[RBW] FS: J Cyclewear Waterproof Breathable Rain jacket 2XL with helmet cover.

[Kim H.]

 Late last year I purchased a bright yellow J Cyclewear Waterproof 
Breathable Rain jacket in size 2XL from their website. I would have bought 
a 3XL, but they were all sold out.  

My issue with the jacket is that there is not room for layer underneath it. 
Therefore, I honestly cannot use it. If regularly wear a medium or large 
size jacket. This one would mostly likely fit you for layering underneath. 


https://www.bicycleclothing.com/Waterproof-Breathable-Rain-Jackets.html

https://www.bicycleclothing.com/Waterproof-Breathable-Helmet-Covers.html

The jacket is in excellent and brand new condition. I have not even worn it 
outside. It has been in my closet all this time. 

pit zipper lengths - 17"
width - 27"
bottom of the hood to the bottom hem - 32"
sleeve length - 33.75"

I want to sell it with the matching detachable helmet cover that is offered 
with the jacket. I paid around $80.00 for the both of them new, with 
shipping.

https://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/bop/d/yelm-jg-cyclewear-waterproof-breathable/7711958538.html

$65.00, shipped 
Paypal payment preferred.

Thank-you.
Kim Hetzel. 

-- 
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/18fe4857-47b6-491d-a865-9b424914500an%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] FS: Arkel f/r panniers with Old Man Mountain f/r racks

[Kim H.]

 I have for sale an older set of Arkel GT-18 BR front panniers (retailed 
for $159.00) and Arkel GT-54 panniers (retailed for $379.00) both in bright 
red. They are in excellent condition. There are no issues with them. I do 
not have the rain covers for the front panniers. However, I do have the 
rain covers for the rear panniers.. These can be purchase on Arkel website. 
Both these panniers have been discontinued. 

https://arkel.ca/collections/bag-covers/products/waterproof-rain-covers

https://www.campfirecycling.com/product/arkel-gt-54-rear-panniers-p-1103.html

https://www.campfirecycling.com/product/arkel-gt-18-bp-pannier-p-1102.html

There are no Cam locks on the rear panniers. However, you can purchase them 
on Arkel's website:

https://arkel.ca/products/cam-lock-kit

 I have front and rear Old Man Mountain bicycle racks for the above Arkel 
panniers. 

Pictures are here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/GBJZuuFQ67AtQ29ZA

$500.00, plus shipping.

I will throw in a REI Co-op Quarter Dome T3 Tent at no charge, if you buy 
all the above. 
https://www.rei.com/product/761895/rei-co-op-quarter-dome-t3-tent 

Paypal payment.

Contact me off this group for your questions or interests.

Thank-you.
Kim Hetzel. 

-- 
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/dd50eee8-257a-4099-b232-b5d803aa8360n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Trip Report: Death Valley February 2024

[Steve]

Diana, love your photography - and - love your Platy with the Chocos.  (I'm 
admittedly biased, but your bike puts both the Salsa and the Kona to shame)

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:48:18 PM UTC-5 John Rinker wrote:

> Excellent trip report Diana! You and your friends covered a lot of 
> beautiful, rugged ground, and your photos provide a wonderful window into 
> the spectacular expanses of that magical part of the desert. I had just 
> seen Iohan Gueorgiuev's trip through the national parks 
> 
>  
> where he covered some ground in Death Valley. I was eager to see more so 
> your report was timely.  Cheers, John
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 8:08:28 AM UTC-8 Eric Marth wrote:
>
>> Bad to the bone! Thanks for sharing Diana :0) 
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:49:34 AM UTC-5 diana@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad you all enjoyed the trip report! I'm sad I can't edit posts so 
>>> you all had to read day 4 twice lol. I'm still getting used to Google 
>>> groups (sorry you're getting this message twice Andy).
>>>
>>> I just bought Tosco bars to switch out the Choco's and I got a new stem 
>>> (with the faceplate) using Will's leapyear code. The bars will make me more 
>>> upright and the new stem will keep my bars from moving on my hard descents, 
>>> at least this is the hope!
>>>
>>> I'll be doing the Smoke and Fire 400 in May so hopefully I'll get 
>>> another trip report for you all then.
>>>
>>> Diana
>>> San Francisco 
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 3:34:40 AM UTC-8 ascpgh wrote:
>>>
 Wow, what a great trip!

 When I read ride reports I often drift into amazement at the landscapes 
 so foreign (or just alien) to my regular environs. Part of the adventure 
 is 
 simply facing the unusual or unknown and turning that first pedal stroke. 

 Andy Cheatham
 Pittsburgh

 On Sunday, March 3, 2024 at 11:19:20 PM UTC-5 diana@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Map: 
> https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=9.6/-116.8781/36.7032=GJ70zopvv3HDAIv6yQW94aTs=09fa1491-18a7-4735-83a2-eb164d4ba0ba
>
> Total miles: ~165 miles 
> Total Elevation Gain: ~14,400 ft 
>
> *Intro: *
>
> The inspiration for this route came from the Bikepacking.com- 
> Echo-Titus Canyon , 
> but Titus Canyon is currently closed to all traffic (including bicycles), 
> so we were looking for a way to extend our tip another day. We added 
> Rhyolite 
> Canyon  from 
> the Dirty Freehub.
>
>  
>
> *Bicycles*
>
> Diana’s Bike - 2022 Platypus (50 cm, 38x24 crank, 650Bx43mm GravelKing 
> SK Knobby tires, Nitto Choco handlebar, and a 9-speed cassette)
>
> Ran’s Bike – 2023 Kona Sutra (stock parts except the tubeless 2.1 inch 
> tires)
>
> Mikes Bike – 2022 Salsa Cutthroat (stock parts, 2.2 inch tubeless 
> tires)
>
>  
>
> *Day 1. Rhyolite Rumble*
> Total Miles: 46
> Average Speed 8.6mph
>
> We drove from Reno to Spicer Ranch. Spicer Ranch is an amazing 
> campground and the owner runs it entirely on donations. Clean bathrooms, 
> hot showers, picnic tables, what else could you ask for? Please donate if 
> you stay here. 
>
> Our plan today was to ride load-less and ease our way into the trip. 
> We arrived at Spicer Ranch a little after 10am and were biking by 
> 10:45am. 
> The first few miles went by quickly and we passed by several old mines. 
> There is endless gravel to ride out here and you could easily spend the 
> day 
> exploring mine to mine. The road is pretty tough in places, but this is 
> how 
> it will be the entire trip.
>
> The excitement of beginning our adventure (and being unloaded) had us 
> riding fast. We had great views riding toward Grapevine Mountains on 
> amazingly packed gravel. I would get a flat somewhere along here but 
> patched it up and moved on. 
>
> The views would continue but the road would deteriorate into more sand 
> than gravel and had us pushing on a few occasions. Ran took a spill 
> during 
> a moment of lapsed attention when his tire hit the side of a wash. 
> Luckily 
> it was a slow fall and Ran would ride away with minor scratches. Later on 
> in the day we hit some washboards and I was going too fast and I got a 
> pinch flat. Patched that too, but the pinch flat happened right next to 
> the 
> valve and the patch didn’t hold. Replaced the whole tube just before 
> Rhyolite. This whole time we saw nobody else on the trails.
>
> Rhyolite Ghost town is very interesting and they have a lot of 
> eccentric statues/sculptures. Worth a visit here if you find yourself in 
> the area. 

