Timely post. I was wondering why the bottle mounts have been moved down so low. Serves no useful purpose that I can see. I grab whatever bottle has water in it. I have a few older Toyo built frames and a first gen Sam with normal height bottles. Newer Roadini is 2 1/2" lower. I don't buy the frame bag reason. If your legs are rubbing the water bottles you have issues. Will try to post some photos when I can figure how to resize with this new (Mac) computer. All my fames are tall 60-64cm. I am tall. Don't like having to bend over to get a bottle out of the cage. Side note. Also don't care for the bottle mounts on the Platy frame. Should be to the ST or top of the down tube for convenient use. I have to bend way over to get the bottle. YMMV
On Sunday, September 22, 2024 at 9:14:31 AM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote: > Michael > > That's perfectly fair and I'll own it. Thanks for saying it so > succinctly. Last week I met a lister down at Fieldwork Brewery in Berkeley > to sell them a part, and over a couple pints this lister and I had a long > discussion of this and that. One of the topics was me being a dick on > lists. It's kind of complicated. I will say you aren't wrong, and I'm not > particularly proud of it. I work on it and I think I'm reasonably nice in > person. > > tl/dr but back on-topic of water bottles > > My multiple choice about the seat tube use case was sincere, and at least > one responder here said they are indeed "choice A" and only run the seat > tube bottle, which is fascinating to me. > > Stepping back, I applaud anybody dwelling on a small bike detail and > asking "why do they do this little thing this way?" When I posted my smart > aleck multiple choice I assumed (without knowing for sure) that maybe half > the bikes in my garage would have this low-slung straddling seat tube > bottle placement. In between smart aleck posts I went and did an inventory > in my garage. There are 8 single bikes that have both a front derailer and > seat tube bottle bolts. Only ONE of the 8 have the bolts straddling the > FD, and that's my RoadUno, which I found pretty funny to me for a few > reasons. I used a King Cage, and so it didn't interfere with the FD and > didn't require washers. The other 7 have them up high, and I contemplated > for a while...and I agree with you: up high looks better. I admit that I > don't have a clue why Grant (or Will) spec'd them low on the RoadUno. It's > a funny looking machine for a ton of reasons, so the funny looking bottle > placement is lost in the noise of being funny looking. Regardless, this > topic showed me I don't know anything about bottle placement in frame > design and the world would have continued on its axis had I not responded > at all on this thread and just read posts and tried to learn something for > a change. If I had a Time Machine, I'd go back and do that. > > Bill > > On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 6:39:51 PM UTC-7 Michael Baquerizo > wrote: > >> Bill - your stable of bikes, Rivendell or otherwise is pretty enviable. >> Your personality, (the internet one, at least) less so. >> >> >> >> On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 1:32:57 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote: >> >>> That does reduce my confusion. I was focused on your suspicion that >>> down-low was so obviously a design flaw, and failed to absorb your >>> certainty that your suspicion was wrong. >>> >>> Bill Lindsay >>> El Cerrito, CA >>> >>> On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 10:11:38 AM UTC-7 Michael Baquerizo >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Bill - >>>> >>>> If you read my original post I make it clear that despite my >>>> understanding of the situation i concede that am most likely wrong, but my >>>> question had nothing to do with the bottle being more 'easily accessible', >>>> just about its positioning aesthetically and perhaps even functionally, as >>>> if it straddles the FD clamp it requires one more thing to mount (washers >>>> to raise ) So it's kind of an inaccurate recounting to say that 'The OP >>>> believes there is an obvious design flaw' >>>> >>>> Perhaps you're conflating lower on the frame with 'more easily >>>> accessible' and i'm not CERTAIN that's the case. surely too close to the >>>> top tube and the bottle would be impossible to get, but there's a middle >>>> ground between as low as possible and the aforementioned 'too close to the >>>> seat tube'. To ME, that middle ground seems like it'd be easier to access, >>>> as it's closer to ones reach than lower would be. >>>> >>>> A lot of the accounts from bike owners and bike viewers seem to >>>> suggest similar confusion about why sometimes it's above the clamp area, >>>> sometimes it's below. your own account suggests that it might as well be >>>> ABOVE the derailleur clamp area, as it isn't a drinking water position, >>>> it's a stored water position. Therefore, more easily accessible (which i >>>> conflate with being closer to ones reach) >>>> >>>> i prefer the suggestions that weight lower on the frame is ideal (not >>>> actually sure if its true but it seems to make physical sense) and also >>>> the >>>> allowance for frame bags (in this day and age especially, less so when the >>>> hillborne that i'm referencing was originally created) AND the idea that >>>> your legs thin out the closer they get to the ankle. >>>> >>>> I hope that helps with some of your confusion. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 12:00:38 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote: >>>> >>>>> The OP believes there is an obvious design flaw that the seat tube >>>>> water bottle isn't more easily accessible on lots of bikes. >>>>> >>>>> This confuses me. To those who need/want a higher mounted seat tube >>>>> water bottle on their bikes: what exactly is the use case? >>>>> >>>>> a. I run ONLY a seat tube water bottle for some really good reason, >>>>> and I therefor it should be super accessible, because it's my only source >>>>> of ride-hydration >>>>> b. I run two different drinks and have to have easy access at BOTH to >>>>> manage my hydration strategy >>>>> c. I always drink from the seat tube bottle FIRST for some really good >>>>> reason, and use the down tube bottle as the back up, so the seat tube >>>>> bottle needs to be super accessible >>>>> d. some other use case >>>>> >>>>> For me, and I assumed for most other cyclists, the seat tube bottle is >>>>> not for drinking. The down tube bottle is for drinking. When the down >>>>> tube bottle is empty, then I move the seat tube bottle to the down tube, >>>>> and THEN that bottle is for drinking. In other words, it's a STORAGE >>>>> location, not an ACCESSIBILITY location, for my use-case. When I grab >>>>> for >>>>> a bottle, 19 out of 20 times it's the down tube bottle. I only grab the >>>>> seat tube bottle when it's time to swap. For storage, I prefer >>>>> efficiency, >>>>> and down the seat tube gets it out of the way and that makes sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bill Lindsay >>>>> El Cerrito, CA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 7:00:58 AM UTC-7 Michael Baquerizo >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> i'm ready for the answer to be so obvious that I assume this is a >>>>>> dumb question. >>>>>> >>>>>> So often, on many bike frame, but also on Riv's - the bottle bosses >>>>>> on the seat tube straddle where the derailleur clamp would go. >>>>>> >>>>>> however, almost AS often as I see this, I also see plenty of real >>>>>> estate for them to exist ABOVE said clamp area, where they'd no doubt be >>>>>> more easily accessed by a rider. >>>>>> >>>>>> why? it seems so obviously a design flaw, but surely I'M the one in >>>>>> the wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d80ef64a-19bc-4d31-856f-a453b321005dn%40googlegroups.com.
