Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

If you watch that video from the youtube link at the end, he explains why 
the Racer is stiffer than more-common long-reach brakes.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:04:14 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
> originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
> acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
> useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
> center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
> newsletter:
>
>
>
>
> The Racer Brake
> Making the Classics Even Classier
>
>
>
> We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.
>
> You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
> what they are yet.
>
> Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
> ,
>  
> and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
> 27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
> .
>  *
>
> Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.
>
> Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
> centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
> pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
> for conversion.
>
> What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
> your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
> stopping.
>
> Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
> NEW VIDEO PAGE 
> ,
>  
> where all of our videos can be found.
>
> Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
> black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).
>
> [image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 
> 
> Product page, plus video 
> 
> .
>
> Watch on YouTube 
> 
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:
>
>> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>>
>> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
>> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
>> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
>> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
>> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
>> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
>> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
>> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
>> the post mount Racers. 
>> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on 
>> the Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing 
>> and much more affordable brakes. 
>> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in 
>> wet weather braking generally suck.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>>
>>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>>
>>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>>
>>> Max Beach
>>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
 I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
 decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
 officially discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 
 for a pair, but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
> brakes. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>
>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some 
>>> intriguing build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for 
>>> me. 
>>> Based on my 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
newsletter:




The Racer Brake
Making the Classics Even Classier



We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.

You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
what they are yet.

Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
,
 
and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
.
 *

Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.

Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
for conversion.

What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
stopping.

Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
NEW VIDEO PAGE 
,
 
where all of our videos can be found.

Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).

[image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 

Product page, plus video 

.

Watch on YouTube 



On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:

> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>
> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
> the post mount Racers. 
> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on the 
> Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing and 
> much more affordable brakes. 
> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in wet 
> weather braking generally suck.
>
> Mike M
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>
>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>
>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>
>> Max Beach
>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
>>> decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
>>> officially discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 
>>> for a pair, but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
 brakes. 

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:

> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>
 I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
>> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based 
>> on 
>> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, 
>> and 
>> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>>
>> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
>> instead. 
>>
>> Eric
>> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
>> Plain City OH
>>
>>
>> On 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Kim H.]

@Steven -
Understood. 

Kim Hetzel. 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> Kim, I may put a chainguard on, but Riv’s are for 110 bcd, and this crank 
> has a 94 bcd. I didn’t have time before I left to order one and the 
> chainrings I had on hand were not the right size. 
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:17 AM Kim H.  wrote:
>
>> @Steven -
>> As a suggestion to elevate your ridiculous appearance of your crank set 
>> by purchasing a chain guard. This might help you:
>>
>> https://www.rivbike.com/products/silver-chainring-guard?_pos=1&_sid=2b21174cc&_ss=r
>>
>> Kim Hetzel. 
>>  
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
>>> 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
>>> use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
>>> with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
>>> with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>>
 VO makes a good case for triples:


 https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1

 *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
 emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
 themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
 added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.

 The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
 available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, 
 I'd 
 not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
 would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
 terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
 steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
 close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.

 -- 

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

 ---

 Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
 services


 ---

 *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

 *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

 *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

>>> -- 
 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a89a72cf-f67b-4b43-8e92-51eb649a8feen%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/f92bc916-e42a-4e46-949c-8cbe2bcdf9b9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Steven Sweedler]

Kim, I may put a chainguard on, but Riv’s are for 110 bcd, and this crank
has a 94 bcd. I didn’t have time before I left to order one and the
chainrings I had on hand were not the right size.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire


On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:17 AM Kim H.  wrote:

> @Steven -
> As a suggestion to elevate your ridiculous appearance of your crank set by
> purchasing a chain guard. This might help you:
>
> https://www.rivbike.com/products/silver-chainring-guard?_pos=1&_sid=2b21174cc&_ss=r
>
> Kim Hetzel.
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT
>> 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely
>> use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding
>> with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous,
>> with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>>
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>
>>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>>
>>> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the
>>> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find
>>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with
>>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>>
>>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges
>>> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd
>>> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X)
>>> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad
>>> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7
>>> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and
>>> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with
>>> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about
>>> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
>>> services
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>>
>>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>>
>>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>>
>> --
>>> 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.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/a89a72cf-f67b-4b43-8e92-51eb649a8feen%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/CALimyfKDYK4qRz2%2BK6eX0NUdXk13n0wS%3DDJwsJu7obkdN1fHXw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Kim H.]

@Steven -
As a suggestion to elevate your ridiculous appearance of your crank set by 
purchasing a chain guard. This might help you:
https://www.rivbike.com/products/silver-chainring-guard?_pos=1&_sid=2b21174cc&_ss=r

Kim Hetzel. 
 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
> 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
> use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
> with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
> with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>
>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>
>>
>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>
>> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
>> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>
>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
>> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd 
>> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
>> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
>> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
>> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
>> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
>> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
>> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.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/a89a72cf-f67b-4b43-8e92-51eb649a8feen%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[velomann]

"The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
version, on a Tony Pereira. "

Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler and 
was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that the 
absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
 There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
the post mount Racers. 
All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on the 
Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing and 
much more affordable brakes. 
I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in wet 
weather braking generally suck.

Mike M

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:

> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>
> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>
> Max Beach
> Santa Rosa CA 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
>> to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
>> discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
>> but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>>> brakes. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>>
 What about vo grand cru brakes?

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:

>>> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, 
> and 
> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>
> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
> instead. 
>
> Eric
> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
> Plain City OH
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>
>> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
>> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged 
>> single 
>> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
>> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>>
>> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was 
>> being designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my 
>> personal interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - 
>> the 
>> phrase ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now 
>> there's 
>> the whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
>> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>>
>> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
>> speed Lightning Bolt.
>> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my 
>> position some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally 
>> hoping for. But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of 
>> a 
>> single rear and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this 
>> up 
>> and push back against my inner purist ;-)
>> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
>>> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
>>> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
>>> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of 
 your own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a 
 pair 
 of long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to 
 sell.  One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical 
 forgings 
 and geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid 
 brake 
 blocks and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Matti]

For anyone interested, SOMA has a New Albion XDT(Sugino clone) triple 
crankset (silver, 170 or 175mm) on 65% off sale through midnight tonight, 
January 9.  Only $49.00 using code *newyear6524 *.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:25:46 PM UTC-8 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> A 24/34 is the same as a 36/51 in gear inches. So there's no advantage to 
> a triple if you're looking for a low gear.
>
> I moved to a 1x for all my bikes because it turned out that dropped shifts 
> into the granny were causing me to stand up on many climbs when I should 
> have shifted. Since there's no front shifting involved on a 1x I ended up 
> faster up all the hills because I was more willing to shift. It's not 
> marketing. It's human factors.
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:13:54 PM UTC-8 J J wrote:
>
>> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
>> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
>> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
>> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
>> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
>> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
>> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
>> standpoint. 
>>
>> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
>> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
>> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
>>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
>>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
>>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
>>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>>
 I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
 even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
 guard. 

 I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
 was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
 ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I 
 appreciate 
 the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 

 - Chris

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, 
 Woodstown NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
> ring before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 
>> in 
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 
>> is 
>> much less dramatic.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of 
>>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>>> been 
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>>> dramatic 
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>>> sift 
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>>> immediately. 
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>>> find 
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 
>>> 1x, and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for 
>>> rougher 
>>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
>>> also 
>>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 
>>> speed 
>>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a 
>>> 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Will Boericke]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned the significant downside to a triple 
drivetrain: setting up a triple front derailleur.  Oh wait, I forgot I'm in 
crusty friction shifting land.  Setting it up for indexed shifting is an 
absolute nightmare.  Doubles are bad enough.

Will

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:25:46 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> A 24/34 is the same as a 36/51 in gear inches. So there's no advantage to 
> a triple if you're looking for a low gear.
>
> I moved to a 1x for all my bikes because it turned out that dropped shifts 
> into the granny were causing me to stand up on many climbs when I should 
> have shifted. Since there's no front shifting involved on a 1x I ended up 
> faster up all the hills because I was more willing to shift. It's not 
> marketing. It's human factors.
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:13:54 PM UTC-8 J J wrote:
>
>> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
>> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
>> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
>> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
>> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
>> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
>> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
>> standpoint. 
>>
>> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
>> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
>> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
>>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
>>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
>>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
>>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>>
 I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
 even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
 guard. 

 I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
 was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
 ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I 
 appreciate 
 the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 

 - Chris

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, 
 Woodstown NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
> ring before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 
>> in 
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 
>> is 
>> much less dramatic.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of 
>>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>>> been 
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>>> dramatic 
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>>> sift 
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>>> immediately. 
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>>> find 
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 
>>> 1x, and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for 
>>> rougher 
>>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
>>> also 
>>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 
>>> speed 
>>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Piaw Na]

A 24/34 is the same as a 36/51 in gear inches. So there's no advantage to a 
triple if you're looking for a low gear.

I moved to a 1x for all my bikes because it turned out that dropped shifts 
into the granny were causing me to stand up on many climbs when I should 
have shifted. Since there's no front shifting involved on a 1x I ended up 
faster up all the hills because I was more willing to shift. It's not 
marketing. It's human factors.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:13:54 PM UTC-8 J J wrote:

> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
> standpoint. 
>
> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
>>> even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
>>> guard. 
>>>
>>> I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
>>> was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
>>> ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate 
>>> the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 
>>>
>>> - Chris
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, 
>>> Woodstown NJ wrote:
>>>
 Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
 ring before going to a triple"

 Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
 chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???

 PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.

 John Hawrylak
 Woodstown NJ

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ben
>
> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
> much less dramatic.  
>
> BL in EC
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of 
>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>> been 
>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>> dramatic 
>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>> sift 
>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>> immediately. 
>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>> find 
>> the right gear.
>>
>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, 
>> and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher 
>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
>> also 
>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a 
>> modern 
>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo 
>> that 
>> change.
>>
>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and 
>> useful for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 
>> captaincon...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I dissent.  Front derailers 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Garth]

If I had a track bike and a track to ride I'd ring a fixed gear or 
singlespeed if I wanted to be blasphemous about it. Otherwise 2x and 3x. I 
always liked to joke that those who choose a 1x always believe they're 
"right" , all-the-time ! Ahahahahaha. C'mon, you gotta laugh at the 
hilarity of all this, as if 1x, 2x or 3x are in competition against each 
other. I was recently called a luddite(I had to look that one up as to the 
specific reference) for favoring steel frames,  rim brakes, friction 
shifting and multiple chainrings. As if going to a carbon frame, discs, and 
a battery operated shifting 1x system was somehow "progress" and that what 
I rode was so archaic that it was for children and primates. *Pass the 
bananas then, eh ?*  It was unfathomable that anyone could possibly discern 
what was proper for themselves regardless of whatever the latest fad in 
cycling is. Have you noticed how the trends come and go like the wind, 
always changing ? While the basic stuff we ride just endures. It doesn't 
*need* changing or upgrading and it's not broken or flawed, and that's the 
point. I feel the same way about gasoline autos, but that's another story, 
albeit the theme is the same. 