[RBW] ISO: Compact 58mm 22-Teeth Chainring

[John Rinker]

Good evening All,

Wondering if anyone is holding (and willing to part with) the above 
mentioned chainring? I have an older XT crank that I'm looking to continue 
using on my Hunq. 

Cheers, John

-- 
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/36a7dc38-52e0-4aad-bce8-aecba75277c6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Best Rivendell for pavement riding

[john Bokman]

Custom paint, Rich?

How are you finding the brakes? Very nice looking. I’m running cantilevers on 
my workhorse Sam (Shimano CX 70), but if I can manage to hustle a second sam in 
“fast” mode, I may well choose these (given your approval, of course).

> On Mar 7, 2024, at 5:55 PM, RichS  wrote:
> 
> And for another take on the Sam Hillborne as a superb bike on pavement, give 
> a nod to mounting a pair of 32mm Grand Bois Cypress. Also pure bliss:-)
> 
> 
> Best,
> Rich in ATL
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:08 PM UTC-5 mathiass...@gmail.com wrote:
> @laing
> 
> Well.
> 
> That's some garage you've got there. I spy north of $2k invested in leather 
> saddles alone. I approve.I have sent the pictures to my family and informed 
> them that I will no longer take complaints about how I have "too many 
> bicycles" and related nonsense.
> 
> Thanks for this!
> 
> cheers -mathias
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-5 lconley wrote:
> Or you can buy a bunch of Rivendells and keep most of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that comfort depends a lot upon your body proportions. When I finally 
> got a Rivendell custom for my drop bar road bike, the top tube was 10 cm 
> longer than the seat tube.
> 
> Laing
> 
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:57:14 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
> The other way to discover what you really want to ride is to buy a lot of 
> bikes that sort of look like what you want (you are not sure what you want), 
> upgrade them all, repeat several times as you try to perfect previously 
> unrealized imperfections, then sell them at a loss. Do this for a couple of 
> decades, then buy customs. This method costs a bit more than the other one.
> 
> But yes, ride lots of Rivendells. All those I've owned (I bought 5 including 
> a 2nd-gen Ram and kept one that will turn 25 in April) all had a certain 
> common handling and "feel" in common. And I do think that a Ram, if you don't 
> want to spring for a Roadeo, might well be what you are looking for.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:39 PM Corwin Zechar > wrote:
> ... Ride lots of bikes - Rivendells if possible. Think carefully about what 
> you want. Don't be afraid to try different things. Meditate on the 
> differences. And most of all, practice patience if you are looking for a Ram.
> 
> -- 
> 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/65YhL3IkALM/unsubscribe 
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/991aca96-d17c-4db9-ac9a-036d094314ben%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/DC805896-3612-4EF0-9997-BD8C779CDBB3%40gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen - Toyo Version - 63cm

[MCT]

Price drop to $1,250.  

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 4:46:23 PM UTC-6 MCT wrote:

> Bump.  Any offers out there. 
>
> On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 4:24:17 PM UTC-6 MCT wrote:
>
>> Price Drop to $1350. 
>>
>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:29:17 PM UTC-6 MCT wrote:
>>
>>> Selling my Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen frameset, so frame, fork, and 
>>> headset. The frame is in outstanding shape as shown in the pictures. The 
>>> stem and handlebars are not included in the price. It is the Toyo version 
>>> so made in Japan. This is a catch and release as I bought it a few months 
>>> ago from here or ibob.
>>>
>>> The size is 63cm. You can find the geometry for the Toyo Homer at the 
>>> google sheets below. 
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gfiN1kOxVrthdc6eScUF9fP5n-BvRBILbBMYiEg5LM4
>>>
>>> Pictures here 
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-35Bc9y6EwECQVwe1QqF9aq-5SoCyVB_?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or want to see a picture of 
>>> something specific. 
>>> The price is $1,500 shipped CONUS. 
>>>
>>> Thanks, Matt in OKC
>>>
>>

-- 
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/87a22ee3-24ec-407b-bb75-828d53935e36n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Fitz Cycles All Road 56cm 26"/650b Disc Partial Build and Wheels

[Michael Ullmer]

A few nibbles, but no takers.

Another bump and a price drop, $1200 shipped in the US.

