On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM, newenglandbike wrote:
> Shaun, I read you post and had an idea just out of curiosity, I
> opened the picture in photoshop- where there's a tool called the
> 'measure tool'. It can tell you the number of pixels between any two
> points in a digital image.
Shaun, I read you post and had an idea just out of curiosity, I
opened the picture in photoshop- where there's a tool called the
'measure tool'. It can tell you the number of pixels between any two
points in a digital image. Using this tool and a little ratio
arithmetic, I figure that the
I think it looks great! It'll look even better when it gets the grey
paint with the red, blue, or orange panels. I didn't like the look of
the double-top-tube bikes at first but it has grown on me. I ride a
68cm Atlantis and Quickbeam now, and I don't notice much (if any)
frame flex or anything. Bu
>From reading the initial flyer on the Hunqapillar, don't believe it's
an exact budget version. More of a budget cross between the Atlantis
and Bombadil. Don't believe the tubing is as stout as the Bomba. And
the smaller wheel size is 26" instead of 650B.
Looking at the photos, the raw bike has
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM, William wrote:
> 56cm Hillborne, and a 56 Bomba that I'll be picking
> up this month. Would a 54cm Hunqa be an absurd add to the stable?
>
> Isn't the Hunquapillar a budget Bombadil, as the SH is a sort of budget
AHH?
--
You received this message because you
Absolutely, any of you present and future Hunqers (Hunkers?) have got
to revel in the 'fugly' comments from the general population.
That big one is most certainly a beast (a sexy beast, but a beast
nonetheless).
I already have a 56cm Hillborne, and a 56 Bomba that I'll be picking
up this month.
I don't agree with Steve but I defend to the death his right to say it.
("It" being "fugly".)
But Steve, it's unfinished; of course it looks ugly. Otherwise, not much
different than the Bombadil, no?
Let freedom of opinion and crudity of expression reign free.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Se
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:47 PM, SJB wrote:
> I gotta say it, that is one seriously fugly bike.
>
> Steve-
>
No, you don't have to say it.
This list has by-and-large been positive.
If you don't like the bike and you cannot find a constructive way to
put it, then don't comment at all.
-sv
--
I gotta say it, that is one seriously fugly bike.
Steve-
On Mar 10, 7:42 pm, Mike wrote:
> Uploaded pictures at the Riv site.
>
> http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/252/original_11-4site.pdf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" gr
Uploaded pictures at the Riv site.
http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/252/original_11-4site.pdf
--
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
Yes, that's the 62. And it is pretty big. Keven said it probably fits
more like a 65. Great ride!
jim
On Mar 10, 5:05 pm, Marty wrote:
> By the way, was that the 62cm in the photos? Seems tallish...
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bun
More photos and words up now! It's alive!
On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, William wrote:
> Interesting. Mark said on the phone that they weren't going to build
> the two that arrived today. I've been duped!
>
> Marty, I want one of those prints anyway. My wife claims that she's
> down for tandem touring i
Interesting. Mark said on the phone that they weren't going to build
the two that arrived today. I've been duped!
Marty, I want one of those prints anyway. My wife claims that she's
down for tandem touring in 2010, so I wanted to get that for her.
Email my gmail to tell me how to get my hands o
By the way, was that the 62cm in the photos? Seems tallish...
On Mar 10, 8:01 pm, Marty wrote:
> Way to go Jim! You win! Can't wait for more, but these will keep me
> smiling for now. Stay tuned for more little bribes as the production
> date nears.
>
> Marty
>
> On Mar 10, 7:14 pm, "Jim M." wro
Way to go Jim! You win! Can't wait for more, but these will keep me
smiling for now. Stay tuned for more little bribes as the production
date nears.
Marty
On Mar 10, 7:14 pm, "Jim M." wrote:
> Spy photos added -- taken by camera phone so they are appropriately
> grainy.
>
> Also got to ride it.
Okay Jim,
Those are awful pictures. Are you also the same photgrapher that took the
Bigfoot photos and made the Zapruder film? Although the graininess does
certainly give them a certain "spy photo authenticity".
Joe
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:14:00 -0800
> Subject: [RBW] Re:
Spy photos added -- taken by camera phone so they are appropriately
grainy.
Also got to ride it. It's a really good ride; smooth, nimble, and very
comfy with the Marathon XRs. I can see going a long way on it.
Grant is going to post better pictures tonight.
How do I explain the mud I splashed on
Keep in mind that the first person to post a spy shot of the
Hunqapillar gets a prize - a nice repro Frank Patterson illustration.
All ya gotta do is join the Flickr group if you haven't already and
post it first! Well, then I'll need an address and stuff, but that's a
detail, not part of the prize
I just talked with Mark and they have two frames in. They are
checking the measurements at this very moment.
On Mar 10, 11:08 am, Michael_S wrote:
> Grant has posted some updates on the 1st proto Hunka's... soon to
> arrive in WC.
>
> I read it very carefully looking for news on the SimpleOne, b
19 matches
Mail list logo