My double is a 46/36 and a 13-32 7sp FW. I love that I can ride six cogs in 
the rear with the 46t ring.  I've said it a million times but I love riding 
the larger rings, albeit now it's 46t rather than 50t or 52t. I'd rather 
have the usable gears in my power range than having a few very large gears 
used once in great while. I can spin out of the 46t quickly downhill, so I 
tuck and enjoy the flight rather than concerning myself with pedaling. I 
have plenty of other opportunities to blow my lungs up up on the uphills :) 

My Bomba has a 44/36/24 Andel triple using only the seven 14-32 cogs of a 
9sp 12-36. Even with a less than great Surly stainless 44t big ring with no 
beveling, I have no issues with shifting the FD. IDK why some have problems 
with them, likely for the same reasons some don't. (((:shrugs:)))  

With a double or triple it's so easy to criss cross your gear choices 
quickly as you use both hands. With fewer cogs, I like seven, it's heaven !

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:37:25 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:

> I might agree that a triple is unnecessary unless you really like pedaling 
> downhill, but I'm off the 1x bandwagon. My Riv Custom (parts currently 
> transferred to a Clem) was set up with a 34 x 11-50 11-speed, SRAM Rival 1 
> rear mech. It's fine for most of the roads around here but there's a couple 
> VERY steep sections that are on loops I ride all the time and I'd rather 
> stay on the bike and spin vs. walking. Plus the range is simply too high 
> for the also-steep trails I've been exploring lately. So now I've added a 
> 26t granny ring and fiddled with the B-screw enough to make the derailleur 
> work with it (it's not supposed to). I'm #TeamDouble!
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I read that same VO post and decided it made a fine case for 1x.  If you 
>> are spending most of your time in the middle ring of a triple, why ride a 
>> triple?  I get it for racing, or keeping up with a fast group, but I don't 
>> do those things.
>>
>> My most recently acquired (old) bike has a triple, though, and I have 
>> resisted modifying it.  Still waiting to have my mind changed.
>>
>> Jim in Rochester
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:44:06 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
>>> so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
>>> and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
>>> 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
>>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles 
>>> for inspiration.
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
 because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
 through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
 its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
 Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
 get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
 mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
 setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
 to 
 have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
 is 
 saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
 works.

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com 
 wrote:

> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
> 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Andrew Turner]

I love a triple paired with an 8 speed or less corncob cassette matched to 
downtube shifters. That's an amazing roadie configuration right there. Not 
to mention bomb proof. But I think what rides equally as nice is 11 speed 
2x setups with a wide range cassette in the rear. The choice for me comes 
down to looks and vanity. Ron Mc's teaser drivetrain pic is really 
scratching an itch for me though! 
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:36:47 PM UTC-6 DavidP wrote:

> I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end 
> up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for 
> these bikes I like it fine.
>
> In line with Bill's point, pairing a smaller front step with a wider range 
> cassette (but not too crazy) can work well. I recently ended up with a 2x9, 
> 42/34 x 11-40t setup on a bike and it's pretty nice for general use. The 
> smaller front step allows getting over rolling hills using front shifts 
> only, it's got great range (.85:1 - 3.8:1) and still doesn't end up with a 
> bunch of simultaneous front/rear shifting. And the 34t small ring lets you 
> use a standard 110 double crank.
>
> -Dave
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>
>> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
>> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
>> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
>> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
>> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
>> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
>> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
>> standpoint. 
>>
>> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
>> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
>> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
>>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
>>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
>>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
>>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>>
 I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
 even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
 guard. 

 I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
 was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
 ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I 
 appreciate 
 the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 

 - Chris

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, 
 Woodstown NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
> ring before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 
>> in 
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 
>> is 
>> much less dramatic.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of 
>>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>>> been 
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>>> dramatic 
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>>> sift 
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>>> immediately. 
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>>> find 
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 
>>> 1x, 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Conway Bennett]

Seems like a lot of grief.


Fair winds,

Captain Conway Bennett
239.877.4119

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, 5:36 PM DavidP  wrote:

> I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end
> up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for
> these bikes I like it fine.
>
> In line with Bill's point, pairing a smaller front step with a wider range
> cassette (but not too crazy) can work well. I recently ended up with a 2x9,
> 42/34 x 11-40t setup on a bike and it's pretty nice for general use. The
> smaller front step allows getting over rolling hills using front shifts
> only, it's got great range (.85:1 - 3.8:1) and still doesn't end up with a
> bunch of simultaneous front/rear shifting. And the 34t small ring lets you
> use a standard 110 double crank.
>
> -Dave
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>
>> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with
>> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I
>> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear
>> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear
>> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front
>> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks
>> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic
>> standpoint.
>>
>> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven
>> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue
>> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again.
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes
>>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around
>>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or
>>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads
>>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>>
 I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe
 even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring
 guard.

 I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there
 was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you
 ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate
 the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes.

 - Chris

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak,
 Woodstown NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big
> ring before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is
>> much less dramatic.
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of
>>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>>> been
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>>> dramatic
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>>> sift
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>>> immediately.
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>>> find
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is
>>> 1x, and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for 
>>> rougher
>>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
>>> also
>>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed
>>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I
>>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[DavidP]

I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end 
up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for 
these bikes I like it fine.

In line with Bill's point, pairing a smaller front step with a wider range 
cassette (but not too crazy) can work well. I recently ended up with a 2x9, 
42/34 x 11-40t setup on a bike and it's pretty nice for general use. The 
smaller front step allows getting over rolling hills using front shifts 
only, it's got great range (.85:1 - 3.8:1) and still doesn't end up with a 
bunch of simultaneous front/rear shifting. And the 34t small ring lets you 
use a standard 110 double crank.

-Dave
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
> big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
> frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
> range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
> sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
> ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
> look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
> standpoint. 
>
> I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
> by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
> becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
>> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
>> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
>> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
>> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
>>> even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
>>> guard. 
>>>
>>> I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
>>> was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
>>> ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate 
>>> the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 
>>>
>>> - Chris
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, 
>>> Woodstown NJ wrote:
>>>
 Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
 ring before going to a triple"

 Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
 chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???

 PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.

 John Hawrylak
 Woodstown NJ

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ben
>
> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
> much less dramatic.  
>
> BL in EC
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of 
>> L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've 
>> been 
>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
>> dramatic 
>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll 
>> sift 
>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
>> immediately. 
>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to 
>> find 
>> the right gear.
>>
>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, 
>> and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher 
>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
>> also 
>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a 
>> modern 
>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo 
>> that 
>> change.
>>
>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[J J]

Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with 
big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I 
frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear 
range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear 
sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front 
ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks 
look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic 
standpoint. 

I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven 
by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue 
becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:14:25 PM UTC-5 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes 
> triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 
> 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or 
> steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads 
> are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>
>> I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
>> even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
>> guard. 
>>
>> I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there 
>> was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you 
>> ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate 
>> the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, Woodstown 
>> NJ wrote:
>>
>>> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big 
>>> ring before going to a triple"
>>>
>>> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
>>> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>>>
>>> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>>>
>>> John Hawrylak
>>> Woodstown NJ
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Ben

 You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
 experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
 pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
 my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
 use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
 commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
 much less dramatic.  

 BL in EC

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. 
> My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been 
> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more 
> dramatic 
> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift 
> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out 
> immediately. 
> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find 
> the right gear.
>
> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, 
> and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher 
> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I 
> also 
> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a 
> modern 
> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo 
> that 
> change.
>
> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and 
> useful for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>
> Ben
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 
> captaincon...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, 
>> and so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two 
>> bikes, and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 
>> derailer 
>> and 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost 
>> less 
>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog 
>> Cycles 
>> for inspiration.
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
>>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message 

[RBW] Re: FS - 58cm Appaloosa Frame/Fork

[J Imler]

SOLD

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:49:52 PM UTC-8 J Imler wrote:

> Sale pending.
>
> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:48:11 PM UTC-8 J Imler wrote:
>
>> for sale is my one owner Appaloosa. This style/color -
>> [image: Screenshot 2024-01-06 at 6.21.24 PM.png]
>> Riv video link . Blue shown at 1:54.
>>
>> Bay Area sale only. $1100. Frame Fork BB Seatpost included in sale.
>>
>> PM for more information.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>

-- 
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/00e4ee4d-c240-424e-800a-56a726b575f7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Bill Lindsay]

John emphatically asked (with seven question marks):

"Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???"

That depends on the front derailleur and the chain stay.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, Woodstown 
NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring 
> before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
>> much less dramatic.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. 
>>> My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been 
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic 
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift 
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. 
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find 
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, 
>>> and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher 
>>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
>>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
>>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
>>> change.
>>>
>>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful 
>>> for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
 so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
 and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
 than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog 
 Cycles 
 for inspiration.
 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:

> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. 
> Now 
> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears 
> available. 
> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me 
> (personally 
> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
> to 
> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
> is 
> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
> works.
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
>> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard 
>> to 
>> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, 
>> I 
>> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something 
>> we 
>> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>>
>> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
>> back.  
>> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>>
>> 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For several years all my bikes 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Ben Adrian]

I had that same thought, Bill. The big ring on my triples are always the 
least used.

"Unfortunately," my brank is a 110bcd with the Bikingreen 46/30 chainring 
set... machined from one piece of aluminum.
But if a WI VBC crank pops up used, I'll make a dash for it!

--Ben

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:21:33 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ben
>
> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
> much less dramatic.  
>
> BL in EC
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My 
>> commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding 
>> the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than 
>> 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down 
>> at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. I 
>> sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find the 
>> right gear.
>>
>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, and 
>> it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher terrain. 
>> Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
>> change.
>>
>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful 
>> for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
>>> so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
>>> and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
>>> 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
>>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles 
>>> for inspiration.
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
 because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
 through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
 its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
 Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
 get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
 mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
 setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
 to 
 have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
 is 
 saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
 works.

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com 
 wrote:

> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard 
> to 
> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, 
> I 
> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something 
> we 
> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>
> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
> back.  
> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>
> 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on 
>> XT 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I 
>> rarely use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just 
>> when 
>> riding with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little 
>> ridiculous, with the front der way up in the air but so far its working 
>> out 
>> just fine.
>>
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> VO makes a good case 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Steven Sweedler]

One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes triples
make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 40 lbs
on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or steep
hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads are
diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire


On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:43 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:

> I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe
> even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring
> guard.
>
> I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there was
> a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you ain't
> hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate the
> change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, Woodstown
> NJ wrote:
>
>> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring
>> before going to a triple"
>>
>> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the
>> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>>
>> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd
>>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is
>>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in
>>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real
>>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a
>>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is
>>> much less dramatic.
>>>
>>> BL in EC
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A.
 My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been
 finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic
 than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift
 down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately.
 I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find
 the right gear.

 So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x,
 and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher
 terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also
 romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed
 with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I
 didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern
 bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that
 change.

 I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful
 for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."

 Ben

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8
 captaincon...@gmail.com wrote:

> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup,
> and so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two
> bikes, and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer
> and 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost 
> less
> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog 
> Cycles
> for inspiration.
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear
>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push
>> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. 
>> Now
>> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears 
>> available.
>> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I
>> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me 
>> (personally
>> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the
>> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
>> to
>> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
>> is
>> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just
>> works.
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is
>>> that when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s
>>> hard to stay 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Chris Halasz]

I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe 
even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring 
guard. 