Also in the market for an Atlantis or Appaloosa sized for an 88pbh

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 11:11:57 AM UTC-6 Michael Ullmer wrote:

> Unfortunately not, that front low-rider rack was actually built for my 
> custom Fitz and I had him add mounts to it so I could use on this frame as 
> well. Doesn't mean the new owner couldn't have Fitz make them one though :-)
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:37 AM Michael Morrissey  
> wrote:
>
>> I'm shocked this beautiful frame hasn't sold yet. The Coleman stove green 
>> is perfect on this bike. Does it include the custom front rack that is in 
>> the last picture of the Google Photos folder?
>>
>> Michael
>> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:24:14 AM UTC-5 Michael Ullmer wrote:
>>
>>> Leap year bump, $1250 shipped in the US
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-6 Michael Ullmer 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Midweek bump and price drop, $1250 plus shipping

 On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-6 Michael Ullmer wrote:

> Bump and a price drop, $1350 plus shipping.
>
> Also, in need of a few items for a trade/partial trade:
>
> Nitto Marks Rack
> 58cm Atlantis
> 700c 135mm spaced dynamo wheelset
>
> On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-6 Michael Ullmer 
> wrote:
>
>> Wheels are sold. Also, I forgot to include that the rear spacing is 
>> 135mm.
>>
>> Frame/Fork/Headset/Rack/Fenders - $1400 plus shipping
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 11:09:42 AM UTC-6 Michael Ullmer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is cross-posted from the i-bob list. Hoping to pass along this 
>>> frameset and wheels to fund a near-term Spring Break trip for the fam 
>>> down 
>>> to Mexico. Long-term, this bike's place in the stable will be replaced 
>>> with 
>>> a properly sized Atlantis or Appaloosa.
>>>
>>> This is one I never thought I'd get rid of, but I have to admit it's 
>>> not the right size and it's not getting much ride time. I bought this 
>>> from 
>>> John Fitz, but I'm the second owner. Here's the original color/build (
>>> https://www.facebook.com/FitzCyclez/posts/958878954200930). I 
>>> reached out to have him build me a fork similar to the one that was on 
>>> this 
>>> bike, but instead he happened to have this frame/fork available. He 
>>> re-powdercoated it for me, built the custom rack and added a bunch of 
>>> braze-ons. Here's what's included with the sale:
>>>
>>> 1) Frame/Fork
>>> 2) 1 1/8" Silver Chris King Headset
>>> 3) Custom Front SS Rando Rack with integrated light mount and wire 
>>> guides
>>> 4) Velo Orange 26" 60mm Smooth Fenders with Ruthworks Mudguards
>>> 5) Matching Green Powdercoated Truvatic 110mm 26.0 Stem
>>> 6) Maroon Powdercoated xxmm Stem 31.8 (this was the previous 
>>> powdercoat color)
>>>
>>> Frame/Fork Details:
>>>
>>> TT - Columbus 28.6 8/5/8
>>> DT  - (unknown) 31.8 9/6/9 or 8/5/8
>>> ST - Nova 28.6 9/6/1.2
>>> SS - 17mm true temper
>>> BB - 68mm BSA Paragon
>>> Paragon Dropouts front and back
>>> Fork Blades - Disc specific Nova fork blades 1.1 wall thickness
>>> Fork Crown - Pacenti MTB Fork Crown
>>> Braze-ons - lighting guides on fork blade and under downtube, three 
>>> bottle bosses, pump pegs on non-drive seatstay, low-rider front rack 
>>> mounts, 
>>>
>>> Takes a 27.2 seatpost, 28.6 front derailleur. Built around 160mm 
>>> rotors front/rear. It clears Compass/Rene Herse Rat Trap Pass 2.3" 
>>> Tires 
>>> easily. I never ran with 650b, but was told it would do 650bx48 just 
>>> fine. 
>>> I've used this as a drop-bar enduro all-road and an upright basket 
>>> cruiser 
>>> with Nitto Albatross bars. It handles great with a rear rack and big 
>>> saddlebag (I used a large Sackville). 
>>>
>>> Frame is in great shape, all threads clean and no dents/dings. Never 
>>> been crashed. The powder coat is probably 8/10. There's some worn away 
>>> on 
>>> the drive side chainstay, and the non-drive side inside chainstay from 
>>> the 
>>> disc rubbing. There's a few other spots where the powder coat has been 
>>> rubbed away, but overall pretty good.
>>>
>>> Wheels:
>>>
>>> 26" Disc 28H Nextie 26" i30 carbon rims laced to SP PD-8 front, 
>>> BikeHubStore BX106R rear, using silver Sapim Laser spokes & nipples. 
>>> Rims 
>>> are true and all spokes are in good tension. Come with Rene Herse Rat 
>>> Trap 
>>> Pass 2.3" Tires set up tubeless. Tires have 1000+ miles on them, but 
>>> treads 
>>> are in good shape. Deore XT Skewers. 160mm rotors, 6-bolt front, 
>>> centerlock 
>>> rear.
>>>
>>> Frame/Fork/Headset/Rack/Fenders/Wheels - $1650 plus 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
perspective."  

You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
 





On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
> Complex!  
>
>
> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>

-- 
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/3309d98e-4cfc-4a8d-926b-c0dca9726856n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Certainly. But it wasn’t an option on the Jabberwocky being a singlespeed. 
And the fact my legs have the girth of an Andy Kapp hot fry 
Non-tech steep climbs were nice on the Clem. Spin seated and you could 
climb a wall. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 5:20:56 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> If I stay seated & spin (long stays) I do not spin out on steep / slightly 
> rocky climbs. Stand up & you are done. I never stand.:)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2024, at 6:12 PM, Hoch in ut  wrote:
>
> Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
>
> I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet 
> Cat geo. 
> Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
> the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
> Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
> from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
> think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 
>
> I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
>> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
>> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
>> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
>> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
>> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
>> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
>> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
>> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
>> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
>> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
>> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
>> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>>
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>>
>>
>> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>>
>> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
>> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
>> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
>> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
>> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>>
>> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
>> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>>
>> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
>> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
>> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
>> faithful to.
>>
>> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
>> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>>
>>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>>just numbers on paper.
>>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>>
>> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>>
>> *Climbing*
>> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
>> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>>
>> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you 
>> cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you 
>> rounds when the pedalin's done.
>>
>> *Descending*
>> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
>> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
>> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>>
>> *Comfort*
>> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice 
>> epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the 
>> balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will 
>> keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>>
>> *Balance*
>> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work 
>> together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er 
>> you've ridden.
>>
>> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
>> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
>> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.
>>
>> Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[藍俊彪]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:02 PM ian m  wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial
> Complex!
>
>
> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and
> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think
> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I
> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I
> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working
> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars
> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time,
> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee
> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at
> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I
> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I
> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern
> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE.
> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>

I see where you're coming from but I have no idea why you'd hesitate to get
a custom built if nobody else is making what you want. With the price
increases many Rivendells are actually no cheaper than a custom frame built
by a local framebuilder.

