On Mar 27, 2:47 pm, EricP wrote:
> I'll resoundly disagree. If well designed, I find nothing wrong with
> a compact frame. (Witness the Sam Hillborne).
Oh boy, now don't go calling the SamH compact. It's expanded! ;>)
from RR41:
The Sam frame is “expanded,” with a sloping top tube that
giv
This one? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39001
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> "Eric Platt
> St. Paul, MN (who also has a black bike, with black fenders and a
> black Brooks). "
>
> Are you the Bike Ninja? :D
> http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2009-03-11
> http
"Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN (who also has a black bike, with black fenders and a
black Brooks). "
Are you the Bike Ninja? :D
http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2009-03-11
http://www.cafepress.com/yehudamoon/6528912
On Mar 27, 11:47 am, EricP wrote:
> I'll resoundly disagree. If well design
I'll resoundly disagree. If well designed, I find nothing wrong with
a compact frame. (Witness the Sam Hillborne). But like Eric D. said,
it depends on your frame of reference. While I started cycling in the
late 1970's, my favorite bikes were the early compact frame mountain
bikes that folks
This is the bike I rode and referenced earlier:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3114399868_ecd36039c0.jpg?v=0
I agree that Carbon is not for everyone, but it is the future of
mainstream, modern cycling. And carbon can certainly be repaired and
altered as mentioned above. I certainly agree wit
It just depends on your background. I started out mountain biking, so I like
the looks of a compact frame--I'm used to lot of seatpost showing.
Eric
Dublin, OH
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:04 AM, MichaelH wrote:
>
> Patrick makes an interesting point.
>
> "Compact" frames are ugly, and if all the
Patrick makes an interesting point.
"Compact" frames are ugly, and if all they come in is a flat black
they are very ugly. One can argue that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, but there are some very ancient and true rules of
proportion, which can be described mathimatically. A "classic" fra
On Mar 26, 5:48 pm, "Doug Peterson" wrote:
> Recently I had a couple more rack mounts installed on my steel fork. Guy
> who does repairs, custom frames, etc., out of his garage. Recommended by my
> LBS. He charged me $20 for an hours work and I got to help. Found a paint
> match in the arch
on 3/26/09 1:14 PM, Chris at fourf...@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)
> I just test rode a Look carbon bike the other day that weighs in at
> 18# (verified on the scale), only a couple of pounds more than my
> Salsa. I can't even begin to tell you how much better that Look
> climbed! It was like it wa
I was once a bicycle weight addict. In hindsight, I was lucky that it
was severely limited by lightness of pocket. Now, I'm more interested
in craftsmanship than weight.
My only bike, a custom handmade lugged steel sport touring bike,
wasn't the lightest when I bought it years ago, and it is even
-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of charlie
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:59 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: Weights in the real world
G! Patrick
I can feel the steel and its real!
Who needs to ride something as light as a Christmas turkey anyway? I
want my ride to last through my
G! Patrick
I can feel the steel and its real!
Who needs to ride something as light as a Christmas turkey anyway? I
want my ride to last through my clumsiness and complete disregard
(when I am exhausted) for its well being. Dents, scratches be
danged!!! I won't give up my steel till you pry i
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> I'll always have a steel bike or two and I still really want an Orange
> Ram, but I'll tell you whatCarbon is the future.
I was in a high end (and very successful, even in these thin and
piping times) bike shop last week and hefted a couple o
So, I'll throw my .02 cents (or is that 2 lbs) in...
I have a 57cm Bleriot with the standard Riv build (bar ends, LX rear,
Nitto cockpit,B17) with the addition of a brass bell, Nitto top rack
with big loafer, kickstand and Maxy Fasty tires. Total weight is
31#.(wow!)
My other ride is a Salsa
On Mar 24, 6:43 pm, MichaelH wrote:
>
> Here's there rather telling response:
> "6 S&S couplings add about 3 pounds to a tandem frame.
>
> You're right about weight differences and lifting. In the world of
> tandems, you'll find some amazing weight claims that are.well.
> let's say
I honestly don't know what my various bicycles weigh. I know what I
weigh to the exact pound on a weekly basis.
Since I started setting my bikes up for comfort and versatility I
haven't really thought about the weight. My gearing allows me to get
up most any hill. I suppose if I used a roof rack o
bicycle
aint an issue
peace
well behaved women rarely make history
_ride yr friggin bicycle_
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:52:54 -0700
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Weights in the real world
> From: bmenn...@comcast.net
> To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
>
>
> My '
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Doug Peterson wrote:
>
>
> Seth:
>
> Where did you shave the weight? :-). Seriously, my 58 cm Atlantis weighs
26
> lbs with no racks, sacks or bottles, on 35 mm Schwalbe Marathon Supremes.
