrote:
> Fits the bike. Truly unique.
>
> Esteban
> San Diego, Calif.
>
> On Apr 4, 9:30 pm, Grant Petersen wrote:
> > Midpoint of headtube to midpoint of seat tube. Sorta mixte-like. (Jim
> > Thrill/Hiawatha said...)
> >
> > K
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
