Re: [RBW] Hillibikes are so close!

[brendonoid]

>
> My Gus has shipped!
> MY GUS HAS SHIPPED!
>

I'm sitting here in the other side of the world wondering how much longer I 
have to wait for that email from riv. Then I have to wait for it to ship to 
the other side of the planet. Sigh. 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4548292c-8c3c-4c58-91d6-258fd7795050n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: New Selle Anatomica X2 saddle owner

[Fullylugged]

Thanks for the history lesson and observations.  I have 2 titanticos in 
service and they are my favorites.  I gave up padded shorts from the get go 
and have never looked back. I also have an X-2 and it is more hammocky than 
the titantico but still very comfy the nose on it is higher. Finally I have 
the H-2, bought on sale. I am well under the threshold weight and I will 
have to break this in, so it's on the shelf for later. My 4th upright bike 
sports a Brooks B15N (There's one for saddle history buffs) that is so well 
broken in, I cannot not continue to ride it.

Tips:  Obenaufs instead of Saddle Sauce or Proofide.
   Don't over tighten. A little sling is good.
   Saddle cover in the rain.

Taiwinds,

Old Slow Bruce

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:47:32 PM UTC-5 divis...@gmail.com wrote:

> That's the entire point of Selle An-Atomicas (and, to a lesser degree, of 
> the cousin Rivet saddles, which have relatively shorter cutouts; both are 
> descendants of the original superlong Selle An-Atomica Titanicos). The long 
> cutout changes the single plane of a traditional suspended leather saddle 
> like a Brooks/Ideale (even one with a small cutout, like a Brooks Imperial) 
> into two parallel planes connected at the ends. My term for this is "ass 
> hammocks".
>
> I've been riding SA-As of various generations as my primary saddles for 
> almost fifteen years:
>
> 1) 2006-2010 Selle An-Atomica Titanico - the original superlong design
> Company base: Benicia CA (SF Bay Area) Manufacturing: Wisconsin
> These were intended for ectomorphic ultra-distance guys under 160 pounds, 
> which is pretty much what founder Tom Milton was; Paris-Brest-Paris, Race 
> Across America, double centuries, brevets etc. The rails were of normal 
> carbon steel, and very long to permit lots of setback; on the saddles of 
> this design I still have, the total saddle length is 310mm. This meant that 
> the rails had a nasty tendency to bend. The leather was lighter weight than 
> a B17; with the ductility of the long cutout, this meant that the leather 
> stretched out comparatively quickly, especially if you were near or above 
> the threshold of the recommended rider weight. I was always at or above 
> that weight (180 ponds, if my memory is correct); I stretched the leather 
> out after a couple of years, by which time I'd already bent the rails.
>
> The leather was available in two finishes: Regular leather and 
> "Watershed", a treated leather that's actually fairly good at repelling 
> water from the finished surface; you still have to treat the rough surface 
> or baggie-ize Watershed saddles in the rain, though. It also came in about 
> 15 different colors - reds, greens, oranges, white, burgundy, grey, purple 
> - plus the normal range of black/brown/tan.
>
> NOTE: Don't let the name fool you - there is no titanium in an SA-A 
> Titanico, or (to the best of my knowledge) in any Selle An-Atomica.
>
> After Milton died in 2010 (massive heart attack on the side of Mount 
> Hamilton near San Jose CA, a little over halfway through the Devil Mountain 
> Double Century; CPR  on the scene, first from fellow riders and then from 
> Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies, didn't save him. Grant wrote a 
> rather thoughtful epitaph on The Riv site afterwards, which appears to have 
> disappeared in one of the more recent site updates - it's at the Internet 
> Archive ), the company was in 
> chaos for about a year or two. The company was inherited by Tom's sister 
> Carol Hosmer, who moved both management and manufacturing to her home town 
> of San Diego; her sons are involved in operations, although they're no 
> longer the people who answer customer support calls. This was about the 
> time when Rivet Saddles was established, under the direction of Tom's life 
> partner Deb; I've never been clear on whether the division was cordial or 
> not.
>
> The relocation led to:
>
> 2) 2011-2012 Selle An-Atomica v.2.0
> Company base: San Diego CA Manufacturing: Wisconsin, transitioning to San 
> Diego
> The saddles started getting more ruggedized. The leather got thicker, and 
> the option of an underlayer because available with the release of new 
> models for heavier riders. The original leather pattern was advertised for 
> riders under 160 pounds, with the leather+underlayer for riders 160-190 
> pounds. The rails changed from carbon steel to chromoly for all models.
>
> The bending rails and stretching leather didn't stop, because most riders 
> aren't built like Tom Milton. So:
>
> 3) 2013-2014 Selle An-Atomica v.2.5
> Company base: San Diego CA Manufacturing: San Diego
> More ruggedizing. Rails went from unspecified chromoly to 4130 chromoly. 
> The leather got thicker, and the color range got narrower; most of the 
> flashy colors disappeared during this period. The old "normal" finish went 
> away, to be replaced by "Tru-Leather": A naturally tanned leather that 
> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks again, Keith. I want to hold out for true 3"/76 mm tires and 5 mm
clearance at all 4 stays, and from such research as I've done, the Krampus
and one other off-shelf bike which I forget -- in my archive -- should
allow this with a =/< 160 mm Q, which is the goal (again, single speed), as
also of course would a custom.