I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there was 
a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you ain't 
hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate the 
change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 

- Chris

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, Woodstown 
NJ wrote:

> Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring 
> before going to a triple"
>
> Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
> chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???
>
> PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ben
>>
>> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
>> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
>> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
>> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
>> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
>> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
>> much less dramatic.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. 
>>> My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been 
>>> finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic 
>>> than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift 
>>> down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. 
>>> I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find 
>>> the right gear.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, 
>>> and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher 
>>> terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
>>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
>>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
>>> change.
>>>
>>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful 
>>> for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
 so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
 and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
 than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog 
 Cycles 
 for inspiration.
 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:

> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. 
> Now 
> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears 
> available. 
> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me 
> (personally 
> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
> to 
> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
> is 
> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
> works.
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
>> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard 
>> to 
>> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, 
>> I 
>> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something 
>> we 
>> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>>
>> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
>> back.  
>> Many 30-mi rides never 

[RBW] Re: Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I find a 46-36-26 triple with a 9 speed 12-36 cassette on 650Bx38 wheels 
gives me a 100 to 19 gi range and nice steps in my cruising range (50 to 75 
gi) with a relatively straight chain line.   The middle and inner ring 
chain lines are relatively straight if shifting to the middle after cog 5 
and the inner after cog 7.  

*I think, the main drawback to triple is the inherently higher Q.*   I have 
a Sugino AT (46-36-26) with a 150-152mm Q, but also a 1975 Shimano Dura Ace 
52-39 (1st generation) with a 138mm Q.   I wish the triple could have the 
lower Q.

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:47:31 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

> VO makes a good case for triples:
>
> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>
> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>
> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd 
> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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/b5f153ef-ba27-402d-8dfd-539bb5b46567n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Goals for 2024 (will they be S.M.A.R.T. ?)

[Brady Smith]

Hi Toshi, 

Riding in Utah is indeed a gift. I mostly trade the bike for nordic skiing 
in the winter, so I haven't ridden outside much of late, but riding up the 
canyons never gets old. 

Our club is so small as to manage only a handful of rides each year, though 
in the warmer months I can piece together a nice 300k out my front door 
(downtown Salt Lake--Emigration Canyon--Big Mountain Pass--Mountain 
Green--Trapper's Loop Road (past Snowbasin)--North Ogden Divide--Antelope 
Island out to Fielding Garr Ranch--back to SLC). I've thought about doing 
that as a 300+200 or whatever if I can't manage the club 600k this year, 
but I've finally got everything on the calendar in a way that works with 
the rest of our family obligations, so fingers crossed. 

Happy riding, 

Brady
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:31:56 PM UTC-7 ttoshi wrote:

> Hey Brady,
>
> You live in a beautiful area!  I've only been there in the winter to the 
> ski resorts but imagine that it is amazing cycling there.  
>
> I don't know if your local club has 300k + 300k or something like that, 
> then you could practice the sleep thing.  The way I approached the 600k is 
> to ride 400k + 200k, so my practice was getting the 400k to a reasonable 
> time where I could grab a few hours before starting the 200k after rest.  
> I've done a few 600k events, but never a 1200k.  It won't be this year, but 
> I'm targeting the next Gold Rush Randonee in a couple of years.
>
> Have fun,
> Toshi in Oakland
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:34 AM Brady Smith  wrote:
>
>> As an educator, I'm also a fan of S.M.A.R.T goals, probably more so than 
>> my middle schoolers, though. 
>>
>> In 2023 I managed to ride 200k, 300k, and 400k brevets. For 2024, I'm 
>> planning on adding the 600k, in part because I've always wanted to do the 
>> whole series, in part because I scored an entry for for LEL 2025, and I 
>> need some practice riding, sleeping, then riding again. 
>>
>> I'd also like to commit to more mountain biking and finally make it up 
>> Little Cottonwood Canyon on the road bike, a feat I've never attempted due 
>> to its fearsome reputation and it being just a bit farther away from home 
>> than it's less fearsome sibling. 
>>
>> Brady in SLC
>>
>>

-- 
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/962e75cf-18c8-48a1-8625-faef07949ffan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Goals for 2024 (will they be S.M.A.R.T. ?)

[Toshi Takeuchi]

Hey Brady,

You live in a beautiful area!  I've only been there in the winter to the
ski resorts but imagine that it is amazing cycling there.

I don't know if your local club has 300k + 300k or something like that,
then you could practice the sleep thing.  The way I approached the 600k is
to ride 400k + 200k, so my practice was getting the 400k to a reasonable
time where I could grab a few hours before starting the 200k after rest.
I've done a few 600k events, but never a 1200k.  It won't be this year, but
I'm targeting the next Gold Rush Randonee in a couple of years.

Have fun,
Toshi in Oakland

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:34 AM Brady Smith  wrote:

> As an educator, I'm also a fan of S.M.A.R.T goals, probably more so than
> my middle schoolers, though.
>
> In 2023 I managed to ride 200k, 300k, and 400k brevets. For 2024, I'm
> planning on adding the 600k, in part because I've always wanted to do the
> whole series, in part because I scored an entry for for LEL 2025, and I
> need some practice riding, sleeping, then riding again.
>
> I'd also like to commit to more mountain biking and finally make it up
> Little Cottonwood Canyon on the road bike, a feat I've never attempted due
> to its fearsome reputation and it being just a bit farther away from home
> than it's less fearsome sibling.
>
> Brady in SLC
>
>

-- 
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/CAGB59xxFN0Vfatc4-9zUWjHiApUyN02%2BL15QrNHF8Dxj_1WMnw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring 
before going to a triple"

Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the 
chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???

PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ben
>
> You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd 
> experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is 
> pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in 
> my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real 
> use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a 
> commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is 
> much less dramatic.  
>
> BL in EC
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My 
>> commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding 
>> the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than 
>> 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down 
>> at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. I 
>> sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find the 
>> right gear.
>>
>> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, and 
>> it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher terrain. 
>> Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
>> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
>> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
>> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
>> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
>> change.
>>
>> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful 
>> for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
>>> so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
>>> and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
>>> 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
>>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles 
>>> for inspiration.
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
 because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
 through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
 its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
 Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
 get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
 mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
 setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy 
 to 
 have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO 
 is 
 saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
 works.

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com 
 wrote:

> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard 
> to 
> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, 
> I 
> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something 
> we 
> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>
> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
> back.  
> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>
> 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on 
>> XT 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I 
>> rarely use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just 
>> when 
>> riding with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little 
>> ridiculous, with the front der way up in the air but so far its working 
>> out 
>> just fine.
>>
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.

I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast' and 
I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load 
requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns 
in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to 
32# weights).

I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to 13# 
weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12# change 
in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused on the 
'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.

I did ride a Trek 5500 (Rolf paired spoke wheels) for 5 years between 
riding a 1975 Schwinn Approved Voyaguer II and a 1988 Schwinn Voyaguer 
(touring) and both with 36 spoke wheels.  I did not find it to 'feel a 
significant degree faster' than the Voyageur II even though it weighed 
less.  I may have been faster, but did not feel it.

However, my Norther-Lyon (36 spoke Velocity Atlas wheels) *does 'feel 
faster"* than either of the 2 Schwinns and is definitely easier to pedal 
than the other 3.   So my answer is probably biased to my experiences & 
assumptions discussed above.

Note:  The 4 frames are all essentially the same sizes: 21" )C-T), 54cm and 
52cm, both C-C.  So tube rigidity may be more important in the smaller 
frame since a small frame is more rigid than a large one.

This was enjoyable and thought provoking.  Thanks Bill   

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:24:49 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> John played along and gave an interesting answer.  Interesting for two 
> reasons:
>
> 1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.  
> 2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier 
> to pedal
>
> BL in EC
>

-- 
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/7b7c309e-4fb7-4b5b-b35c-f5cbe2f9e3e2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Bill Lindsay]

Ben

You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd experiment 
with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is pretty darn 
high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in my book is 
for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real use-case in 
hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a commuter/city bike. 
 That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is much less dramatic.  

BL in EC

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-8 bunny...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My 
> commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding 
> the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than 
> 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down 
> at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. I 
> sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find the 
> right gear.
>
> So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, and 
> it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher terrain. 
> Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
> romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
> with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
> didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
> bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
> change.
>
> I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful 
> for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."
>
> Ben
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
>> so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
>> and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
>> 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles 
>> for inspiration.
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
>>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
>>> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
>>> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
>>> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
>>> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
>>> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
>>> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
>>> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
>>> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
>>> works.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:
>>>
 I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
 when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to 
 stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I 
 find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we 
 used to call a “24-inch gear”).

 --Eric Norris
 campyo...@me.com
 Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
 YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

 On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:

 I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
 back.  
 Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  

 

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on 
> XT 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I 
> rarely use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just 
> when 
> riding with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little 
> ridiculous, with the front der way up in the air but so far its working 
> out 
> just fine.
>
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  
> wrote:
>
>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>
>>
>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>
>> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, 
>> the emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system 
>> with 
>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>
>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high 

[RBW] Re: FS: Craigslist, etc 2024

[Chris Halasz]

Sad way to start off the year: 

STOLEN: Rivendell Rambouillet - $200 (Santa Barbara)


Nice 54cm Rambouillet, nicely built. 

Not mine, just saw in on CL. 

https://santabarbara.craigslist.org/bik/d/santa-barbara-stolen-rivendell/7705846559.html

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-8 maxcr wrote:

> Time for a new FS thread?
>
> I saw this 63 Roadeo on the Crust classifieds and thought a tall member 
> here might be interested: https://crustbikes.com/a/shopicial/topics/179734
>
> Good price at $1,500 for the frameset but the seller indicates it has been 
> repainted by D Cycles.
>
> [image: roadeo.jpeg]
>
> No connection to the seller.
>
> Max
>

-- 
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/4a1076b7-07ac-4490-bf61-676cf6685ce4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Berthoud Decaleur

[john Bokman]

Thanks Ron.  FWIW I would definitely want the longer stays. I’ve pretty much 
determined my sweet spot for the majority of my riding is 35mm in a 622. So 
long as I can fit a 35mm tire with metal fenders, I’m a happy camper. Not the 
skinniest, not the fattest, just right. 

