> For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a > reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a > much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread > prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, > there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being > angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed > around 26" wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers > sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these.
Did not realize people were so hostile to 26". I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26" wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26" because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. On Feb 3, 12:24 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> wrote: > "What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on > various attributes." > > I agree that smaller wheels are a solution for TCO and other real and > perceived problems, and my custom touring bike is basically a copy of > my 58 Atlantis, but for 26" wheels. > > For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a > reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a > much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread > prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, > there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being > angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed > around 26" wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers > sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. > > On Feb 3, 11:37 am, james black <chocot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:32, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > I think there are a number of us who want our cake and get to eat it too: > > > sporty fast geometry with 45 mm tires, full fenders and no TCO. I'd say > > > "pick two." Some enchiladas can't be readily served whole. > > > What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on > > various attributes. I understand that many of you will come to a > > reasoned point of view that the drawbacks of going to a smaller wheel > > size outweigh the benefits of eliminating TCO. Nearly every bike > > company makes some bikes with TCO. But there are also many cyclists > > who share my point of view that the benefits of the larger diameter > > wheel do not outweigh the disadvantage of TCO. > > > Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like > > myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and > > deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging > > that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. I > > am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I > > sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some > > kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists > > (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. > > > James Black > > Los Angeles, CA- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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 this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