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM iamkeith  wrote:

> I think I responded to the question last time, but just in case:
>
> I have my 1st run, size L Susie set up with 29x2.8 tires, measuring at
> least 74mm  on 42mm rims, with a 3x9 drivetrain.   My tires don't have huge
> knobs, but there are no absolutely no clearance or interference issues
> anywhere, in any gear.   By far the biggest constraint is the height of the
> fork crown.   If it was higher, I could and would put fenders on the bike,
> too.
>
> If I can find a 2.6 tire that I like, I will eventually switch to those.
> I want fenders,.  And the 2.8 tires are fine on dirt but have a little too
> much self-steer on hard surfaces.
>
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Erik and others. Garth, come to think of it, I think that I did
>> ask this before -- more Ralph Wiggumry. Oh well.
>>
>> And I would prefer disc brakes, tho' that's not a deal breaker.
>>
>> Also, any Monocog replacement would be a single speed, or perhaps use a
>> hub gear -- typical wide range 3 speed or perhaps a 2 speed kickback; but
>> probably just a simple single speed.
>>
>> The dealbreaker tho' is 76 mm tires with 5 mm clearance on each side, so
>> 86 mm between stays at tire level.
>>
>> Garth, I find that an extra cm of width and corresponding 5 psi or so
>> drop in pressure makes a huge difference when negotiating sand. 60 mm at 19
>> psi is much better than 50 mm at 23 psi, but 71-2 mm at 13-15 psi is even
>> better, and 76mm+ I daresay would improve things further.
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:28 PM Erik  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on
>>> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a
>>> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure
>>> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They
>>> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little
>>> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the
>>> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with
>>> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any
>>> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe
>>> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>>>
>>> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires
>>> on the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of
>>> the tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell
>>> and I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and
>>> a chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the
>>> tire in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the
>>> 2.8 I might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even
>>> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette
>>> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front
>>> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a
>>> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure
>>> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just
>>> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky
>>> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally
>>> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much
>>> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>>>
>>> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I
>>> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re:
>>> chainline.
>>>
>>> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>


 --
>>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[larson....@gmail.com]

Hey Eric,
Enjoy your Instagram site. How well do you think Gus would work as an 
allroad/mixed terrain bike with tires like the 700x55 Antelope Hill or 2.2” 
Fleecer Ridge? Giving thought to the ATB/one bike solution and am thinking 
about the possibilities. Somebody on the forum speculated that the Gus 
could possibly be an Atlantis/Jones LWB mix. Thank you and happy riding.
Randy in Wisconsin

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 4:17:34 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:

> I think I responded to the question last time, but just in case:
>
> I have my 1st run, size L Susie set up with 29x2.8 tires, measuring at 
> least 74mm  on 42mm rims, with a 3x9 drivetrain.   My tires don't have huge 
> knobs, but there are no absolutely no clearance or interference issues 
> anywhere, in any gear.   By far the biggest constraint is the height of the 
> fork crown.   If it was higher, I could and would put fenders on the bike, 
> too.   
>
> If I can find a 2.6 tire that I like, I will eventually switch to those.  
> I want fenders,.  And the 2.8 tires are fine on dirt but have a little too 
> much self-steer on hard surfaces.
>
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Erik and others. Garth, come to think of it, I think that I did 
>> ask this before -- more Ralph Wiggumry. Oh well.
>>
>> And I would prefer disc brakes, tho' that's not a deal breaker.
>>
>> Also, any Monocog replacement would be a single speed, or perhaps use a 
>> hub gear -- typical wide range 3 speed or perhaps a 2 speed kickback; but 
>> probably just a simple single speed.
>>
>> The dealbreaker tho' is 76 mm tires with 5 mm clearance on each side, so 
>> 86 mm between stays at tire level.
>>
>> Garth, I find that an extra cm of width and corresponding 5 psi or so 
>> drop in pressure makes a huge difference when negotiating sand. 60 mm at 19 
>> psi is much better than 50 mm at 23 psi, but 71-2 mm at 13-15 psi is even 
>> better, and 76mm+ I daresay would improve things further. 
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:28 PM Erik  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on 
>>> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a 
>>> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure 
>>> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They 
>>> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little 
>>> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the 
>>> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with 
>>> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any 
>>> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe 
>>> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>>>
>>> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires 
>>> on the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of 
>>> the tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell 
>>> and I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and 
>>> a chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the 
>>> tire in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 
>>> 2.8 I might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even 
>>> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette 
>>> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front 
>>> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a 
>>> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure 
>>> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do. 
>>>
>>> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just 
>>> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky 
>>> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally 
>>> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much 
>>> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>>>
>>> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I 
>>> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re: 
>>> chainline.  
>>>
>>> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.  
>>>
>>> Erik  
>>>


 -- 
>>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>

[RBW] Re: Ride Report: Izu Oshima- Gojira's Keep

[John Rinker]

Hey Laing,

It's a piece of high-density foam, about 1 cm thick. Kind of like a camping 
pad. Comes in handy for sitting on volcanic rock.

Cheers,
John

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:25:57 PM UTC+9 lconley wrote:

> What are you using as the pad in the bottom of your basket? It looks like 
>> some sort of cut-down gym flooring.
>>
>
> Laing 
>
>> [image: IMG_8215.jpeg]
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_8245.jpeg]
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2130c445-16c8-49ef-a377-85baee929b63n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: Paul Components bits, B Dynamo lights, Shimano hub Dynamo

[Chris]

Link to pictures here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Pdq9Ny6ro6daVDVL9. I will 
be sure to clean these up a little better before shipping!

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:31:02 PM UTC-7 Chris wrote:

> Hi All - I am parting with some things that have been collecting dust in 
> my parts bin for the last several. I tried to make the prices 
> reasonablebut if I am way off on price, please don't hesitate to 
> correct me. Prices include shipping to the Continental US. 
>
>
>- Paul Neo Retro (1 wheels worth) - Polished Silver - Salmon Kool Stop 
>pads $125
>- Paul Touring Canti (1 wheels worth) - Anodized silver - Salmon Kool 
>Stop Pads $125
>- Paul Touring Canti (1 wheels worth) - Black -  Salmon Kool Stop 
>pads. This one is missing one of the rim brake pivots. I live in Chico and 
>can pick one up from the Paul shop  if you want to purchase the brake at 
>$120; or you can get the brake at a discount $85 if you want to source the 
>pivot yourself.
>- B Luxos IQ2 $110 (info on model here:
>
> https://store.biketouringnews.com/busch-muller-luxos-u-iq2-dynamo-headlight/
>)
>- B Lumotec IQ Cyo Senso Plus $50
>- 2 -B Top Light Line PLUS rear dyno lights
>- Paul Love Lever 2.5 Left side $75
>- Shimano DH-D72Hub dynamo 32 spoke w/ centerlock $55
>
>
> I will update here with picture shortly. I will also be posting some old 
> derailleurs, a Noodle bar, Mustache bar, a rear and front racks shortly. 
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Trowbridge
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6bb2cfe4-e24c-4635-9d7a-4cc7d24e024cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] FS: Paul Components bits, B Dynamo lights, Shimano hub Dynamo

[Chris]

Hi All - I am parting with some things that have been collecting dust in my 
parts bin for the last several. I tried to make the prices 
reasonablebut if I am way off on price, please don't hesitate to 
correct me. Prices include shipping to the Continental US. 