I know this is a Rivendell thread, but I can’t resist (I’m confident Grant 
would approve of the inquiry into building methods). For those interested, 
notice that Mercian still builds in the old way, using the open hearth to join 
the tubes:

https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/craftmanship/frame-building/ 


> On Jan 9, 2024, at 4:28 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
> 
> John, adding a ps
> My buddy Stevo has the KOM with 16" chainstays, and it really limited his 
> options. . 
> He has the PDW fenders with 25-mm tires.  
> 
> 
> 
> He also had a very unusual fit of jealousy when he learned Tad had sold me my 
> Mercian - three times we had the conversation about "he would have bought it"
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:51:00 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
> Hi John, just catching up.  
> The 17" chainstays would fit 35-mm tires with room to spare (also w/ Honjo 
> fenders).  
> The Woody's fenders are 44-mm wide, but also 8-mm thick.  My buddy Tad was 
> running 28-mm Vittoria Corsa Control gravel tires, but also having clearance 
> issues.  
> (I gave away these tires, but took a lead on them, and run the 30-mm now on 
> my International under Honjo 44-mm fendeers - great ride and better clearance 
> than 32-mm Stampede Pass).  
> 
> I built a wheelset on 126-mm 6-sp Grand Bois cassette hubs (killer exchange 
> rate), and IRD Cadence rims I already had stashed away (from closeout).  
> The perfect tires under the wood fenders are 30-mm Challenge Strada, which 
> completely solved clearance issues, and the widest tire that fits these 
> fenders.  
> I've always liked these tires for toughness and ride comfort, they're a 
> little cold-blooded, but fast and super-smooth when they warm up.  
> On the right is the best photo I have to show fender fit and tire width.  
> I call these tires low profile because of their short sidewalls.  
>  
> 
> 
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:11:11 PM UTC-6 John Bokman wrote:
> Ron, excuse me if I missed it, but what size tires are you running on this 
> machine? Does it fit 35mm tires under fenders?
> 
> John
> 
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2024, at 9:12 AM, Ron Mc > wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Thank you John - they still offer King of Mercia, and prices have gone way 
>> up from the $600 spec sheet on my '85 frame.  
>> https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/product-category/frames/ 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-6 John Bokman wrote:
>> Love, love, love, that Mercian! Thanks for the head's up on the Decaleur and 
>> the great post with all the deets. As an owner of the horizontal decaleur, I 
>> concur that it's a great product. Nice to know I can find parts as needed 
>> now, or another for a future bike. BTW I have one in the modern style for 
>> the faceplate stem (different bike obviously) and that is brilliant, also.
>> 
>> Can't be sure but I thought I'd been informed that Mercian still builds 
>> their bikes truly by hand (no machines to speak of). On the jig, one maker 
>> at a time. One of my absolute favorite brands across the models. They all 
>> look stunning.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:57:56 AM UTC-8 Ron Mc wrote:
>> oops, this was the link I wanted to share on Tad's Umberto Dei condorino 
>> restoration
>> https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/1940-umberto-dei.179124/ 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 8:53:02 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>> thank you Takashi, the Mercian is a labor of love x2, and I'm going to end 
>> up writing you an essay.  
>> 
>> My friend Tad put the Woody's fenders on the bike.  Background on Tad, he 
>> has a hobby business restoring and turning antique bikes.  Part of his job 
>> includes traveling in the company tradeshow van.  He previews Craigslist, 
>> makes appointments, and brings home bikes and parts.  Best example of his 
>> work, this 1940 Umberto Dei, from bare frame to this condorino with the 
>> correct chaincase and Dei-pantogrammed chainset - even a Dei-pantogrammed 
>> bike bell.  
>>  
>> https://thecabe.com/forum/attachments/a92ae443-f071-4438-a925-ecf02a1b56d7-jpeg.735360/
>>  
>> 
>> At one point, he had to generate $10,000 to help his son, and sold a stable 
>> of bikes, including the Dei, 
>> but he held out the Mercian for me, because he knew I would want it.  
>> 
>> We're polar opposites on building bikes - he wants period reproduction, I 
>> want comfort and reliability.  
>> Everything he used on the Mercian was worn out - he rode the bike twice - 
>> clicking 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Joe Bernard]

I might agree that a triple is unnecessary unless you really like pedaling 
downhill, but I'm off the 1x bandwagon. My Riv Custom (parts currently 
transferred to a Clem) was set up with a 34 x 11-50 11-speed, SRAM Rival 1 
rear mech. It's fine for most of the roads around here but there's a couple 
VERY steep sections that are on loops I ride all the time and I'd rather 
stay on the bike and spin vs. walking. Plus the range is simply too high 
for the also-steep trails I've been exploring lately. So now I've added a 
26t granny ring and fiddled with the B-screw enough to make the derailleur 
work with it (it's not supposed to). I'm #TeamDouble!

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I read that same VO post and decided it made a fine case for 1x.  If you 
> are spending most of your time in the middle ring of a triple, why ride a 
> triple?  I get it for racing, or keeping up with a fast group, but I don't 
> do those things.
>
> My most recently acquired (old) bike has a triple, though, and I have 
> resisted modifying it.  Still waiting to have my mind changed.
>
> Jim in Rochester
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:44:06 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and 
>> so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, 
>> and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 
>> 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less 
>> than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles 
>> for inspiration.
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
>>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
>>> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
>>> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
>>> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
>>> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
>>> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
>>> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
>>> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
>>> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
>>> works.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:
>>>
 I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
 when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to 
 stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I 
 find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we 
 used to call a “24-inch gear”).

 --Eric Norris
 campyo...@me.com
 Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
 YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

 On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:

 I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
 back.  
 Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  

 

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on 
> XT 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I 
> rarely use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just 
> when 
> riding with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little 
> ridiculous, with the front der way up in the air but so far its working 
> out 
> just fine.
>
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  
> wrote:
>
>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>
>>
>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>
>> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, 
>> the emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system 
>> with 
>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>
>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high 
>> ranges available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in 
>> back, I'd not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range 
>> subcompact 2X) would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep 
>> rolling 
>> offroad terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped 
>> out 
>> a 3X7 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy 
>> loads 
>> and steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range 
>> with close cruising steps, but I did miss 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Ryan]

Ok I see what you mean.
.Paul's brakes go 57 - 72mm for long reach...sorry about that

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:16:26 PM UTC-6 reynoldslugs wrote:

> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>
> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>
> Max Beach
> Santa Rosa CA 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
>> to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
>> discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
>> but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>>> brakes. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>>
 What about vo grand cru brakes?

 On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:

>>> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, 
> and 
> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>
> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
> instead. 
>
> Eric
> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
> Plain City OH
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>
>> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
>> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged 
>> single 
>> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
>> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>>
>> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was 
>> being designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my 
>> personal interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - 
>> the 
>> phrase ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now 
>> there's 
>> the whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
>> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>>
>> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
>> speed Lightning Bolt.
>> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my 
>> position some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally 
>> hoping for. But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of 
>> a 
>> single rear and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this 
>> up 
>> and push back against my inner purist ;-)
>> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
>>> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
>>> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
>>> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of 
 your own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a 
 pair 
 of long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to 
 sell.  One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical 
 forgings 
 and geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid 
 brake 
 blocks and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have 
 some 
 corrosion visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  
 The 
 other is the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came 
 with 
 nice metal pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen 
 and at 
 some point he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black 
 on 
 one brake, grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red 
 on 
 one brake and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s 
 and 
 $55 shipped for the 556s.

 Photos:

 556

 https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/

 365

 https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA
 On Sunday, January 7, 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Jim Whorton]

I read that same VO post and decided it made a fine case for 1x.  If you 
are spending most of your time in the middle ring of a triple, why ride a 
triple?  I get it for racing, or keeping up with a fast group, but I don't 
do those things.

My most recently acquired (old) bike has a triple, though, and I have 
resisted modifying it.  Still waiting to have my mind changed.

Jim in Rochester

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:44:06 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and so 
> are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, and 
> love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 11-51 
> cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less than a 
> nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles for 
> inspiration.
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
>> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
>> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
>> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
>> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
>> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
>> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
>> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
>> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
>> works.
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
>>> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to 
>>> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I 
>>> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we 
>>> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>>>
>>> --Eric Norris
>>> campyo...@me.com
>>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
>>> back.  
>>> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>>
 For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
 use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
 with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
 with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.


 Steven Sweedler
 Plymouth, New Hampshire


 On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> VO makes a good case for triples:
>
>
> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>
> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>
> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high 
> ranges available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in 
> back, I'd not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range 
> subcompact 2X) would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep 
> rolling 
> offroad terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped 
> out 
> a 3X7 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads 
> and steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range 
> with close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between 
> about 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other 
> writing services
>
> ---
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Ben Adrian]

I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My 
commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding 
the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than 
50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down 
at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. I 
sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find the 
right gear.

So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, and 
it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher terrain. 
Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also 
romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed 
with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I 
didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern 
bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that 
change.

I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful for 
hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."

Ben

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and so 
> are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, and 
> love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 11-51 
> cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less than a 
> nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles for 
> inspiration.
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear 
>> because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push 
>> through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now 
>> its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
>> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
>> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
>> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
>> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
>> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
>> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
>> works.
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
>>> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to 
>>> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I 
>>> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we 
>>> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>>>
>>> --Eric Norris
>>> campyo...@me.com
>>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked 
>>> back.  
>>> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>>
 For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
 use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
 with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
 with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.


 Steven Sweedler
 Plymouth, New Hampshire


 On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> VO makes a good case for triples:
>
>
> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>
> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>
> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high 
> ranges available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in 
> back, I'd not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range 
> subcompact 2X) would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep 
> rolling 
> offroad terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped 
> out 
> a 3X7 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads 
> and steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range 
> with close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between 
> about 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

John played along and gave an interesting answer.  Interesting for two 
reasons:

1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.  
2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier 
to pedal

BL in EC

-- 
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/eeb7272c-f2d2-4846-8c01-a07ffecf1a1bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[reynoldslugs]

The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
version, on a Tony Pereira.  

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/

If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.

Max Beach
Santa Rosa CA 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:

> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
> to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
> discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
> but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>> brakes. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>
>>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
>> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
 build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
 my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, 
 and 
 unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?

 I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
 instead. 

 Eric
 Not a long reach fan, even in flat
 Plain City OH


 On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:

> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged 
> single 
> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>
> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was 
> being designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my 
> personal interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the 
> phrase ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's 
> the whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>
> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
> speed Lightning Bolt.
> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my 
> position some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally 
> hoping for. But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a 
> single rear and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this 
> up 
> and push back against my inner purist ;-)
> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>
> Mike M
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
>> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
>> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
>> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of 
>>> your own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a 
>>> pair 
>>> of long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to 
>>> sell.  One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical 
>>> forgings 
>>> and geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake 
>>> blocks and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have 
>>> some 
>>> corrosion visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  
>>> The 
>>> other is the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with 
>>> nice metal pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen 
>>> and at 
>>> some point he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black 
>>> on 
>>> one brake, grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red 
>>> on 
>>> one brake and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s 
>>> and 
>>> $55 shipped for the 556s.
>>>
>>> Photos:
>>>
>>> 556
>>>
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> 365
>>>
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the 
 new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some 
 reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
 all 
 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Thomas Lawn]

47-57 is still mid-reach, regardless of what the description says.

