On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 09:03 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > Steve P: I used the term "undersized" in reference to tubing because > the smaller tubing diameter has become nonstandard over the last 20 or > so years. You can switch it around and refer to that which is the > current norm as "oversized" if you prefer, but that seems like too > much effort swimming upstream, not to mention meaningless when the old > standards are pretty much extinct. I vote that we trash all these > judgmental words and just use numbers. >
"Undersized" implies too small, insufficient, wrong. If you object to calling the smaller diameter tubing "standard" then the best thing would be to specify the tubing diameter. That's not value-laden. > I would add that our physical preferences arise in our heads. If we're > predisposed to identifying with Jan's personality and attitude, then > we'll bring that predisposition with us when we ride the bikes Jan > likes. If we are more in tune with GP's style, then, gosh darn it, > that Riv is the best bike one could imagine. > Not applicable here. I was totally on board with GP's choices when I bought the Rambouillet and the Saluki. Experience showed me those frames were too stiff for me. I had a couple of good comparisons: a Merlin-built Titanium Spectrum custom, and a George Longstaff that was very similar in concept to the Rambouillet, only made with a light gauge standard diameter tubing. I could see how much better the Spectrum and the Longstaff did on hills, and when Jan came along and gave what I was experiencing a name, it all became crystal clear. So you can forget about predispositions here. My experience parallels what Jan wrote in his blog about the "journey of discovery." Yes, I fell in love with the look of a couple of Jack Taylors I saw at GEAR 1975 with Lefol fenders and TA handlebar bags. I put a handlebar bag on my Paramount, rode it that way for a few years, and then when the bracket broke and I removed the bag, was shocked to see how much that bag caused the handling to degrade; from that point on and for the next 15 years or so I was totally against handlebar bags. And then I rode some centuries with a Carradice on days that switched from sunny to cloudy to rain to overcast to sunny on about a 60 minute cycle, and found having to stop to park the bike and get my sun glasses out of the rear bag and then after a half hour stop to put them away was driving me totally crazy. Obviously, having the sun glasses up front was the way to go, you didn't have to dismount, park the bike and rummage around in a rear bag. But what about that awful handling deterioration? And then I read about those little racks supporting the handlebar bags. And the changes in fork rake that eliminated the feeling of the weight of the bag through the steering. So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. > As for the Surly LHT, I ride one almost daily. It suits me. It's tough and as > fast as I care to be on a bicycle. I can beat the Hell out of it, and if it > somehow doesn't survive, I can buy a new one this afternoon without losing > much sleep. But yes, I also sell the LHT, and often I'm asked about its > weight. I always tell people that if weight is a concern, even an imaginary > one, the LHT isn't for them. But hey, the Cross-check is kinda the same, but > lighter. The comments I've heard about LHT handling had nothing to do with weight, but rather a feeling of ponderousness. But, as I say, I've never ridden one. -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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.