   - Paul Neo Retro (1 wheels worth) - Polished Silver - Salmon Kool Stop 
   pads $125
   - Paul Touring Canti (1 wheels worth) - Anodized silver - Salmon Kool 
   Stop Pads $125
   - Paul Touring Canti (1 wheels worth) - Black -  Salmon Kool Stop pads. 
   This one is missing one of the rim brake pivots. I live in Chico and can 
   pick one up from the Paul shop  if you want to purchase the brake at $120; 
   or you can get the brake at a discount $85 if you want to source the pivot 
   yourself.
   - B Luxos IQ2 $110 (info on model 
   
here:https://store.biketouringnews.com/busch-muller-luxos-u-iq2-dynamo-headlight/)
   - B Lumotec IQ Cyo Senso Plus $50
   - 2 -B Top Light Line PLUS rear dyno lights
   - Paul Love Lever 2.5 Left side $75
   - Shimano DH-D72Hub dynamo 32 spoke w/ centerlock $55


I will update here with picture shortly. I will also be posting some old 
derailleurs, a Noodle bar, Mustache bar, a rear and front racks shortly. 

Thanks,

Chris Trowbridge

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0d53e5f2-fc4f-4d90-9899-90467bf2b181n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Suggestions for smallest-possible reading glasses or monocle

[Mackenzy Albright]

Hi Patrick, 

As a printmaker and as a friend of botanists -I've received magnifying 
loupes / botanist loupes before. They come in a variety of shapes and 
sizes.  Some are quite compact and have a variety of lens magnifications. I 
don't know if that is helpful. But as somebody who enjoys nice "objects" 
they fill their intended magnification role as well as a small interesting 
objects. I have no eye sight issues. Just enjoy looking at tiny things. 
This may or may not be helpful. 

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:44:12 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

> What do you old people with presbyopia carry for mid-ride close-up 
> looking? I've got any number of cheap reading glasses (and one good 
> prescription pair that belonged to my father) but I'd like to find 
> something even smaller for very, very occasional use. 
>
> Something like the device shown might be just the thing -- fits in pocket 
> and even in wallet -- but I'd appreciate others' ideas and opinions before 
> I hit "buy." And, the link attached to the image is broken.
>
> I don't need something to fit into the eye; just something to hold with 
> one hand while I fiddle with the other.
>
> There are all sorts of folding reading glasses with case in eBay stores 
> but I think I'd like something even more compact.
>
> I suppose I could simply break one of my cheap reading glasses in half and 
> remove the arm, but that's hardly elegant.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9d4f7d0a-da64-481a-89b2-6d9665e7c483n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[iamkeith]

I think I responded to the question last time, but just in case:

I have my 1st run, size L Susie set up with 29x2.8 tires, measuring at 
least 74mm  on 42mm rims, with a 3x9 drivetrain.   My tires don't have huge 
knobs, but there are no absolutely no clearance or interference issues 
anywhere, in any gear.   By far the biggest constraint is the height of the 
fork crown.   If it was higher, I could and would put fenders on the bike, 
too.   

If I can find a 2.6 tire that I like, I will eventually switch to those.  I 
want fenders,.  And the 2.8 tires are fine on dirt but have a little too 
much self-steer on hard surfaces.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Thanks, Erik and others. Garth, come to think of it, I think that I did 
> ask this before -- more Ralph Wiggumry. Oh well.
>
> And I would prefer disc brakes, tho' that's not a deal breaker.
>
> Also, any Monocog replacement would be a single speed, or perhaps use a 
> hub gear -- typical wide range 3 speed or perhaps a 2 speed kickback; but 
> probably just a simple single speed.
>
> The dealbreaker tho' is 76 mm tires with 5 mm clearance on each side, so 
> 86 mm between stays at tire level.
>
> Garth, I find that an extra cm of width and corresponding 5 psi or so drop 
> in pressure makes a huge difference when negotiating sand. 60 mm at 19 psi 
> is much better than 50 mm at 23 psi, but 71-2 mm at 13-15 psi is even 
> better, and 76mm+ I daresay would improve things further. 
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:28 PM Erik  wrote:
>
>> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on 
>> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a 
>> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure 
>> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They 
>> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little 
>> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the 
>> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with 
>> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any 
>> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe 
>> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>>
>> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires on 
>> the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of the 
>> tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell and 
>> I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and a 
>> chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the tire 
>> in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 2.8 I 
>> might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even 
>> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette 
>> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front 
>> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a 
>> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure 
>> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do. 
>>
>> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just 
>> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky 
>> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally 
>> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much 
>> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>>
>> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I 
>> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re: 
>> chainline.  
>>
>> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.  
>>
>> Erik  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4c084692-104a-48c1-83c9-d87dff482caen%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks, Erik and others. Garth, come to think of it, I think that I did ask
this before -- more Ralph Wiggumry. Oh well.