On Jan 9 2024, at 11:05 am, Ryan  wrote:
> https://velo-orange.com/products/grand-cru-long-reach-brakes?variant=51591467783
>
> Black may not be your cup of tea mind you. Silver is out of stock.
>
> Or are these not long enough reach? Maybe this issue came up before
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:37:28 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
> > I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
> > to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake. (They had officially 
> > discontinued it just a couple of years ago). It's almost $400 for a pair, 
> > but at least it comes in purple. ;-)
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
> > > The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
> > > brakes.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
> > > > What about vo grand cru brakes?
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
> > > > > I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some 
> > > > > intriguing build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame 
> > > > > for me. Based on my previous experiences with them, they are barely 
> > > > > adequate in the dry, and unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t 
> > > > > rain in Walnut Creek?
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
> > > > > instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > > Not a long reach fan, even in flat
> > > > > Plain City OH
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
> > > > > > When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was 
> > > > > > pretty stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell 
> > > > > > lugged single speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take 
> > > > > > wide-ish 700c tires courtesy of cantilever mounts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was 
> > > > > > being designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to 
> > > > > > my personal interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me 
> > > > > > out - the phrase ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - 
> > > > > > and now there's the whole thing with the single left-side downtube 
> > > > > > boss. And I love DT shifters, but I don't want one on my 
> > > > > > singlespeed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
> > > > > > speed Lightning Bolt.
> > > > > > But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my 
> > > > > > position some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was 
> > > > > > originally hoping for. But it might still be a really fun bike for 
> > > > > > me. The idea of a single rear and triple front is goofy, but maybe 
> > > > > > a cool way to set this up and push back against my inner purist ;-)
> > > > > > Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike M
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top 
> > > > > > > tube model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model 
> > > > > > > (Hillborne, Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the 
> > > > > > > photos which makes me think a long top-tube, upright bars only 
> > > > > > > build - which I'd prefer!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build 
> > > > > > > > of your own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll 
> > > > > > > > need is a pair of long reach caliper brakes. I've got two sets 
> > > > > > > > that I would like to sell. One is the very modest Tektro 365. 
> > > > > > > > It's got the identical forgings and geometry of the "nicer" 
> > > > > > > > models but has a modest finish, solid brake blocks and a 
> > > > > > > > primitive adjusting barrel. The ones I'm selling have some 
> > > > > > > > corrosion visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling 
> > > > > > > > brakes. The other is the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel 
> > > > > > > > adjuster and came with nice metal pad holders. These were on 
> > > > > > > > friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some point he replaced one 
> > > > > > > > set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one brake, grey 
> > > > > > > > on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one 
> > > > > > > > brake and black on the other. I'm asking $35 shipped for the 
> > > > > > > > 365s and $55 shipped for the 556s.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Photos:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 556
> > > > > > > > https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Ryan]

https://velo-orange.com/products/grand-cru-long-reach-brakes?variant=51591467783

Black may not be your cup of tea mind you. Silver is out of stock.

Or are these not long enough reach? Maybe this issue came up before
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:37:28 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
> to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
> discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
> but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>> brakes. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>
>>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
>> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
 build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
 my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, 
 and 
 unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?

 I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
 instead. 

 Eric
 Not a long reach fan, even in flat
 Plain City OH


 On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:

> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged 
> single 
> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>
> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was 
> being designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my 
> personal interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the 
> phrase ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's 
> the whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>
> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
> speed Lightning Bolt.
> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my 
> position some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally 
> hoping for. But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a 
> single rear and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this 
> up 
> and push back against my inner purist ;-)
> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>
> Mike M
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
>> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
>> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
>> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of 
>>> your own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a 
>>> pair 
>>> of long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to 
>>> sell.  One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical 
>>> forgings 
>>> and geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake 
>>> blocks and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have 
>>> some 
>>> corrosion visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  
>>> The 
>>> other is the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with 
>>> nice metal pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen 
>>> and at 
>>> some point he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black 
>>> on 
>>> one brake, grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red 
>>> on 
>>> one brake and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s 
>>> and 
>>> $55 shipped for the 556s.
>>>
>>> Photos:
>>>
>>> 556
>>>
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> 365
>>>
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the 
 new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some 
 reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
 all 
 the details.
>>>
>>> -- 
>

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[Joe Bernard]

Don, 

You might try overshifting a bit in the cogs that are giving you trouble, 
that's actually how Shimano designed the index-shifting in the trigger 
shifters for your derailleur: Give the thumbie a proper shove - almost like 
you're planning to skip over a cog - then pull back a smidge to drop the 
chain full center on the cog you want. This should help a bit but I think 
you are correct that you're experiencing a bit of rumbling and grumbling 
from the chain because the road link has placed the derailleur further from 
the smaller cogs than intended. 

Speaking of the chain, if it's new you may just need to run it in a bit. 
New chains are always a little grumbly and finicky for me on the first few 
rides. 

Joe "this may not make sense and I may be completely wrong" Bernard 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 1:24:48 AM UTC-8 Donzaemon wrote:

> Joe, I'm using Silver2 friction shifters with thumbshifter mounts.  Same 
> as this:
>
> https://www.rivbike.com/cdn/shop/products/stemshiftersilverclose-7_750x.jpg
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:39:55 AM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Don, 
>>
>> What shifters are you using? Are they index or friction? 
>>
>> Joe Bernard 
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:03:50 PM UTC-8 Donzaemon wrote:
>>
>>> So I'm about a couple weeks into owning my Homer, which I'm loving so 
>>> far. Its use has been limited to pavement save for a short segment of dirt 
>>> trail that connects official segments of SF Bay Trail in Alameda, CA. I've 
>>> made a couple of observations so far:
>>>
>>> *Cockpit*
>>> I enjoy the relaxed upright position that the Billie Bars provide. It's 
>>> done wonders keeping me comfortable and has not made any of my existing 
>>> neck and lower back issues worse. That said, it feels a little awkward to 
>>> make u-turns or any other decent turns at lower speed. While I don't intend 
>>> on taking this bike on the many singletrack trails that make up a large 
>>> portion of the natural surface trails in the SF Bay, I would like to take 
>>> it on gravel climbs when and if possible. I realize I can use the positions 
>>> directly in front of the brake levers on the Billie Bars, but I'm not sure 
>>> if that'll provide the lever control that I'm looking for. 
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about switching to wide-ish drop bars with some flare. I'm 
>>> using Ritchey Corralitos (480mm) bars on my Ascent and I love them. I'd get 
>>> a pair for the Homer if they were available in silver. I'm intrigued by the 
>>> Crust Towel Rack, but I'm afraid they'd be a little on the wide side for 
>>> me. Rune Bicycles is on the verge of releasing their Hilt Bars that hits 
>>> pretty much all my checkboxes so I may opt for those when they're released. 
>>> For those of you who do similar mixed-terrain rides with your Homers, what 
>>> are your handlebar preference, and why?
>>>
>>> *Drivetrain*
>>> For my first build, I went with a 42/28 double with a 11-40 8sp 
>>> cassette. I'm controlling the derailleurs (ultegra front and xtr rd-m960 
>>> rear with roadlink) with thumbies and love them. That said, shifting hasn't 
>>> been what I had hoped. I find the shifts to be sloppy when shifting the 
>>> range of cogs in the middle of the cassette. I'm not sure if I'm describing 
>>> this correctly, but the gears sometimes slip during shifting resulting in 
>>> two "clunks" before fully engaging. Also, the gears don't feel smooth 
>>> between the middle to smallest cogs. Could this be due to the roadlink? I 
>>> like the range of the 11-40 cassette and it's been nice using the big cog 
>>> on climbs when needed so I'd prefer not to get rid of the roadlink and 
>>> switch to an 11-34 cassette. I have an XTR RD-M952 I can try out instead? 
>>> For those of you with similar gearing, what components have you settled on 
>>> to get flawless shifting?
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for the feedback!
>>>
>>> -Don
>>> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 6:12:11 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Bill, I will be keeping an eye out for you on Mt. Diablo so I can give 
 you a thumbs up when you pass me! 

 Sarah

 On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 5:16:41 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> A couple weeks back I said:
>
> "The film makes me want to set a Diablo goal for 2024.  I've summited 
> Diablo maybe 10 times, but I want to do multiple summits this year.  I'm 
> going to start with 5 as my goal, with the extra challenge that I want to 
> do it on 5 different bikes in my stable.  If I manage that, then summit 
> #6 
> will be on a derailleurless bike."
>
> When I state a goal, I feel committed, even if the RBW Group isn't 
> expending energy to hold me accountable, there is accountability when I 
> type it out.  Anyhow, I got a start on the above today with my first 
> summit 
> of Mount Diablo for 2024.  I did it on my current stripped down road 
> bike, 
> my Black Mountain Cycles Road.  I 

Re: [RBW] Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ted Durant]

> On Jan 9, 2024, at 12:40 PM, Ron Mc  wrote:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg
> 
> I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the 
> youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear triangles. 
>  
> 

That appears to be two dimensional in the plane of the frame, which wouldn’t 
represent what Jan Heine has described as his planing hypothesis.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI USA

-- 
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/7E0228F8-BC0E-4D80-9A43-FDE5E8E47810%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Conway Bennett]

I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and so 
are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, and 
love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 11-51 
cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less than a 
nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles for 
inspiration.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:

> For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear because 
> people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push through if 
> its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now its 
> shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
> Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
> get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
> mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
> setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
> have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
> saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
> works.
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:
>
>> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that 
>> when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to 
>> stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I 
>> find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we 
>> used to call a “24-inch gear”).
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>>
>> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked back.  
>> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>>
>> 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>>
>>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
>>> 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
>>> use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
>>> with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
>>> with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven Sweedler
>>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>>
 VO makes a good case for triples:


 https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1

 *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
 emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
 themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
 added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.

 The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
 available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, 
 I'd 
 not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
 would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
 terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
 steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
 close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.

 -- 

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

 ---
 Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
 services

 ---
 *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
 *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
 *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

 -- 
 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.com
  
 
 .

>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 Because the other 3 are stiffer and harder to pedal, unless operated at their 
design conditions, e.g B & C need a 73 to 75 lbm additional load.

John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:42:09 PM EST, Bill Lindsay 
 wrote:  
 
 OK, thought experiment time!  
You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All the 
contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes will have 
geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that you'll concede 
they ride/handle the same.
Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 poundsBike B is for 
grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and rear derailleurs and 
weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceriesBike C has an IGH and is 
used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 pounds unloaded and 73 pounds 
with groceriesBike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only. 
 It weighs 17 pounds
You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D and 
every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  
Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone both 
have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails to 
compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback wrt 
the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and use the 
saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners 
Bunch  wrote:

Patrick
Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on 
Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that 
strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always 
in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed 
and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on 
hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, 
in the first years of ownership.
Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands 
Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the 
slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 
mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster 
and smoother. 
BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But 
again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.
What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride 
today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, 
feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered swapping the Phil 
17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), 
but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk if necessary.
I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 700C 
derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the first 
light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM student and 
at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me up the hill 
spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is the point, don't 
mind my meandering) at how well and easily the bike climbs.
???
Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but it's 
not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful thinwall 531 
normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 for 
the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, and 
versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 derailleur 
drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and rear rack. But 
it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I daresay that the weight 
makes a difference on hills, but I don't think that weight is the only reason.
I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of them 
(tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up to do so). 
That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap but for me it 
rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Chris Halasz]

The video depicts "simulated displacement of the bicycle frame when excited 
at a natural frequency of 446.54Hz. The motion is magnified five times."

Requesting some help with my simple mind on this. 446.54Hz? And magnified 
five times. I can't help be reminded of the wreck.bikes.tech Jobst days, 
when data showed no measurable deflection with large mass placed on steel 
vs. aluminum frames. 

Still wondering whether 'planing' (just resonance?) isn't all in the head, 
like fancy labels on wine bottles actually affecting 'taste'. If it's in 
the head, the dopamine release will find its way to the pedals, and cranks. 
It's still real. Next thing you know, you're traveling at ... 4446.54Hz. 

I'm reminded of Sam Maloof's take on chair design: the better chair invites 
(compels?) you to sit.  

Also reminded of the Richard Sachs axiom: 'The bike is not the frame, the 
bike is the bike.' Or something like that. It's a system of frame, wheels, 
spoke tension, tires, seat post and stem protrusion and length. How that 
all feels, and looks, affects the brain and body. 

