I emailed back and forth with Grant for about a week before deciding that the undertube wasn't for me. His explanation, as far as I understood, is that the unusually long head tube on the Sam reduces the frame's resistance to twisting. The 2nd tube "re-triangulates" the main triangle and eliminates this problem, which he acknowledged was more theoretical than practical. And that is might be overkill in my case - 56 cm Sam, 165 lbs. My feeling is that he wants the Sam to work for everyone, including heavier riders on medium sized frames.
I went with a used single TT frame from this list (thank Forrest) which I am currently having built. Can't wait to ride it. Jay On Jul 9, 8:38 am, charlie <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally dig the two top tube look. Listen, Grant gives very > sound reasons for them on that particular style and frame size. I'd > rather pay more, have two top tubes and buy American anyway.....in > fact I may just get another Riv but probably a Hunqua or heck maybe a > Sam with (two) top tubes. I know I'll never see 150 again and a > noodley frame that flexes under load and when loaded is no confidence > builder. I've had numerous ghost shifts on several frames with > perfectly clean and lubed cable guides etc. I want a stiff frame that > doesn't twist but I want a fork with (some) vertical compliance which > is where there should and can be some. Lets face it, Riv bikes are > made for more average riders with baggage and for variable surfaces > not just perfect straight line asphalt. I think these designs are > well thought out and result in a well built frame that will last. Go > Grant ! Just sayin....... > > On Jul 8, 6:00 pm, eflayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think it is interesting, for lack of a better word, that GP is addressing > > double top tubes in his latest posting on the Riv site. I respect the living > > daylights out of him and thank him everytime I ride my coupled 58cm Riv > > Rambouillet. I even go out of my way to never abbreviate "Rambouillet." > > > On the other hand, my eyes and brain have never gotten together on the > > looks. I get the logic, I get the utility for bigger bikes. But without > > being an engineer, I really can't imagine anything smaller that a 62 cm, > > well built, would ever benefit from 2 tubes. Maybe a big big rider with lots > > o added baggage. > > > And it sounds as if in his posting, he is suggesting the 56cm ones (which > > must be the heart of the buying population) are not moving so well.. > > > If I am interpreting his comments correctly, it makes me sad the inventory > > is not moving. And he sounds ready to eventually acknowledge that many of us > > are not ready to embrace the 2TT idea. > > > He is steadfast in a way that earns him my respect, and... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