And I would prefer disc brakes, tho' that's not a deal breaker.

Also, any Monocog replacement would be a single speed, or perhaps use a hub
gear -- typical wide range 3 speed or perhaps a 2 speed kickback; but
probably just a simple single speed.

The dealbreaker tho' is 76 mm tires with 5 mm clearance on each side, so 86
mm between stays at tire level.

Garth, I find that an extra cm of width and corresponding 5 psi or so drop
in pressure makes a huge difference when negotiating sand. 60 mm at 19 psi
is much better than 50 mm at 23 psi, but 71-2 mm at 13-15 psi is even
better, and 76mm+ I daresay would improve things further.

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:28 PM Erik  wrote:

> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on
> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a
> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure
> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They
> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little
> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the
> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with
> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any
> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe
> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>
> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires on
> the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of the
> tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell and
> I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and a
> chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the tire
> in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 2.8 I
> might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even
> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette
> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front
> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a
> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure
> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do.
>
> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just
> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky
> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally
> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much
> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>
> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I
> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re:
> chainline.
>
> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.
>
> Erik
>
>>
>>
>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtiUUb4zUygjgynqeMcxfUTPrWR_uprmtnOmi_Jy0DdYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] ISO: Rene Herse front brake cable hanger, for grooved steerer, ferrule

[Patrick Moore]

Does anyone have one of these no longer in use? Grooved, ferrule -- tho' I
suppose I could file a flat one round to fit my grooveless, flatless
steerer if the price is right.

The steel Shimano one I have is strong and rigid but doesn't have enough
drop for good cable routing.

Trade? Or cash.

Thanks.

-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfguGaUVAa2n7xgnEUppxEgkNhqSfN6OEyN%2BkVsBcBKv0YA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Suggestions for smallest-possible reading glasses or monocle

[Patrick Moore]

What do you old people with presbyopia carry for mid-ride close-up looking?
I've got any number of cheap reading glasses (and one good prescription
pair that belonged to my father) but I'd like to find something even
smaller for very, very occasional use.

Something like the device shown might be just the thing -- fits in pocket
and even in wallet -- but I'd appreciate others' ideas and opinions before
I hit "buy." And, the link attached to the image is broken.

I don't need something to fit into the eye; just something to hold with one
hand while I fiddle with the other.

There are all sorts of folding reading glasses with case in eBay stores but
I think I'd like something even more compact.

I suppose I could simply break one of my cheap reading glasses in half and
remove the arm, but that's hardly elegant.

Thanks.

[image: image.png]



-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtFr93Yi7KNjNdA1cqpq_trmniHunmP9bb1HuEBnbm0EA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Hillibikes are so close!

[Invisible]

This is the first I'm hearing that you can have tubes knurled on the 
aftermarket... how did they do it?

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:16:15 AM UTC-7 Erik wrote:

> Knurling the seat post at the collar and about three inches down the 
> insertion into the seat tube.  Worked like a charm.  I've had this done on 
> a bike before when I was having a problem with slipping.  
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:31:59 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> What was the fix for the slipping seat post?
>>
>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/86221f1b-0eb9-4f0b-8e19-132c38de0eaan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Hillibikes are so close!

[Wally Estrella]

Vanilla order of just frame/fork, ship it out.
Add in a couple of days to frame save it, flip it, flop it, glop it up!  
 Here's hoping I get it by next Tuesday/Wednesday.  It'll leave me a couple 
of days to do that before I head out.  Then it'll be ready when I get back 
:)

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:06:24 PM UTC-4 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> Great to hear they are starting to ship Wally! Can’t wait to see the 
> build! 
>
> Did you have them prep it at all or just ship it as it came?
>
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:51:16 AM UTC-7 wallye...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My Gus has shipped!
>> MY GUS HAS SHIPPED!
>>
>> MY!
>> GUS!
>> IS!
>> ON!
>> THE!
>> WAY!
>>
>> Walnut Grove to Crusty Acres here in Maine! Which is typically 7 days.  
>> Unfortunately I'm preparing for a three day bike trip next week-end, so muh 
>> Gus won't be ready for me to build up until I get back on June 6th.  That's 
>> going to be the longest three days.
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:16:15 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:
>>
>>> Knurling the seat post at the collar and about three inches down the 
>>> insertion into the seat tube.  Worked like a charm.  I've had this done on 
>>> a bike before when I was having a problem with slipping.  
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:31:59 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 What was the fix for the slipping seat post?


