It's been interesting reading through these comments. This last bit here,
regarding the "lift tube," caught my attention. I LOVE this lift-tube
function. When carrying the bike up some stairs, or lifting it over an
obstacle in road or trail, it great. Keeps my pump out of harm's way, and
ea
I think frame size has a lot to do with it, with or without 2 TT. I bet the
main triangle size - the area from the lower top tube to the downtube and seat
tube on the 62 Joe was bigger than the Roadeo, not to mention the longer
chainstays. Tires too. 62 Joe had 50mm Big Apples. I think the f
No worries. I apologize for mistaking your tone. As Paul M found from the
Grant quote, the reasons seem to be a mix of aesthetics and function. My
guess is looks came first and possible practical advantages were deduced
later.
In other words, to fit a second tube at all, a frame has to be large
>From RBW website Grant says this about the Atlantis frame, "Quirk: The 59cm
and 62cm have "rainbow" tubes that add style and structure by
triangulation, and a better lifting tube than a standard top tube." For me
that means aesthetics and practicality.
On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 22:55:18 U
That would probably fall under not good, both in the aesthetic department
and the not ideal for the integrity of the steel department. Are you
certain it is not a bit of sloppy brazing, or a paint mishap? Can you post
a photo of the wobbly area?
While you can certainly overheat a tube when braz
Sorry that you read that as snarky as It was intended in the complete
opposite direction. I meant that everyone has opinions especially on this
topic but the only one who actually has the math or the engineering report
or whatever they get from the destructive testing of their frames is Grant
P
I think the GBW is the stoutest rough stuff loaded camping bike RBW makes,
and no double top tubes there.
So clearly RBW doesn't think twin top tubes or diagatubes or rainbow tubes
are the only way to make a large frame with the strength / stiffness they
want in a touring bike.
For some of the f
I had a Roadeo, I believe it was a 53, and never thought it was a flexy
bike...More like stiff in a good way. I thought it was a really good fast road
bike.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an
When I pick up my 2TT Sam or Joe (which is frequent, going up and down
stairs), I don’t have to worry about knocking my frame pump off. Also, it’s
easier to work on them in my repair stand, as I can clamp on to the lower
tube without interfering with the rear brake line.
Bones
--
You received
Whoa. The order of flexiness from most to least really surprised me. It’s
hard to imagine a double tuber 62cm Joe being more flexy than a Roadeo and hard
to imagine both Clem’s being flexier than the Roadeo.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 7:05 PM, R Olson wrote:
>
> I'm 260 lbs
Right on. And again: Not loaded touring, but the best rear load carrier
I've owned out of dozens of bikes was that light-framed, standard-gauge, *tout
531* 1973 Motobecane racing bike, size 58 c-c -- and no double tt, either
(tho' it did have French or Swiss -- forget -- bb threading -- right hand
And yet, the original Atlantis was also meant for loaded touring,
performed splendidly in that role, and lacked the second top tube in all
sizes.
On 8/4/20 11:01 AM, Vincent Tamer wrote:
The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded
touring. The second tube goes on the bikes
The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded touring. The
second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are presumably heavier.
That along with a heavy touring load makes the extra tube a good idea.
On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
> Yo
I'm 260 lbs and own a double TT Appa 58cm, 61 cm Roadeo, 64cm Clem L and
59cm Clem L (the clem's are for other family members, but I've ridden
them). Here's the order from most flexy to least:
1) 64 cm Clem L
2) 59 cm Clem L
3) Roadeo
4) Appa
No surprise there, but the difference between 2 and
I have a 2tt Sam that I am taking out for long staycation tours of my area.
I didn't notice the extra ounces of the 2nd tube over a 300k last weekend,
but did appreciate the comments about the bike when I stopped for supplies.
It added to my day and the overall pleasure of owning and riding the
As to the structural effects of double top tubes: Sure, any such member
will make a difference to the behavior of the frame; the question is
whether this effect serves any useful purpose for the rider. And besides
the question of whether such effects are necessary, there is also the
question of whe
I have a Soma Grand Randonneur, and I would say that's "wobbly steel" - you
can visually see the bottom bracket swing from side to side relative to the
head tube when you're putting even moderate power through the drivetrain.
Couple notes on the aesthetics of "unnecessary tubes"
- The beauty of
More reflection on this particular aspect of the thread. I will first be
more clear about my assertion, which is simply that such double top tubes
as we are talking about provide aesthetic and not practically beneficial
structural benefits.
