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
24 matches
Mail list logo