>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3d315c5c-c0b6-4796-82c1-6df763b17ee7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Hillibikes are so close!

[Ryan Frahm]

Great to hear they are starting to ship Wally! Can’t wait to see the build! 

Did you have them prep it at all or just ship it as it came?

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:51:16 AM UTC-7 wallye...@gmail.com wrote:

> My Gus has shipped!
> MY GUS HAS SHIPPED!
>
> MY!
> GUS!
> IS!
> ON!
> THE!
> WAY!
>
> Walnut Grove to Crusty Acres here in Maine! Which is typically 7 days.  
> Unfortunately I'm preparing for a three day bike trip next week-end, so muh 
> Gus won't be ready for me to build up until I get back on June 6th.  That's 
> going to be the longest three days.
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:16:15 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:
>
>> Knurling the seat post at the collar and about three inches down the 
>> insertion into the seat tube.  Worked like a charm.  I've had this done on 
>> a bike before when I was having a problem with slipping.  
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:31:59 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> What was the fix for the slipping seat post?
>>>
>>>


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ebfc6000-68b7-4d27-8017-bafe58122602n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Hillibikes are so close!

[Wally Estrella]

My Gus has shipped!
MY GUS HAS SHIPPED!

MY!
GUS!
IS!
ON!
THE!
WAY!

Walnut Grove to Crusty Acres here in Maine! Which is typically 7 days.  
Unfortunately I'm preparing for a three day bike trip next week-end, so muh 
Gus won't be ready for me to build up until I get back on June 6th.  That's 
going to be the longest three days.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:16:15 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:

> Knurling the seat post at the collar and about three inches down the 
> insertion into the seat tube.  Worked like a charm.  I've had this done on 
> a bike before when I was having a problem with slipping.  
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:31:59 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> What was the fix for the slipping seat post?
>>
>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/89709754-34c0-4987-b706-fc7c10041a18n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ride Report: Izu Oshima- Gojira's Keep

[Bob Ehrenbeck]

Beautiful - looks like a wonderful trip!

Gotta make it to Japan one of these days.

Bob E
Cranford, NJ

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9446d29b-4964-440c-a257-0dc852ff0fa6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[Joe Mullins]

Hey Erik,

I’m building my large Susie with the same 2.5” Terravail Tires but I’ll be 
using Riv’s 13-42 7-speed so that I have room to fit a bigger tire in the back 
if I decide to do so and because why not? I’d be happy to measure the distance 
between the chain and tire once built so we can compare and we can both get an 
idea of how going either way affects it. At first I was going to wait for the 
new 7-speed hubs that Riv is working on but decided that going with a 9-speed 
hub and spacers gives me more options.

Joe

> On May 25, 2022, at 5:16 AM, lconley  wrote:
> 
> The solution to wider tires on the rear while maintaining tire clearance and 
> chain angle is a narrower cassette with spacers on the inner side - the 7 
> speeds that Rivendell and Soma sell.
> Note also that long chainstays keep the chain angle smaller than with the 
> same chainring and cog offset on a shorter chainstay bike.
> 
> Laing
> 
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:28:49 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:
>> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on the 
>> Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a couple 
>> of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure about 
>> 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They have 
>> plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little less in 
>> the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the chainstays and 
>> it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with calipers!), so 
>> I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any meaningful room 
>> to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe a slightly larger 
>> front tire would be possible.
>> 
>> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires on 
>> the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of the 
>> tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell and 
>> I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and a 
>> chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the tire 
>> in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 2.8 I 
>> might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even further. 
>>  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette further 
>> out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front chainring is 
>> starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a terrible 
>> chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure someone on here 
>> has tried it or knows this better than I do. 
>> 
>> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just 
>> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky 
>> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally 
>> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much 
>> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>> 
>> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I 
>> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re: 
>> chainline.  
>> 
>> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.  
>> 
>> Erik  
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a823e109-8404-45da-ba1e-530eb28795b5n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8B1F7FA8-57E7-4EF0-B265-28CFA34D78A0%40gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[lconley]

The solution to wider tires on the rear while maintaining tire clearance 
and chain angle is a narrower cassette with spacers on the inner side - the 
7 speeds that Rivendell and Soma sell.
Note also that long chainstays keep the chain angle smaller than with the 
same chainring and cog offset on a shorter chainstay bike.