-- 
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/CAPh0EZ4sKZfJg7p4gv357Rz9mTuUe6jjB2GYcg1BxKpDRX1voA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

If I stay seated & spin (long stays) I do not spin out on steep / slightly rocky climbs. Stand up & you are done. I never stand.:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 6:12 PM, Hoch in ut  wrote:Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet Cat geo. Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat GeometryThe controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".When refining our exclusive WetCat Geometry, We peed in the eye of tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so faithful to.Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy Vassago riders, we confidently say;29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.29 inch wheels are the Cat's Pajamas.Long chainstays are the Bee's Knees.It's all about the rider's balance in relation to the wheels, not just numbers on paper.Slack doesn't have to mean slow.1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ersThe Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.So what can WetCat do for you?ClimbingClimb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a grandma's house. (what you never did that?)Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when the pedalin's done.DescendingStability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.Comfort9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.BalanceWhere it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've ridden.Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price tag. You'll see what we mean. A word about chainstays.Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent climbing, we focus on that.The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line when on a steep accent.To 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[ian m]

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
Complex!  


BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial

-- 
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/422c-7472-491e-9d4a-706e998c2b3dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[DTL]

The 62cm nor easter has 485mm chainstays - to accommodate 29 x 2.6 tires. 
Longer than a LOT of bikes. It is also a 73/73 low trail bike. (Smaller 
models have 460mm Stays and are optimized for 27.5 or 26)

On a video of PathlessPedaled talking to the Crust folks, Russ asked Matt 
to go into some details about a frames geometry (Evasion Lite maybe?) and 
Matt's response was along the line of:
"Ah I dunno, it's a bike, and if you ride it for an hour it'll just feel 
like a bike" - paraphrasing, but that was he sentiment. I like that 
sentiment.

On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 10:12:33 AM UTC+11 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
> I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet 
> Cat geo. 
> Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
> the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
> Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
> from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
> think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 
>
> I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
>> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
>> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
>> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
>> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
>> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
>> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
>> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
>> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
>> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
>> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
>> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
>> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>>
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>>
>>
>> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>>
>> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
>> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
>> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
>> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
>> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>>
>> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
>> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>>
>> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
>> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
>> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
>> faithful to.
>>
>> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
>> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>>
>>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>>just numbers on paper.
>>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>>
>> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>>
>> *Climbing*
>> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
>> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>>
>> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you 
>> cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you 
>> rounds when the pedalin's done.
>>
>> *Descending*
>> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
>> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
>> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>>
>> *Comfort*
>> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice 
>> epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the 
>> balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will 
>> keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>>
>> *Balance*
>> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work 
>> together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er 
>> you've ridden.
>>
>> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
>> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
>> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet Cat 
geo. 
Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 

I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>
>
> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>
> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>
> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>
> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
> faithful to.
>
> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>
>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>just numbers on paper.
>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>
> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>
> *Climbing*
> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>
> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
> sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
> the pedalin's done.
>
> *Descending*
> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>
> *Comfort*
> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
> ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
> geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
> cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>
> *Balance*
> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
> to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
> ridden.
>
> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.
>
> Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
> tag. You'll see what we mean.
>
>  
>
>
> A word about chainstays.
>
> Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
> is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
> along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
> While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
> of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
> time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
> climbing, we focus on that.
>
> The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/


THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry

The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
'05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".

When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.

Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
faithful to.

Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
Vassago riders, we confidently say;

   - 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
   - 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
   - Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
   - It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
   just numbers on paper.
   - Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
   - 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
   - The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.

So what can *WetCat* do for you?

*Climbing*
Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
grandma's house. (what you never did that?)

Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
the pedalin's done.

*Descending*
Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.

*Comfort*
9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.

*Balance*
Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
ridden.

Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.

Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
tag. You'll see what we mean.

 


A word about chainstays.

Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
climbing, we focus on that.

The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels 
by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line 
when on a steep accent.

To use another motorsport analogy, dirt bikes are converted to hill climb 
monsters by adding more power and stretching the rear wheel further out.  
When applied to mountain bikes, this means a more relaxed climbing position 
that takes the focus off of balancing the bike and lets you put all your 
energy into putting the power down.

The secondary benefit of using longer stays that you can get away with on 
29ers is the all day comfort factor. Proper butting profiles in a longer 
steel chainstay offers a level of compliance like no other

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Russell
>
> Your collection presents like an afficionado 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Haha good one.  You got me.  

It is clear and obvious that the Crust Nor'Easter came first, and it is 
obvious that Grant Petersen, devoid of ideas of his own, just copied the 
Crust Nor'Easter exactly, and renamed it the Samuel Hillborne to get rich. 
 Anybody can see that.  They are exactly the same bike.  Furthermore Crust 
invented the cream head tube aesthetic and Rivendell is just riding their 
coattails.  

BL in EC

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:33:34 PM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:

> “Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
> cream head tube.” 樂
>
> [image: IMG_3776.jpeg]
>
> [image: IMG_3777.jpeg]
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays 
>> than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "
>>
>> Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts. 
>>  Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are 
>> good bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, 
>> if they are selling what you want to buy.
>>
>> Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
>> cream head tube.  
>>
>> Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>
>>> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short 
>>> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that 
>>> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” 
>>> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed 
>>> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I 
>>> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for 
>>> my usage and terrain. 
>>> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
>>> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
>>> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
>>> bikes are now. 
>>> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
>>> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
>>> dirt roads. 
>>> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the 
>>> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk 
>>> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome 
>>> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your 
>>> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
>>> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially 
>>> ones that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. 
>>> But I’d say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an 
>>> alternative. Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter 
>>> stays than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>>
 A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) 
 vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you 
 know 
 it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely 
 hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  

 As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long 
 chain stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at 
 old 
 Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
 the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively 
 short 
 chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
 we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
 with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
 outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
 was still producing them. 

 Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
 ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer 
 ones 
 [super duper long])? 
  
 FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
 that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
 longer frame than the longest we see now?

 On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:

> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>
> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets 
> it 
> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in 

[RBW] Re: Building a Quickbeam and wondering...

[Conway Bennett]

I definitely have a used 172.5 XD2 triple, a used 40 tooth Sugino 
chainring, and a new 32 tooth Willow chainring I'd sell.

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:51:16 PM UTC-6 David wrote:

> Thank you, Bill. This is really helpful.
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:32:08 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> All that stuff is pretty darn common.  One place to go is eBay.  
>>
>> cranks: https://www.ebay.com/itm/386838756264
>> 40 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/255458588990
>> 32 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196275801449
>>
>> People find practically free bike parts at "the bike co-op", or "the 
>> local bike kitchen".  That takes effort but you can save a lot.  People 
>> post "want to buy" posts on this group, and often somebody has what you 
>> seek in their parts bin.  There's a hundred ways to pull a build together.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:20:23 AM UTC-8 David wrote:
>>
>>> This is all really great input. The trouble I'm having is finding a 
>>> configuration out there (new or otherwise) that comes close to the  Sugino 
>>> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. Where would you go 
>>> to gather these parts?
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>>
 I have an orange Quickbeam, which I bought new, with the original 
 Sugino 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. I 
 immediately removed the provided 18t freewheel and put on a White 17/19t 
 Dos Eno. I also put a 22 on the flop side of the flip/flop hub that Riv 
 included with the bike.

 With the long dropout, I can use 40/17 (99%+ of my riding), 40/19, 
 32/19 or 32/22. I like to say I have the world’s least convenient 4 speed. 
 I haven’t “shifted” the bike about 5 years or more, but in the first 8 
 years that I owned it, I would take it for long recreational rides and 
 need 
 to downshift for some hills. For the locals: I even rode it up Old La 
 Honda 
 years ago, I think in the 32/19, maybe the 32/22. Age and 2 bouts with 
 cancer have made a single speed bike only suitable for commuting for me 
 now, but it’s great for that.

 I’d definitely recommend 2 chainrings at about 8t difference if you 
 want some versatility. I have the pop off SKS fender stay things, and pack 
 an old gardening glove in my saddle bag so I can change the gearing 
 without 
 getting too messy.

 Drew
 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-8 David wrote:

> What are your drivetrain specs? Cranks, chainrings, etc.  Simpleones, 
> too, if that's what you're riding. It appears Riv doesn't offer the 
> classic 
> single speed crankset anymore.



-- 
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/63239e56-33df-4d3d-8aca-ee4f85d27f42n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Strange Question - Asymmetric Pedals

[Bill Lindsay]

>From the perspective of the machine, the machine won't care.  Use two 
different crank arm lengths if you want to do that.  I can't say anything 
smart about heatstroke and why simmering your brain makes you want to 
mid-foot pedal with one foot. That's between you and your brain.  

I have an anecdote about mismatched crank arms which I may have shared 
before.  I have one "shrine bike", a Hetchins that belonged to a deceased 
bike shop coworker, Shawn.  I loved Shawn and miss him all the time, but he 
was a con-artist when it came to his bikes.  He was always swinging deals 
to get himself stuff for cheap and ripping off suckers with his used stuff, 
much of it on-the-clock.  He got himself fired at the two traditional shops 
where I worked with him, and the third was a co-op so it was impossible to 
fire anyone.  God, I miss that guy.  

Shawn had a whole series of Dura Ace 7700 road bikes.  He sold one to DD, 
and DD brought it in to the shop for a free tune up.  DD wanted me to do 
the free tune up, which was weird.  I told him his business was with Shawn, 
so DD brought it back another time.  Shawn took the bike upstairs for a 
half hour and brought it back down and off went DD.  After hours that night 
Shawn had his own bike in the stand.  He pulled the chain, and the cranks 
moved in a way that was unmistakeable to me.  I went and looked at the 
crank arms and sure enough he had one 175 and one 177.5 crank arm.  I said 
"Shawn, you crook.  You took DD's crank arm because yours was scratched, 
didn't you?!"  Shawn said something about what a good deal he'd given DD, 
and went to the phone:  "DD, this is Shawn.  Hey, there's a Shimano recall 
and I don't think it affects you, but I have to check something.  Can you 
bring the bike back in?"  

I hope Shawn's ghost is embarrassed.  RIP

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:46:43 PM UTC-8 aeroperf wrote:

> In June 2022 we did a tour down the Canal du Midi in southern France.  In 
> June 2022 it was 105 degrees in the shade in southern France - fires 
> breaking out everywhere - but we had already paid, so we went.
> Long story short, I got heatstroke and something called compartment 
> syndrome, which resulted in an 18 day stay in a hospital in Carcassonne.
>
> What’s my point?  I now pedal with the ball of my foot on the right side, 
> and closer to the arch of my foot on the left.  So, since I have 170mm 
> pedal arms… my right foot is happy but my left foot wants something a 
> little shorter; maybe 165 or 167.5.
>
> Has anybody else here felt the need, or maybe used, asymmetric pedals - 
> shorter on one side than the other?  Is there a problem inherent with this 
> (other than hassle of buying a new crank arm)?  Is there some kind of 
> out-of-balance load that will crack my bottom bracket shell or some such?
>
> Before I go off and buy a shorter Suguino XD2 crank arm, I just wondered 
> if there are others who have had/solved a similar problem.  
>

-- 
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/7e88bfac-1cc3-4b71-8f77-f9b162db33c9n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Strange Question - Asymmetric Pedals

[aeroperf]

In June 2022 we did a tour down the Canal du Midi in southern France.  In 
June 2022 it was 105 degrees in the shade in southern France - fires 
breaking out everywhere - but we had already paid, so we went.
Long story short, I got heatstroke and something called compartment 
syndrome, which resulted in an 18 day stay in a hospital in Carcassonne.