And Patrick, that is one fine system of a bike.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-8 Ron Mc wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg
>
> I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the 
> youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear 
> triangles.  
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-6 Keith P. wrote:
>
>> Really interesting points Ted.
>> Thanks for writing them up!
>> k.
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
>> cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
>>
>> Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
>>
>> Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
>> the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
>> deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
>> returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
>> pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
>> a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
>> be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
>> speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
>> Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
>> exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
>> "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
>> well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
>> output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
>> power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
>> the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
>> more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 
>>
>> The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
>> entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
>> the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
>> more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
>> spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
>> point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
>> you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
>> .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
>> for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
>> are definitely the soft springs in that system.
>>
>> I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
>> focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
>> With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
>> opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
>> about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
>> his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
>> cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
>> power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
>> headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
>> a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
>> the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
>> terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
>> gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
>> aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
>> "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant 

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[Toshi Takeuchi]

The smallest ring available (to my knowledge) for a road triple crank is a
24.  A mountain crank has a 22. You should be able to grab a 44-32-22 if
desired.  If you go for a vintage crank you might be able to find a silver
one.  Most of them seem to be black.

Toshi in Oakland

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 6:11 AM Sarah Carlson 
wrote:

> Luke, I am bookmarking your gearing because that does sound perfect for
> the hills situation around here. Through practice I have learned my
> favorite gear is 34 (from riding my Atlantis) and that going down hills I
> am still spinning out in a 42 on my Platypus. That 22 sounds like a lovely
> gear to approach a hill in. You may see me try that out! I'm waiting until
> closer to build time to make the final decision... but more and more I am
> feeling pulled in the triple direction!
>
> Sarah
>
>
>

-- 
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/CAGB59xyoJHob68tQ0X2MKtqb4L2aB5LrjvdcA7U6_By%2BcTsNQg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Johnny Alien]

For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear because 
people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push through if 
its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now its 
shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. 
Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I 
get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally 
mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the 
setup. Dropping chains, chain rubits all a balancing act. I am happy to 
have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is 
saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just 
works.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-5 campyo...@me.com wrote:

> I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that when 
> I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to stay 
> upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I find 
> it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we used 
> to call a “24-inch gear”).
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
>
> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked back.  
> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
>
> 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 
>> 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely 
>> use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding 
>> with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, 
>> with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>>
>>
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>
>>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>>
>>> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
>>> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
>>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
>>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>>
>>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
>>> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd 
>>> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
>>> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
>>> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
>>> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
>>> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
>>> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
>>> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>>> services
>>>
>>> ---
>>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8a0db1ed-36ab-49f7-acbb-86b050cd5e85n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
> 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

OK, thought experiment time!  

You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All 
the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes 
will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that 
you'll concede they ride/handle the same.

Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds
Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and 
rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries
Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 
pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries
Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It 
weighs 17 pounds

You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D 
and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  

Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone 
> both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails 
> to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback 
> wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and 
> use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW 
> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same 
>> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
>>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
>>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just 
>>> easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* 
>>> this 
>>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
>>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>>
>>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
>>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
>>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
>>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
>>> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>>>
>>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration 
>>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do 
>>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness 
>>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>>
>>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
>>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
>>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
>>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
>>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
>>> if necessary.
>>>
>>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, 
>>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>>
>>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
>>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
>>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
>>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
>>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
>>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
>>> climbs.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
>>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
>>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>>
>>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus 
>>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed 
>>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
>>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
>>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
>>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
>>> that weight is the only reason.
>>>
>>> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
>>> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
>>> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
>>> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>>>
>>> To end this 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg

I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the 
youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear 
triangles.  


On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-6 Keith P. wrote:

> Really interesting points Ted.
> Thanks for writing them up!
> k.
>
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
> cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
>
> Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
>
> Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
> the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
> deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
> returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
> pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
> a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
> be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
> speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
> Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
> exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
> "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
> well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
> output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
> power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
> the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
> more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 
>
> The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
> entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
> the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
> more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
> spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
> point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
> you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
> .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
> for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
> are definitely the soft springs in that system.
>
> I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
> focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
> With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
> opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
> about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
> his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
> cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
> power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
> headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
> a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
> the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
> terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
> gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
> aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
> "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
> enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
> speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
> higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 
>
> So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
> than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
> 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
> heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
> stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
> bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
> inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
> that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
> relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
> the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
> that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
> Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
> tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
> thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has 

Re: [RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

['Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that when I’m 
in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to stay upright. 
On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I find it easier to 
just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we used to call a 
“24-inch gear”).

--Eric Norris
campyonly...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

> On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc  wrote:
> 
> I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked back.  
> Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:00:57 AM UTC-6 Steven Sweedler wrote:
>> For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 737 
>> cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely use 
>> it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding with 
>> the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, with the 
>> front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steven Sweedler
>> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:47 PM Patrick Moore > wrote:
>>> VO makes a good case for triples:
>>> 
>>> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>>> 
>>> Simplicity and Effectiveness While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
>>> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
>>> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
>>> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>>> 
>>> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
>>> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd 
>>> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
>>> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
>>> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
>>> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
>>> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
>>> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
>>> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>> ---
>>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>>> services
>>> ---
>>> When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,
>>> But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,
>>> I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.
>>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.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/8a0db1ed-36ab-49f7-acbb-86b050cd5e85n%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/7D2A047D-18BE-472D-9BDD-0FCA9E3C27A6%40me.com.

[RBW] Re: Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Kyle Cotchett]

I just did my first longer ride on a triple and really enjoyed it. It was 
fifty miles of mixed terrain. I use downtube shifters and like to not fuss 
with both levers when you are not sure what's around the bend on trails so 
I left my front crank in the middle gear like a 1x during those sections. 
The 24 tooth ring really came in handy on the final steep climb when my 
legs were really feelin it!

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> VO makes a good case for triples:
>
> https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1
>
> *Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the 
> emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find 
> themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with 
> added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.
>
> The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges 
> available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd 
> not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) 
> would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad 
> terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 
> for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and 
> steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with 
> close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 
> 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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/fa9d1b40-dd4c-4f9a-8669-7544637f9ce2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Patrick Moore]

VO makes a good case for triples:

https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1

*Simplicity and Effectiveness* While 1x systems boast simplicity, the
emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find
themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with
added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.

The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges
available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd
not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X)
would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad
terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7
for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and
steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with
close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about
65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.

-- 

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

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Keith Paugh]

Really interesting points Ted.Thanks for writing them up!k.On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:Ted,I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."Bill SSan DiegoOn Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:Not to be overly contrarian, but ...Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts more of the rider's power to the back wheel. The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires are definitely the soft springs in that system.I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.Ted DurantMilwaukee WI USA



-- 
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/42724a9c-8994-42b1-922a-774b953d1f71n%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
You received this message because you 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
> brakes. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>
>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
>>> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
>>> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and 
>>> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>>>
>>> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
>>> instead. 
>>>
>>> Eric
>>> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
>>> Plain City OH
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>>>
 When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
 stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single 
 speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
 courtesy of cantilever mounts.

 The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being 
 designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal 
 interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase 
 ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the 
 whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
 shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.

 I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
 speed Lightning Bolt.
 But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position 
 some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for. 
 But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear 
 and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push 
 back against my inner purist ;-)
 Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.

 Mike M



 On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:

>
> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your 
>> own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair 
>> of 
>> long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell. 
>>  
>> One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and 
>> geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake 
>> blocks 
>> and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some 
>> corrosion 
>> visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is 
>> the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice 
>> metal 
>> pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some 
>> point 
>> he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one 
>> brake, 
>> grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake 
>> and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55 
>> shipped for the 556s.
>>
>> Photos:
>>
>> 556
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> 365
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the 
>>> new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some 
>>> reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
>>> all 
>>> the details.
>>
>> -- 

>>> 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/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-cc9838f95609n%40googlegroups.com
  

[RBW] Re: 5 Boro Bike Tour (was NYC Riv Ride?)

['Steven Seelig' via RBW Owners Bunch]

It is amazingly epic and not like anything else, ever.  

I've done it twice with my son on a tandem back when he was 8 and 9 years 
old.  First year, pouring rain and a sparse crowd.  While freezing, we made 
it to the 4th borough before bailing and taking the Brooklyn Bridge back to 
Manhattan.  For that one, we were up near the front when starting, which is 
key f you can get there to start.  We were never colder in our lives 
although my then 8 year old son was still not as miserable as he could have 
been - we were on a bike, after-all.

The second year, we were back in the pack and the experience was still 
great, but different as we got onto the highways, where traffic did back up 
as it would with 30K cyclists crammed into a 3 lanes road.  Also, there are 
all sorts of folks who are riding, some want to go fast at all costs, some 
are meanderers, others are just not ready to ride 40 miles.  Just smile and 
look at all the interesting people and bikes as you are queued up.  Meet 
friends.  Ring your bell.  Count the Rivs you see.

The portion you reach in Brooklyn when you get on the highway ends up being 
a revelation for a lot of riders, and not in a good way.  The road just 
opens up and it becomes clear that a long ride is ahead on a highway for 
the last several miles.  The wind will invariably be in your face then. You 
see a lot of riders who then are questioning their life choice because the 
road is really so imposing then.  And at some point, you see the Verrazano 
Bridge and it seems like the end is near.  It is not.  But once you get to 
it, and climb to the center and do the downhill ride to the finish, it is a 
great feeling.

Once done, there will be some time to get back across to Manhattan on the 
ferry.  Save food for this part of the journey.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:05:33 PM UTC-5 velomann wrote:

> The 5 Boro Bike Tour in NYC has been on my bucket list for years, and I 
> decided this year is the year. First Sunday of May (5/5 this year).
> https://www.bike.nyc/events/td-five-boro-bike-tour/
> Registration opened this week, and I signed up.
> I've got my lodging and flight booked as well.
>
> This will be my first trip to NYC since I was a kid, 50 years ago. I won't 
> be bringing my Riv (Bringing the Ritchey Breakaway), but I'll be there for 
> a week, staying in midtown not far from ride start. 
> I'd love to meet up with others while I'm there, get recommendations on 
> where to ride, cheap food, coffee, bike shops, etc.
>
> Anyone else here doing the ride?
>
> Mike M
>

-- 
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/37a98f57-b324-40c1-9c53-9abeb6c20da3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Who’s getting a Platypus tomorrow?

[Tim Bantham]

My Platypus complete in Sergio's Green has landed. Swapped out the Tosco 
bars for Billies. Installing a Sims Obento front rack and basket next. I've 
got a long wait until spring! 