I will add that, far from being negligible, aesthetics --
Should read "deflection," not "defection."
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7 S wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-7 brendonoid wrote:
>
>> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would
>> think? *shrug*
>
>
> No need to be snarky. I kno
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-7 brendonoid wrote:
> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think?
> *shrug*
No need to be snarky. I know Riv tests their frames and that they pass the
strictest test for mountain frames. My point was, I don't know
Please explain what "wobbly steel" is, and how one identifies it?
I would guess that, in frames smaller than, I don't know, 62cm, a second
top tube will not have much affect on how the bike handles or carries a
load. Especially since Rivendells use fairly beefy tubing to begin with.
>From my po
Well, I'm definitely heavy enough where the second top tube on my Sam Hillborne
should make a difference. Does it? I dunno. But after this many years am used
to it. Always felt it was as much marketing to be different than Surly, All
City and some other brands. It does ride well and has been my
Both of my Double TT Rivs have wobbly steel around the seat lug from
overheating the tubes during brazing. I would think this alone would undo
any strength gains from a second tube but what do I know. With that said my
60cm Sam with double TT holds the same load on racks as the Single TT Homer
Ted, it's not rocket science. The tube looks good (on this bike) but serves
no real, practical need.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM ted wrote:
> The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you
> don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be
> the
The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you
don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be
there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be
justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of
arbitrary a
Mostly, it’s interesting to me that in going from an 18” (46cm) mountain bike
frame to a 60cm frame there is apparently no need to make any design changes
for the sake of rigidity. Or that, in this area, tubing gauge is much more
important. I suppose I have been way overestimating how much bike
No argument as far as the Atlantis goes.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Ryan M.
wrote:
> I sometimes wish I were y’all enough to have a double top tube bike, but
> I’m short and always ride small bikes. Oh well...they do look nice to me.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscr
I sometimes wish I were y’all enough to have a double top tube bike, but I’m
short and always ride small bikes. Oh well...they do look nice to me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece
Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need.
Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, but
the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the qualifications
already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of chromed steel to
a specially braced front f
m
> *Sent:* August 4, 2020 6:58 AM
> *To:* rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> *Reply-to:* rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug
>
> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally;
> there'
ile device From: bertin...@gmail.comSent: August 4, 2020 6:58 AMTo: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comReply-to: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis o
Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics **is**
a practical purpose.
I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike +
rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight
is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as
You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally;
there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is
that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by
someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by
the added tu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0
On 8/3/20 11:37 PM, Patrick Moore wrote:
My biplane crown (new Chauncey) is racier than your biplane crown, and
I'll bet the bike faster than your Della Santa -- it has an /alloy
shell QR/ SA hub. (This bike as fenders, racks f and r, lighting, but
n
As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true,
because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be
negligible.
In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the
supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members
My biplane crown (new Chauncey) is racier than your biplane crown, and I'll
bet the bike faster than your Della Santa -- it has an *alloy shell QR* SA
hub. (This bike as fenders, racks f and r, lighting, but no double tt.)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:34 PM Mike Godwin wrote:
> No but it does have a
No but it does have a chrome-plated contrasting paint-filled twin-plate
fork crown. Does that almost count?
Mike SLO CA
On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> I'll bet it doesn't have a second top tube.
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:27 PM Mike Godwin > wrote:
>
>
I'll bet it doesn't have a second top tube.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:27 PM Mike Godwin wrote:
> My Della Santa is outfitted with drop out eyelets and threaded chainstay
> and brakebridge brazeons for fenders, and it is a racey bike.
>
> Mike SLO CA
>
> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 9:00:02 AM UTC
Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and carry
heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best level
top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56
c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made
from stand
My Della Santa is outfitted with drop out eyelets and threaded chainstay
and brakebridge brazeons for fenders, and it is a racey bike.
Mike SLO CA
On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 9:00:02 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> I don't want a second top tube on any bike I own because it would serve no
>
Yes, the extra tube strengthens the frame. Otherwise you would be left with
a wobblier triangle and have to use thicker tubes and there goes at least
some of your weight savings. I think it's a good solution and looks cool,
so a double win.
On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 11:42:08 AM UTC-7 Jason
I can imagine it's useful once you get into the 60cm range, since the
average rider weight is going up while the structural triangulation of the
frame is going down. But I can't deny that I love the totally unnecessary
extra tube on the Hunq so who am I to judge.
The "unnecessary tube" I want
42 matches
Mail list logo