What’s my point?  I now pedal with the ball of my foot on the right side, 
and closer to the arch of my foot on the left.  So, since I have 170mm 
pedal arms… my right foot is happy but my left foot wants something a 
little shorter; maybe 165 or 167.5.

Has anybody else here felt the need, or maybe used, asymmetric pedals - 
shorter on one side than the other?  Is there a problem inherent with this 
(other than hassle of buying a new crank arm)?  Is there some kind of 
out-of-balance load that will crack my bottom bracket shell or some such?

Before I go off and buy a shorter Suguino XD2 crank arm, I just wondered if 
there are others who have had/solved a similar problem.  

-- 
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/81ef5fb5-5101-4fe5-b544-539155200ffbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Russell

Your collection presents like an afficionado of vintage and vintage 
inspired "classic" road bikes.  If your hypothetical Rivendell is going to 
be "at home" in that collection, it won't be something you buy from 
Rivendell currently.  It's clear to me that you'll want to find a second 
hand Rambouillet, which are well-regarded, particularly to fit that 
classic, traditional, road silhouette.  I hope you find one when you're 
ready.

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 11:32:20 AM UTC-8 Russell Duncan wrote:

> I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
> interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
> Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
> I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
> tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
> wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
> Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
> tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 
>
> For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
> measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
> wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
> measured along the seat tube CtoC
>
> 1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0
>
>
> 1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0
>
> 1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5
>
> 1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0
>
>
> 1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0
>
> 1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0
>
>
> 1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5
>
>
> 1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
> 1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
>
> mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0
>
>
> Russell Duncan
>
> Saratoga, WY
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>>> probably find 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Steven playfully spoke in code.  Steven said:

"was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well 
enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous 
Cinellis as an example."

Stevens playfully *decoded* message is: "Double top tubes are stupid and 
wrong, all the time.  Jobst rode huge stage race road bikes off road all 
the time.  Even though he broke them EVERY SINGLE SEASON, he still never 
got a second top tube because they are stupid.  He eventually got the best 
Mountain Bike Torch in the history of the world to build him a road bike 
(Tom Ritchey).  Because Jobst was shocked that it didn't break, and because 
Jobst sincerely tried to break it, that proves that the diamond frame is 
sufficient for all riders of all heights and weights, including all cargo 
formats, even when built by factory workers not named Tom Ritchey.  Those 
double-top-tube bikes all over India and China?  That's all for fashion. 
 Those cargo carriers just have the second top tube to look good at the 
chai-wallah."

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA


On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> Bill, you quoted Grant :  
> When he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, 
> was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well 
> enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous 
> Cinellis as an example. 
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
>>> Homers.
>>>
>>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
>>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
>>> board with everything they do. 
>>>
>>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
>>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Steven Sweedler]

Bill, you quoted Grant :
When he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary,
was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well
enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous
Cinellis as an example.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire


On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the
> bikes they sold."
>
> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email,
> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining
> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a
> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When
> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a
> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED
> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell
> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people
> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top
> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm
> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's
> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they
> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have
> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter
> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing
> for the hand wringers.
>
> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very
> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were
> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube
> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about
> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.
>>
>> That's one way to put it.
>>
>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about
>> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it.
>> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a
>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make
>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves
>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect
>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>
>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the
>> bikes they sold.
>>
>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll
>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and
>> Homers.
>>
>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and
>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on
>> board with everything they do.
>>
>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments
>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front
>> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do
>> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>>
>> cheers -mathias
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago
>>> do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as
>>> PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial
>>> Complex!
>>>
>>> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike
>>> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>>>
>>> BL card-carrying in EC
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>>>
 Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.

 I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by
 the design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride
 that for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with
 long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing
 I need.  Yet.  :)

 Will

 On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Piaw Na]

What I’m reading is that most of you concur that Grant is not right all the 
time (with regards to bike design). Big companies are not right all the 
time. He’s right some of the time, as are the big companies. Answer, as 
always, is somewhere in the middle. 


I think it's laughable to think that there can exist such a thing as 
"right" with regards to bike design. It's always "right" for the intended 
rider's use. Some bikes have a very wide performance envelop or some users 
have a very narrow use case but demand perfection within that use case 
(think racers or downhill MTB folks). Not everyone will value the same 
thing. A beginner might not care for the refined Rivendell ride or even 
appreciate it for the carefully thought through geometry (which includes 
selection of tubing). An experienced rider might still consider weight far 
more important than the aesthetics that Grant values.

I consider myself very fortunate in that my use cases match almost 
precisely with the performance envelope Grant designs his bikes for. It 
didn't take long after I first test rode a 1993 Bridgestone RB-1 that I'd 
realized that this was a bike I could live with forever.  30 years later, 
his follow on bikes ride very similarly and are (for my use cases) even 
better. But that's a good 30 years in which I wasn't a Rivendell customer 
and was happily riding various other bikes (one of which is still my 
favorite 1993 Bridgestone RB-1 geometry with minor tweaks). But I have no 
illusions that what works for me works for others. My wife tried a Cheviot 
and immediately bought one because it felt like the bike she'd been riding 
all her life. My friend Arturo tried a Roadeo and immediately tried to buy 
one but since the wait time was too long ended up with a custom Lynskey 
built to the Roadeo's geometry. But a third friend tried my son's Roadini, 
and said something like: "Oh. It's in between my Trek FX2 and my Canyon 
Ultimate." She didn't think it was anything special and I think that's OK. 
What matters is that Rivendell bikes aren't everything for all people (and 
even for myself a big Rivendell fan, not all Rivendell bikes are for me). 
 

-- 
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/e396e20c-81e7-4ac5-aced-223941438bbcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

What I’m reading is that most of you concur that Grant is not right all the 
time (with regards to bike design). Big companies are not right all the 
time. He’s right some of the time, as are the big companies. Answer, as 
always, is somewhere in the middle. 