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:17:00 AM UTC-5 sarahlik...@gmail.com wrote:

> What a delight for your wife to see this under the Christmas tree!
>
> Sarah
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-8 Josh C wrote:
>
>> [image: IMG_0972.jpg]
>> Should have reported back sooner but the bike did come in time for 
>> Christmas. 
>> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 8:59:06 AM UTC-5 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe! Don't get shiny ball syndrome! You have a most excellent frame on 
>>> its way to you!
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:50:23 AM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
 It's so exciting! I can't wait to see your new Purple Platy and all the 
 other new bikes out there. Gosh, now I kinda wish *I* was getting a new 
 frame... 樂

 Joe " wishin' and hopin' " Bernard 

 On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:47:48 AM UTC-8 Bicycle Belle Ding 
 Ding! wrote:

> They are trickling in. Mine arrives Wednesday. I hope you get your 
> wife’s in time! 
>
> On Dec 10, 2023, at 8:44 AM, Josh C  wrote:
>
> I was just going to ask if anyone had received theirs yet. Hoping to 
> put my wife's under the tree...or near it I guess. 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:52:52 PM UTC-4 Arthur Mayfield wrote:
>
>> My Mermaid Platypus 55 frame arrived today (apparently found in their 
>> stock from last year). This is an *elegant* bike-to-be! All you who 
>> ordered frames or bikes have a real treat coming! I’m waiting for wheels 
>> to 
>> be built, so plenty of time for frame-saving the tubes and ceramic 
>> coating 
>> the paint before building it up. I already had a B-68 and crankset, 
>> derailleurs, cassettes, brakes, stem, bars, racks, fenders, etc, so it 
>> will 
>> go together quickly when the wheels get here. I have a blue Sam 52 
>> (caliper 
>> brakes, 650B) in *really* nice condition that will likely go on the 
>> market when I get the Platypus put together, btw. I’m in NC.
>>
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:25 PM UTC-4 RBW Owners Bunch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter, great info re: the Mardi Gras colors! I'm thinking of gold + 
>>> green, harlequin-style, for the purple bike. 
>>>
>>> (I'm also remembering the smell of sweet olive blossoms and the 
>>> taste of a real beignet and the sound of Preservation Hall...my mom was 
>>> born there and I love to visit!)
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 12:00 PM Peter Adler  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Green + purple + yellow = Mardi Gras bike. Go to New Orleans during 
 the season, and all the plastic beads thrown from the parade floats 
 are in 
 those three colors. Maybe yellow bar tape or water bottles.

 Peter "laisse les bons temps rouler sur vélo" Adler
 Berkeley, CA

 On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:04:20 AM UTC-7 Josh C wrote:


 I’m hoping to snag a 50cm green complete for my wife. I’ve had 
 several Rivs and she’s never had the experience. She’s mentioned 
 several 
 times that a step-through style bike interests her. She has some 
 purple 
 Paul bits on her current bike that I think will look nice with the 
 green 
 instead of two different purples. 

 -- 

>>> 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/ff4323c7-ac73-400b-bdb0-c7b90ecf6f62n%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/6XR6JdVPQG8/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/dce227e6-5d2a-48ae-9a89-5c83f8ae490bn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You 

Re: [RBW] Re: Who’s getting a Platypus tomorrow?

[Sarah Carlson]

What a delight for your wife to see this under the Christmas tree!

Sarah

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-8 Josh C wrote:

> [image: IMG_0972.jpg]
> Should have reported back sooner but the bike did come in time for 
> Christmas. 
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 8:59:06 AM UTC-5 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Joe! Don't get shiny ball syndrome! You have a most excellent frame on 
>> its way to you!
>>
>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:50:23 AM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>> It's so exciting! I can't wait to see your new Purple Platy and all the 
>>> other new bikes out there. Gosh, now I kinda wish *I* was getting a new 
>>> frame... 樂
>>>
>>> Joe " wishin' and hopin' " Bernard 
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:47:48 AM UTC-8 Bicycle Belle Ding 
>>> Ding! wrote:
>>>
 They are trickling in. Mine arrives Wednesday. I hope you get your 
 wife’s in time! 

 On Dec 10, 2023, at 8:44 AM, Josh C  wrote:

 I was just going to ask if anyone had received theirs yet. Hoping to 
 put my wife's under the tree...or near it I guess. 



 On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:52:52 PM UTC-4 Arthur Mayfield wrote:

> My Mermaid Platypus 55 frame arrived today (apparently found in their 
> stock from last year). This is an *elegant* bike-to-be! All you who 
> ordered frames or bikes have a real treat coming! I’m waiting for wheels 
> to 
> be built, so plenty of time for frame-saving the tubes and ceramic 
> coating 
> the paint before building it up. I already had a B-68 and crankset, 
> derailleurs, cassettes, brakes, stem, bars, racks, fenders, etc, so it 
> will 
> go together quickly when the wheels get here. I have a blue Sam 52 
> (caliper 
> brakes, 650B) in *really* nice condition that will likely go on the 
> market when I get the Platypus put together, btw. I’m in NC.
>
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:51:25 PM UTC-4 RBW Owners Bunch 
> wrote:
>
>> Peter, great info re: the Mardi Gras colors! I'm thinking of gold + 
>> green, harlequin-style, for the purple bike. 
>>
>> (I'm also remembering the smell of sweet olive blossoms and the taste 
>> of a real beignet and the sound of Preservation Hall...my mom was born 
>> there and I love to visit!)
>>
>> S.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 12:00 PM Peter Adler  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Green + purple + yellow = Mardi Gras bike. Go to New Orleans during 
>>> the season, and all the plastic beads thrown from the parade floats are 
>>> in 
>>> those three colors. Maybe yellow bar tape or water bottles.
>>>
>>> Peter "laisse les bons temps rouler sur vélo" Adler
>>> Berkeley, CA
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:04:20 AM UTC-7 Josh C wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m hoping to snag a 50cm green complete for my wife. I’ve had 
>>> several Rivs and she’s never had the experience. She’s mentioned 
>>> several 
>>> times that a step-through style bike interests her. She has some purple 
>>> Paul bits on her current bike that I think will look nice with the 
>>> green 
>>> instead of two different purples. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>> 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/ff4323c7-ac73-400b-bdb0-c7b90ecf6f62n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> -- 

 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
 Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/6XR6JdVPQG8/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/dce227e6-5d2a-48ae-9a89-5c83f8ae490bn%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/b5a9439a-448e-47dc-8bd2-c851333a11f3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Schairer]

Ted,
I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."

Bill S
San Diego

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:

Not to be overly contrarian, but ...

Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
"swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 

The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
.7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
are definitely the soft springs in that system.

I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
"staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 

So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy 
stays, so there you go.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI USA

-- 
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/42724a9c-8994-42b1-922a-774b953d1f71n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Platypus or Clem - Please help me choose

[Sarah Carlson]

CONGRATULATIONS on the new PLATYPUS! And that Antonio build is a fabulous 
choice. The Billie Bars are a dream, and if this set up doesn't make her 
fall in love in riding I don't know what will. I have a B67 on my Platypus. 
I was riding for a while on the Rivet Sonora which is by far my most 
beautiful saddle. For me it's a little narrow for the more upright 
positioning I have on the Platypus. I'm going to try it on my Homer build 
where the positioning is a little different. Rivet has a great return 
program... but I can't give it up because it is so pretty.  If they made 
the Loveland in Ivory I would get it. Meanwhile the B67 feels amazing on 
lady sit bones, even if it's the spring saddle and I feel a little silly 
with all the squeaking. There are so many options if you go with the 
Loveland I would be interested to hear back!

And for anyone on the search for a Platypus, there is a Sergio Green 55 
Complete at Blue Heron Bikes in Berkeley CA (also a purple 50 complete).

Sarah

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-8 SeanMac wrote:

> Hey everyone.  Wanted to take a moment to close the loop on this 
> conversation.  Earlier today, after much discussion, my wife and I ordered 
> a Platypus!  She snagged a web special - 50 cm in Sergio Green with a 
> triple crank and a Billie Bar.  She [we] nearly pulled the trigger on a 
> purple complete.  However, for a few hundred extra dollars the build put 
> together by Antonio seems to be the smarter purchase.  
>
> All that is left to do now is order a saddle.  I am going to measure the 
> width of a saddle that she has the she likes and decide where to go from 
> there.  Most likely will be a Brooks (B-17 or B-68) or a Rivet (Loveland).  
> Any thoughts?  I've tried a few Brooks, and currently have a B-17 on my 
> Cheviot and a Berthoud Aspin on my Black Mountain Cycles Road Bike.  I've 
> read a few good comments about Rivet, but never seen or ridden on one 
> myself.
>
> Thanks you all for your suggestions.  They all helped with the 
> decision-making process.
>
> Sean
>
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:09:09 PM UTC-5 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My 52cm Clem Smith Jr L bicycle is my one and only favorite bike. I 
>> cannot see myself on any other Rivendell bicycle.
>>
>> My old road bike has long been retired and no interest in riding it.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, 12:21 PM Johnny Alien  wrote:
>>
>>> I would also add that if someone forced me to get rid of one Rivendell 
>>> and live with just one bike it would be the Clem. I think it is the most 
>>> RIvendell bike ever in spirit. A cushy ride that will go anywhere and is 
>>> not too fancy. Thankfully no one has made me make that choice.
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 3:19:08 PM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 I stick by letting her pick. She is currently riding a 30 year old Trek 
 hybrid so either one will fit her riding conditions. If she doesn't want 
 to 
 spend the extra cash then the Clem is a fantastic pick. I love mine and 
 personally wouldn't trade it for another Riv (noting that I have a lighter 
 RIvendell as well). But if they both work the only thing in the world that 
 matters is that she likes it. Why talk her into the more expensive ride if 
 the Clem will fit the conditions and she likes it?

 On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 7:10:21 AM UTC-5 Garth wrote:

> Obviously the Platy requires more material and labor for the extended 
> mid tube. Bicycles are long term investments though, so letting a few 
> hundred dollars get it in the way hardly qualifies as a valid reason to 
> dismiss something base don that alone. Get the one that is appealing to 
> look at every day. 
>
> From my own subjective view, the Platypus has an appealing elegance to 
> it with the extended swooping mid tube. Plus the purple accentuates it 
> very 
> well, of which direct sunlight will enhance it even more. 
>
> Complete or build your own depends on if the included parts are 
> agreeable or not. If you have nothing specific to change then they're 
> fine. 
>
> The Clem has a notably longer frame reach than the Platypus, which may 
> only be noticed if you have both. The Platy with it's 50mm max tires is 
> plenty for the type of riding Sean suggested. 
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 8:15:46 PM UTC-5 Bicycle Belle Ding 
> Ding! wrote:
>
>>  I have weighed in on that thread that was quoted, but I’ll chime in 
>> again because my name got mentioned.
>>
>>  I had both bikes, loved both bikes. But the Platypus is the better 
>> fit for me. I like to ride pavement and I do like to go fast, and that’s 
>> the sweet spot for a Platy. And, it fits me like a GLOVE. The wife in 
>> question doesn’t seem to have a preference, save that she doesn’t want 
>> to 
>> blow the budget. I surmise the OP 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Eric Daume]

The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach
brakes.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:

> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing
>> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on
>> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and
>> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>>
>> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch
>> instead.
>>
>> Eric
>> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
>> Plain City OH
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>>
>>> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty
>>> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single
>>> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires
>>> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>>>
>>> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being
>>> designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal
>>> interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase
>>> ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the
>>> whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT
>>> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>>>
>>> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single
>>> speed Lightning Bolt.
>>> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position
>>> some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for.
>>> But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear
>>> and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push
>>> back against my inner purist ;-)
>>> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>>>
>>> Mike M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>>>

 Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube
 model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne,
 Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me
 think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!



 On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your
> own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair of
> long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell.
> One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and
> geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake blocks
> and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some 
> corrosion
> visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is
> the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice metal
> pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some 
> point
> he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one brake,
> grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake
> and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55
> shipped for the 556s.
>
> Photos:
>
> 556
> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/
> album-72157634724093620/
>
> 365
> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/
> album-72157634724093620/
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the
>> new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some
>> reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
>> all
>> the details.
>
> --
>>>
>> 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/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-
>>> cc9838f95609n%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/77c6d53c-abd8-4206-8d82-
> 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Ryan]

What about vo grand cru brakes?

