On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:08 AM, CycloFiend wrote: > on 7/16/11 3:17 PM, Steve Palincsar at [email protected] wrote: >>> http://gallery.me.com/rodendahl#100196 > >> See, now /that/ is what a Rivendell is supposed to look like, not no >> 2TT2 much. > > Don't want no undertube, don't buy no undertube - it seems odd to be talking > about this like these don't exist - > > http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/3108/mark_s_roadeo.jpg > > http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/0987/AHH_61_ff_300.jpg > > I'm glad that GP has evolved his design ideas from 1994 - it would be sad if > he had not. The additional clearances he's added back to "road" frames is > one thing I like, which is pretty lacking in that early model.
It is good that his thinking has gradually changed and evolved- stasis is pretty much death. Look at Campagnolo which didn't change anything other than appearances for years and years at a time- which cost them dearly when Shimano and Sun Tour started pushing development and improved functioning heavily and has relegated them to a boutique maker. > It's interesting too to look at the amount of seatpost showing on that > setup. That '94 Riv is set up like a race machine - max extension seatpost > to ensure the smallest frame (we'll come back to that idea in a second) and > the bars down low to ensure a nice flat, level back when powering along. > It's a race position paradigm. Which is neither good nor bad - it certainly > isn't where most of us are. Or the seller just bought an undersized bike used. This bike may not reflect what Grant was thinking about sizing back then (in fact I am sure it does not, from my recall of my discussions with him about the All-Rounder I bought shortly after this). > Regarding the frame size - > the idea bandied about back then (and earlier, of course) was that you > wanted a small frame to ensure a stiff _triangle_ . We bought mountain > bikes that way (until the advent of suspension) and we bought our road bikes > that way. This whole idea of compact frames came from mountain bikes to road > bikes (via Giant and their TCR series ridden by the ONCE squad in the pro > peleton). These still had tiny triangles, but much, much longer seat posts > which enabled fewer sizes. Expanded (as practiced by GP) took that idea and > stretched bits of the design (headtubes longer and up-angle reduced) to > allow more real-world rider positioning. And in doing so, moved away from > the triangulation. Stiffness and triangulation etc. tend to be over-emphasized. The "double diamond" frame is only approximately triangulated at best (and then only in the smallest sizes) but the stiffness of the materials used more than make up for this. As a guy who fits a 63 cm frame, I've never ridden a truly triangulated bike and it's never mattered. Nor has having an upsloping TT or "compact" frame made any difference in the riding experience or durability of the frame. This sort of discussion tends to end up splitting frog's hairs IMHO. -- 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.