It’s a good time to be a cyclist right now with so many choices. I can do a 
fast 40 mile loop on my road bike with all modern components. Then go for a 
leisurely ride with my wife on her Betty Foy on the MUP. What great world 
we live in right now. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:32:20 PM UTC-7 rus...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
> interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
> Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
> I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
> tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
> wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
> Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
> tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 
>
> For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
> measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
> wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
> measured along the seat tube CtoC
>
> 1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0
>
>
> 1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0
>
> 1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5
>
> 1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0
>
>
> 1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0
>
> 1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0
>
>
> 1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5
>
>
> 1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
> 1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
>
> mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0
>
>
> Russell Duncan
>
> Saratoga, WY
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Russell Duncan]

I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 

For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
measured along the seat tube CtoC

1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0


1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0

1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5

1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0


1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0

1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0


1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5


1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0

1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0


mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0

1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0

1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0


Russell Duncan

Saratoga, WY

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
> bikes they sold."
>
> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
> for the hand wringers.  
>
> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>
>> That's one way to put it.
>>
>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
>> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
>> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>
>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold. 
>>
>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
>> Homers.
>>
>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
>> board with everything they do. 
>>
>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
>> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
>> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>>
>> cheers -mathias
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to 

[RBW] Re: Building a Quickbeam and wondering...

[David]

Thank you, Bill. This is really helpful.

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:32:08 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> All that stuff is pretty darn common.  One place to go is eBay.  
>
> cranks: https://www.ebay.com/itm/386838756264
> 40 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/255458588990
> 32 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196275801449
>
> People find practically free bike parts at "the bike co-op", or "the local 
> bike kitchen".  That takes effort but you can save a lot.  People post 
> "want to buy" posts on this group, and often somebody has what you seek in 
> their parts bin.  There's a hundred ways to pull a build together.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:20:23 AM UTC-8 David wrote:
>
>> This is all really great input. The trouble I'm having is finding a 
>> configuration out there (new or otherwise) that comes close to the  Sugino 
>> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. Where would you go 
>> to gather these parts?
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>
>>> I have an orange Quickbeam, which I bought new, with the original Sugino 
>>> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. I immediately 
>>> removed the provided 18t freewheel and put on a White 17/19t Dos Eno. I 
>>> also put a 22 on the flop side of the flip/flop hub that Riv included with 
>>> the bike.
>>>
>>> With the long dropout, I can use 40/17 (99%+ of my riding), 40/19, 32/19 
>>> or 32/22. I like to say I have the world’s least convenient 4 speed. I 
>>> haven’t “shifted” the bike about 5 years or more, but in the first 8 years 
>>> that I owned it, I would take it for long recreational rides and need to 
>>> downshift for some hills. For the locals: I even rode it up Old La Honda 
>>> years ago, I think in the 32/19, maybe the 32/22. Age and 2 bouts with 
>>> cancer have made a single speed bike only suitable for commuting for me 
>>> now, but it’s great for that.
>>>
>>> I’d definitely recommend 2 chainrings at about 8t difference if you want 
>>> some versatility. I have the pop off SKS fender stay things, and pack an 
>>> old gardening glove in my saddle bag so I can change the gearing without 
>>> getting too messy.
>>>
>>> Drew
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-8 David wrote:
>>>
 What are your drivetrain specs? Cranks, chainrings, etc.  Simpleones, 
 too, if that's what you're riding. It appears Riv doesn't offer the 
 classic 
 single speed crankset anymore.
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/bcaab819-a88a-4be3-b6c2-0b5854b15488n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

"That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
bikes they sold."

LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
"Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
for the hand wringers.  

I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bill wrote:
> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>
> That's one way to put it.
>
> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>
> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
> bikes they sold. 
>
> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
> Homers.
>
> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
> board with everything they do. 
>
> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>
> cheers -mathias
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
>> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
>> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
>> Complex!  
>>
>> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike 
>> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>>
>> BL card-carrying in EC
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>>
>>> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>>>
>>> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by 
>>> the design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride 
>>> that for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
>>> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
>>> I need.  Yet.  :)
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
 chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
 sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
 is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
 chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
 flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 

 On Wednesday, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mathias Steiner]

Bill wrote:
>> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   

That's one way to put it.

The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.

That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
bikes they sold. 

In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll probably 
find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and Homers.

Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
board with everything they do. 

This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.

cheers -mathias

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
> Complex!  
>
> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike 
> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>
> BL card-carrying in EC
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>
>> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>>
>> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
>> design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
>> for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
>> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
>> I need.  Yet.  :)
>>
>> Will
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
>>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
>>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
>>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
>>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
>>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern 
 frame/parts design Bil"

 I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
 distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
 of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
 self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who 
 have 
 always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
 vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
 kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
 chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
 Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  

 That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
 that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
 is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
 aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
 continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
 energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
 at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
 they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
 would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
 making their dream happen.  Keep it up!

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA

 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:

>
> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
> @Bikeforums.net in 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Victor Hanson]

snicker.this is leaning into the disk brakes are better than rim brake
argument!

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:42 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> "Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than
> Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "
>
> Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts.
> Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are good
> bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, if
> they are selling what you want to buy.
>
> Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a
> cream head tube.
>
> Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short
>> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that
>> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17”
>> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed
>> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I
>> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for
>> my usage and terrain.
>> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the
>> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the
>> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain
>> bikes are now.
>> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited
>> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth
>> dirt roads.
>> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the
>> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk
>> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome
>> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your
>> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt.
>> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially
>> ones that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes.
>> But I’d say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an
>> alternative. Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter
>> stays than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>
>>> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase)
>>> vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know
>>> it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely
>>> hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long
>>> chain stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old
>>> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of
>>> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short
>>> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths
>>> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted
>>> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is
>>> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan
>>> was still producing them.
>>>
>>> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional"
>>> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones
>>> [super duper long])?
>>>
>>> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics
>>> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even
>>> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>>
 I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the
 original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike.