> My standard set-up is Nitto large rear rack, Hobo bag with the usual ju
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Doug Peterson wrote:
>
>
> Seth:
>
> Where did you shave the weight? :-). Seriously, my 58 cm Atlantis weighs 26
> lbs with no racks, sacks or bottles, on 35 mm Schwalbe Marathon Supremes.
> My standard set-up is Nitto large rear rack, Hobo bag with the usual jun
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> Early Rivendell with "stout" tubes : 22 lbs 650B 32mm tires
> Nashbar Mark III with 26" wheelset: 23 lbs 559 28 mm tires
> Rambouillet: 24 lbs 559 32 mm
> tires
> Saluki (with fenders and f
I think that a 70-odd year old who still rides with a club is entitled to
any weight foolishness that she might want to enjoy!
And yes, I see old guys (Damn! They must be in their 50s!) with bellies and
XXL racing jerseys on carbon -- sorry, crabon bikes. -- Saith Patrick who
just last Sunday tur
My 57 cm(c-c) 650c '99 Joe fixed gofast weighed 17.75 lb with Nitto cage and
Speedplay X-1 pedals. My 58 cm 559 '03 Curt, in its original form as a
gofast 1X10, otherwise similarly set up, weighed exactly a pound more. Now
that the '99 has track pedals and clips and straps, I suppose it weighs hal
In my experience selling bicycles and parts, the most weight conscious
cyclists are not the racers, but the aging club riders who fear being
the anchor on a group ride. I remember a 70ish woman who had some 17
lb bike refusing to consider tires as fat as 25 mm because she
believed that such wide t
On Mar 25, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Bill M. wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:51 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Bill M. wrote:
>>
>>> The 'less than a full water bottle' arguement always seems
>>> specious to
>>> me. I don't carry less water to make up for a heavier bike.
>>
>> That's
I think most recreational cyclist have fallen victim to the
"marketing" of weight.
Manufacturers use weight as a competitive comparison ... furthering
the idea that lighter = better. In other words, they demonstrate the
superiority of their product simply by being lighter. Why choose
theire Ped
This was my point also.
From: Tim McNamara
... I've got bikes ranging
from 21 lbs to 27 lbs and I don't to have any less fun on any of
them. I prefer to measure my rides in smiles per hour these days...
--~--~-~--~~~-
No one complains about the weight of water because it's fixed (though
racers will dump extra water before a major climb or sprint finish so
that they don't carry the extra weight). You can't make it any
lighter and you need to carry enough to meet your need so you have to
accept it for what it is
I remembered this from the book "Cycling's Golden Age," about Jean
Robic, a rider from the 1940's: "Robic could still climb well, but he
often lost the uphill advantage on the downhill due to his light
weight. Finally Le Calvez got it: add weight for the downhills. In
those days the water bottles
What about sailboats?
On Mar 24, 6:44 pm, Steve wrote:
> I'll bet the rider weight to structure weight ratio is about 7.5 to
> one, an amazing relationship given the variety of stresses a bicycle
> encounters on the road. Bicycles are THE MOST efficient form of
> transportation ever devised asi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> Early Rivendell with "stout" tubes : 22 lbs 650B 32mm tires
> Nashbar Mark III with 26" wheelset: 23 lbs 559 28 mm tires
> Rambouillet: 24 lbs 559 32 mm
> tires
> Saluki (with fenders and fro
On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Bill M. wrote:
> The 'less than a full water bottle' arguement always seems specious to
> me. I don't carry less water to make up for a heavier bike.
That's not the point of that argument. The point is that- at least
IME- no one complains that the weight of thei
I'll bet the rider weight to structure weight ratio is about 7.5 to
one, an amazing relationship given the variety of stresses a bicycle
encounters on the road. Bicycles are THE MOST efficient form of
transportation ever devised aside from soaring off mountain sides in
sailplanes.
Steve
On Mar
My '95 Road Std. weighs around 21 lb, maybe a tick less, including
bottle cages but no pump or bags. It has a few lighter-than-average
parts on it (American Classic seatpost and rear hub, Dia Compe BRS200
brake calipers, Speedplay X1 pedals). Tires are Vittoria Rubino Pro
28 mm (~270 gm IIRC), t
Thanks for posting this. A few years ago I did a similar experiment
with my Ram, SOMA, and world championship, Marinoni classic steel
racing frame. The differences were (2 lbs) too small for a
recreational cyclist to worry about.
In the last few days I have been in communication with Rodriguez
34 matches
Mail list logo