Laing

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:28:49 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:

> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on 
> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a 
> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure 
> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They 
> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little 
> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the 
> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with 
> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any 
> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe 
> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>
> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires on 
> the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of the 
> tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell and 
> I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and a 
> chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the tire 
> in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 2.8 I 
> might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even 
> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette 
> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front 
> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a 
> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure 
> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do. 
>
> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just 
> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky 
> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally 
> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much 
> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>
> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I 
> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re: 
> chainline.  
>
> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.  
>
> Erik  
>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a823e109-8404-45da-ba1e-530eb28795b5n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Erik's new Gus. Questions.

[Garth]

Patrick, I belive this has been pondered before with other Susie owners and 
I'm pretty sure 2.8 is the max for the rear while the front could take a 
3.0. 80mm, would be a bit too wide. Suggestion!?! Contact Grant if you have 
not already. He would be able to tell you even "if" it were feasable given 
the chainline issues with tires over 2.8", and "if" it were "would" he even 
give the okay to have one made and sold to you as a "Rivendell" branded 
product. "If" he did . "then" you may wonder ... "why not disc brakes 
too" ?  .. and that's where it all goes kaput ! ... das ist kaput !!!  
 laughing ))).  Even so, the very widest rim brake rim I know of is a 
Ryde Andra 29.29ID/35OD and a cool 995 grams !  Not for the weight weenie. 

You know though  when it comes to float, good float . forget about 
that 80mm !  How wide is "wide enough" ?  4" , 5 ", 10" ? 
Hah ... even enough never seems enough does it ?  There's always that 
nagging "what would a little more feel like" ?  Even that would never be 
enough 'till you take full flight, as that is our Nature . 
Boundlessless, The Infinite !  If We were not already So, we could not even 
play a finite game of "follow the trails". 

Whatever "the situation" ... a good laugh is always in order.  Like riding 
a road bike through the sand and sinking over the rims.. oops !  Riding 
a road bike a on a mtb trail  Hi-Yo Silver !  

No joke ! My Franklin custom is the best handling offroad/trail bike I've 
ever ridden. It's as-if I've played "let's box myself into wider tires are 
better" ! Better than what ? When ? How ? Where ? For Who ?  An honest 
inquisition reveals but a circle of relatives all leading to where it 
begins and ends, all-at-once. How facinating !  
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:28:49 AM UTC-4 Erik wrote:

> Well, that sand looks brutal!  As you noted, the max listed tire size on 
> the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing it for a 
> couple of reasons.  I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They measure 
> about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, tubeless.  They 
> have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on the front, a little 
> less in the rear). I measured the distance between the inside of the 
> chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I wasn't measuring with 
> calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires (about 76mm) with any 
> meaningful room to spare.  The forks have a little more clearance so maybe 
> a slightly larger front tire would be possible.
>
> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger tires on 
> the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the chain off of the 
> tire.  It would push the chainline out pretty far.  It's a 73mm shell and 
> I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers.  Even with that and a 
> chainline that is wy outboard, the chain runs pretty close to the tire 
> in the 50t gear in the back.  I think that if I sized up even to the 2.8 I 
> might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline out even 
> further.  You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the cassette 
> further out in line with the front chainring.  Otherwise the front 
> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for a 
> terrible chainline.  That's my amateur opinion at any rate!  I'm sure 
> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do. 
>
> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain just 
> fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including rocky 
> sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel.  It was equally 
> fine with all of it.  Sand, however, is another matter.  We don't have much 
> of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to it.
>
> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report back.  I 
> don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the reasons above re: 
> chainline.  
>
> And thanks for the nod on the build!  Happy with all the shiny bits.  
>
> Erik  
>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7da3ff67-37a9-4ea3-ae97-66e728cefa60n%40googlegroups.com.