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:

> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and 
> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>
> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
> instead. 
>
> Eric
> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
> Plain City OH
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>
>> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
>> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single 
>> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
>> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>>
>> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being 
>> designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal 
>> interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase 
>> ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the 
>> whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
>> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>>
>> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single speed 
>> Lightning Bolt.
>> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position 
>> some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for. 
>> But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear 
>> and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push 
>> back against my inner purist ;-)
>> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube model 
>>> (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, Homer)? The 
>>> front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me think a long 
>>> top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your 
 own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair of 
 long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell.  
 One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and 
 geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake blocks 
 and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some 
 corrosion 
 visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is 
 the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice metal 
 pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some 
 point 
 he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one brake, 
 grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake 
 and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55 
 shipped for the 556s.

 Photos:

 556

 https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/

 365

 https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA
 On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the new 
> bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some reference 
> to 
> it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of all the details.

 -- 
>>
> 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/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-cc9838f95609n%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/77c6d53c-abd8-4206-8d82-9be72243a853n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[Eric Daume]

I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing
build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on
my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and
unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?

I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch
instead.

Eric
Not a long reach fan, even in flat
Plain City OH

On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:

> When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty
> stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single
> speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires
> courtesy of cantilever mounts.
>
> The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being
> designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal
> interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase
> ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the
> whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT
> shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.
>
> I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single speed
> Lightning Bolt.
> But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position
> some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for.
> But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear
> and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push
> back against my inner purist ;-)
> Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.
>
> Mike M
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube model
>> (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, Homer)? The
>> front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me think a long
>> top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your
>>> own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair of
>>> long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell.
>>> One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and
>>> geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake blocks
>>> and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some corrosion
>>> visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is
>>> the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice metal
>>> pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some point
>>> he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one brake,
>>> grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake
>>> and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55
>>> shipped for the 556s.
>>>
>>> Photos:
>>>
>>> 556
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/
>>> album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> 365
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/
>>> album-72157634724093620/
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the new
 bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some reference to
 it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of all the details.
>>>
>>> --
> 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/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-
> cc9838f95609n%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/CAHFNW5C4jVQiCeenP6caxFz7ezrr9EF6Q0Cjk-h%3D%2B%2B7pNq5XHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[Donzaemon]

Joe, I'm using Silver2 friction shifters with thumbshifter mounts.  Same as 
this:

https://www.rivbike.com/cdn/shop/products/stemshiftersilverclose-7_750x.jpg
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:39:55 AM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:

> Don, 
>
> What shifters are you using? Are they index or friction? 
>
> Joe Bernard 
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:03:50 PM UTC-8 Donzaemon wrote:
>
>> So I'm about a couple weeks into owning my Homer, which I'm loving so 
>> far. Its use has been limited to pavement save for a short segment of dirt 
>> trail that connects official segments of SF Bay Trail in Alameda, CA. I've 
>> made a couple of observations so far:
>>
>> *Cockpit*
>> I enjoy the relaxed upright position that the Billie Bars provide. It's 
>> done wonders keeping me comfortable and has not made any of my existing 
>> neck and lower back issues worse. That said, it feels a little awkward to 
>> make u-turns or any other decent turns at lower speed. While I don't intend 
>> on taking this bike on the many singletrack trails that make up a large 
>> portion of the natural surface trails in the SF Bay, I would like to take 
>> it on gravel climbs when and if possible. I realize I can use the positions 
>> directly in front of the brake levers on the Billie Bars, but I'm not sure 
>> if that'll provide the lever control that I'm looking for. 
>>
>> I'm thinking about switching to wide-ish drop bars with some flare. I'm 
>> using Ritchey Corralitos (480mm) bars on my Ascent and I love them. I'd get 
>> a pair for the Homer if they were available in silver. I'm intrigued by the 
>> Crust Towel Rack, but I'm afraid they'd be a little on the wide side for 
>> me. Rune Bicycles is on the verge of releasing their Hilt Bars that hits 
>> pretty much all my checkboxes so I may opt for those when they're released. 
>> For those of you who do similar mixed-terrain rides with your Homers, what 
>> are your handlebar preference, and why?
>>
>> *Drivetrain*
>> For my first build, I went with a 42/28 double with a 11-40 8sp cassette. 
>> I'm controlling the derailleurs (ultegra front and xtr rd-m960 rear with 
>> roadlink) with thumbies and love them. That said, shifting hasn't been what 
>> I had hoped. I find the shifts to be sloppy when shifting the range of cogs 
>> in the middle of the cassette. I'm not sure if I'm describing this 
>> correctly, but the gears sometimes slip during shifting resulting in two 
>> "clunks" before fully engaging. Also, the gears don't feel smooth between 
>> the middle to smallest cogs. Could this be due to the roadlink? I like the 
>> range of the 11-40 cassette and it's been nice using the big cog on climbs 
>> when needed so I'd prefer not to get rid of the roadlink and switch to an 
>> 11-34 cassette. I have an XTR RD-M952 I can try out instead? For those of 
>> you with similar gearing, what components have you settled on to get 
>> flawless shifting?
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for the feedback!
>>
>> -Don
>> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 6:12:11 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill, I will be keeping an eye out for you on Mt. Diablo so I can give 
>>> you a thumbs up when you pass me! 
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 5:16:41 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 A couple weeks back I said:

 "The film makes me want to set a Diablo goal for 2024.  I've summited 
 Diablo maybe 10 times, but I want to do multiple summits this year.  I'm 
 going to start with 5 as my goal, with the extra challenge that I want to 
 do it on 5 different bikes in my stable.  If I manage that, then summit #6 
 will be on a derailleurless bike."

 When I state a goal, I feel committed, even if the RBW Group isn't 
 expending energy to hold me accountable, there is accountability when I 
 type it out.  Anyhow, I got a start on the above today with my first 
 summit 
 of Mount Diablo for 2024.  I did it on my current stripped down road bike, 
 my Black Mountain Cycles Road.  I picked today to avoid the pockets of 
 rain 
 that are hitting us with some regularity.  It was sunny and cool, but not 
 cold.  One down, four to go.  Highlights included a rider on a 2TT 
 Hillborne with Albatross bars.  

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA

 On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Therese is a delightful person and a very good rider.  I used to run 
> across her a lot in the East Bay and at SFR events, but I don't think our 
> paths have crossed lately.  
>
> She's also a fair bit more enlightened about gearing than the 
> filmmaker.  Her set up isn't perfect, but it's close (IMHO).  
>
> The film makes me want to set a Diablo goal for 2024.  I've summited 
> Diablo maybe 10 times, but I want to do multiple summits this year.  I'm 
> going to start with 5 as my goal, with the extra challenge that I want to 
> do it on 5 

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[Joe Bernard]

Don, 

What shifters are you using? Are they index or friction? 

Joe Bernard 

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:03:50 PM UTC-8 Donzaemon wrote:

> So I'm about a couple weeks into owning my Homer, which I'm loving so far. 
> Its use has been limited to pavement save for a short segment of dirt trail 
> that connects official segments of SF Bay Trail in Alameda, CA. I've made a 
> couple of observations so far:
>
> *Cockpit*
> I enjoy the relaxed upright position that the Billie Bars provide. It's 
> done wonders keeping me comfortable and has not made any of my existing 
> neck and lower back issues worse. That said, it feels a little awkward to 
> make u-turns or any other decent turns at lower speed. While I don't intend 
> on taking this bike on the many singletrack trails that make up a large 
> portion of the natural surface trails in the SF Bay, I would like to take 
> it on gravel climbs when and if possible. I realize I can use the positions 
> directly in front of the brake levers on the Billie Bars, but I'm not sure 
> if that'll provide the lever control that I'm looking for. 
>
> I'm thinking about switching to wide-ish drop bars with some flare. I'm 
> using Ritchey Corralitos (480mm) bars on my Ascent and I love them. I'd get 
> a pair for the Homer if they were available in silver. I'm intrigued by the 
> Crust Towel Rack, but I'm afraid they'd be a little on the wide side for 
> me. Rune Bicycles is on the verge of releasing their Hilt Bars that hits 
> pretty much all my checkboxes so I may opt for those when they're released. 
> For those of you who do similar mixed-terrain rides with your Homers, what 
> are your handlebar preference, and why?
>
> *Drivetrain*
> For my first build, I went with a 42/28 double with a 11-40 8sp cassette. 
> I'm controlling the derailleurs (ultegra front and xtr rd-m960 rear with 
> roadlink) with thumbies and love them. That said, shifting hasn't been what 
> I had hoped. I find the shifts to be sloppy when shifting the range of cogs 
> in the middle of the cassette. I'm not sure if I'm describing this 
> correctly, but the gears sometimes slip during shifting resulting in two 
> "clunks" before fully engaging. Also, the gears don't feel smooth between 
> the middle to smallest cogs. Could this be due to the roadlink? I like the 
> range of the 11-40 cassette and it's been nice using the big cog on climbs 
> when needed so I'd prefer not to get rid of the roadlink and switch to an 
> 11-34 cassette. I have an XTR RD-M952 I can try out instead? For those of 
> you with similar gearing, what components have you settled on to get 
> flawless shifting?
>
> Thanks, in advance, for the feedback!
>
> -Don
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 6:12:11 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Bill, I will be keeping an eye out for you on Mt. Diablo so I can give 
>> you a thumbs up when you pass me! 
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 5:16:41 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> A couple weeks back I said:
>>>
>>> "The film makes me want to set a Diablo goal for 2024.  I've summited 
>>> Diablo maybe 10 times, but I want to do multiple summits this year.  I'm 
>>> going to start with 5 as my goal, with the extra challenge that I want to 
>>> do it on 5 different bikes in my stable.  If I manage that, then summit #6 
>>> will be on a derailleurless bike."
>>>
>>> When I state a goal, I feel committed, even if the RBW Group isn't 
>>> expending energy to hold me accountable, there is accountability when I 
>>> type it out.  Anyhow, I got a start on the above today with my first summit 
>>> of Mount Diablo for 2024.  I did it on my current stripped down road bike, 
>>> my Black Mountain Cycles Road.  I picked today to avoid the pockets of rain 
>>> that are hitting us with some regularity.  It was sunny and cool, but not 
>>> cold.  One down, four to go.  Highlights included a rider on a 2TT 
>>> Hillborne with Albatross bars.  
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Therese is a delightful person and a very good rider.  I used to run 
 across her a lot in the East Bay and at SFR events, but I don't think our 
 paths have crossed lately.  

 She's also a fair bit more enlightened about gearing than the 
 filmmaker.  Her set up isn't perfect, but it's close (IMHO).  

 The film makes me want to set a Diablo goal for 2024.  I've summited 
 Diablo maybe 10 times, but I want to do multiple summits this year.  I'm 
 going to start with 5 as my goal, with the extra challenge that I want to 
 do it on 5 different bikes in my stable.  If I manage that, then summit #6 
 will be on a derailleurless bike.  

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA
 On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:53:19 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2-hdvGWjU_channel=Henrywildeberry
>
> I found a