This is all a matter of taste, I think. I'm 170 - 175, and my custom Rivs ride just fine -- I've never felt that they are sluggish in any way, and this compared to other bikes with the old standard sized and all 531 tubing.* My seat-of-the-pants test is how fast I can turn the cranks in a given gear in given conditions and, #2, how well they do on hills in a 65" to 75" gear.
Of course, there are so many variables that this sort of discussion is almost like shouting into an abyss, but I do know that, for me, the two remaining customs have stood out for the *feeling* of speed and efficiency for 10+ years (one is 10 years old, the other 14 years old). Funny,. the two customs feel faster than the Ram, even with the Ram shod with Paris-Roubaix tires. The Sam Hill felt like the Fargo -- not bad, but not exactly sprightly. Jim Thill: why the animus against "French"? *And yet this particular bike (1973 Motobecane Grand Record, toute 531 racing bike) was one of the best load carriers I've ridden. Go figure. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 20:09 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of > > plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort > > and sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with > > undersized tubes, and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be > > enjoyable. > > I really don't like your use of the term "undersized." Riv tubes are > OVERsize. That's what it was called when it was introduced, and that's > still what it's known as. The stuff that's even larger diameter is > known as "over-over-size". You can have high-bar comfort without > excessive stiffness; the two are not inextricably linked. > > Furthermore, there's a lot of difference between a 190-220 lb "plus > size" rider and the 270 pounder you write about. I haven't seen too > many 270 pounders, but plenty of those in the 0.1 ton category > (including myself), and we do not necessarily need the excessive > stiffness Rivs now provide. In fact, that excessive stiffness takes > away a good deal of enjoyment in my opinion, especially by making the > bikes reluctant climbers. > > > I come down on the Riv side. I shy away from the faintest whiff of > > daintiness and anything that seems French. I draw a lot more parallels > > between RBW and Surly than I do between RBW and the integrated rando > > bike concept. > > > > And you know what people say about the Surly LHT: rides like a tank, way > overbuilt for unloaded riding. I've never ridden a Surly LHT, but I > have owned two Rivendells. While I think they were excessively stiff, > they definitely didn't ride like tanks. > > While many randonneurs have turned Rivs into rando bikes, Rivendells are > perhaps the exact opposite of "integrated." Doug Brooks called it > "resourceful" vs "resolved." > > > > -- > 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