 I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a
 mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it
 to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay
 Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth
 dirt single track, from what I’ve seen.
 We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require
 some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections.
 Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a
 problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and
 get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my
 modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But
 why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter
 wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me.
 All this to say, it depends where you 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

"Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "

Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts. 
 Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are 
good bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, 
if they are selling what you want to buy.

Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
cream head tube.  

Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:

> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short 
> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that 
> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” 
> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed 
> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I 
> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for 
> my usage and terrain. 
> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
> bikes are now. 
> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
> dirt roads. 
> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the 
> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk 
> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome 
> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your 
> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially ones 
> that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. But I’d 
> say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an alternative. 
> Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
> Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>
>> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) 
>> vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know 
>> it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely 
>> hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>>
>> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
>> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
>> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
>> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
>> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
>> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
>> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
>> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
>> was still producing them. 
>>
>> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
>> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
>> [super duper long])? 
>>  
>> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
>> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
>> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>
>>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>>
>>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type 
>>> of trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
Complex!  

If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike Snob 
reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)

BL card-carrying in EC

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:

> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>
> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
> design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
> for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
> I need.  Yet.  :)
>
> Will
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
>>> design Bil"
>>>
>>> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
>>> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
>>> of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
>>> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
>>> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
>>> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
>>> kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
>>> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
>>> Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  
>>>
>>> That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
>>> that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
>>>  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
>>> is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
>>> aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
>>> continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
>>>  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
>>> energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
>>> at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
>>> they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
>>> would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
>>> making their dream happen.  Keep it up!
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>

 People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
 @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
 makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
 prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
 couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling 
 publications 
 like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
 Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
 to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that 
 has 
 the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
 vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
 love anything "new" and lots that don't. 

 The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
 beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
 crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
 triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 

 As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames 
 and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
 interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
 non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 

Re: [RBW] Best Rivendell for pavement riding

[Mathias Steiner]

@laing

Well.

That's some garage you've got there. I spy north of $2k invested in leather 
saddles alone. I approve.I have sent the pictures to my family and informed 
them that I will no longer take complaints about how I have "too many 
bicycles" and related nonsense.

Thanks for this!

cheers -mathias



On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-5 lconley wrote:

> Or you can buy a bunch of Rivendells and keep most of them
>
> [image: IMG_0034s.JPG]
> [image: IMG_0031s.JPG]
>
> Note that comfort depends a lot upon your body proportions. When I finally 
> got a Rivendell custom for my drop bar road bike, the top tube was 10 cm 
> longer than the seat tube.
>
> Laing
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:57:14 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> The other way to discover what you really want to ride is to buy a lot of 
>> bikes that sort of look like what you want (you are not sure what you 
>> want), upgrade them all, repeat several times as you try to perfect 
>> previously unrealized imperfections, then sell them at a loss. Do this for 
>> a couple of decades, then buy customs. This method costs a bit more than 
>> the other one.
>>
>> But yes, ride lots of Rivendells. All those I've owned (I bought 5 
>> including a 2nd-gen Ram and kept one that will turn 25 in April) all had a 
>> certain common handling and "feel" in common. And I do think that a Ram, if 
>> you don't want to spring for a Roadeo, might well be what you are looking 
>> for.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:39 PM Corwin Zechar  wrote:
>>
>>> ... Ride lots of bikes - Rivendells if possible. Think carefully about 
>>> what you want. Don't be afraid to try different things. Meditate on the 
>>> differences. And most of all, practice patience if you are looking for a 
>>> Ram.
>>>
>>

-- 
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/f494dde0-b49e-4cce-89ba-7c4cebbfb86en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short chainstay 
bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that point in time. 
But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” (~430mm) to be 
short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed it with 16.5” 
chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I felt it was too 
short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for my usage and 
terrain. 
I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
“revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
bikes are now. 
As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
dirt roads. 
And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the length. 
I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk about a 
looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome and if 
the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your weight 
back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially ones 
that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. But I’d 
say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an alternative. 
Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:

> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) vs. 
> long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know it 
> when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely hear 
> about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>
> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
> was still producing them. 
>
> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
> [super duper long])? 
>  
> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>
>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
>> trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
>> glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
>> Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
>> Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv 
>> enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and 
>> Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, 
>> really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB 
>> with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
>>> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[George Schick]

Ian sez, "...I still daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could 
ride forever, I understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and 
embrace change, and know that change is the only real constant, but it's 
not always for the better"

I began serious riding in the midst of the early 70's "bike boom" and have 
owned and ridden probably a dozen different bikes in the 50+ years since.  
Prior to that, I've had bikes ever since the mid-50's - a cantilever framed 
Schwinn with 24" wheels to start, then a 3-speed IGH Raleigh knock-off, 
then a cheap 10-speed.  I, too, have always been in search of the "perfect" 
bike that I could ride for the remainder of my life.  I finally dialed in 
on such a bike when I bought my Ram back in '04.  I'm approaching 75 now 
(IOW, "middle" old age) and still find it perfect fit.  I wish I would have 
had that bike way back when I began riding more seriously. It was basically 
a production model of what Riv called the "long low."  Everything about it 
is just perfect (for me anyway).

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:46:56 AM UTC-6 ian m wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:11:06 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  
>
>
>  I too had the same Clem origin story. I had always wanted a Riv but 
> couldn't afford one at the time while I was daily riding, touring, and 
> offroading an my '90 Fisher MTB. When the Clem was announced I was over the 
> moon, it sounded like it was designed just for me and the lower price point 
> meant I could stop dreaming of falling into some money to buy a Hunq and 
> get my first Riv. I think it's unfortunate that it was designed around the 
> Bosco bars which made it impossible for me to get a good fit with less 
> aggressively upright bars, and soon found out the extra long chainstays 
> made it a chore to lift the front end even enough to clear sharp tree roots.
> With the Clem not being up to off-road duty where I live I picked up a 
> Jones Plus LWB to hit the trails on and what a revelation. Similar 
> wheelbase length but it's the front center that is extended rather than the 
> rear triangle, so the bike felt incredibly nimble and handled 
> fantastically. Really smart design. Unfortunately I had to sell a bike to 
> free up some funds and chose the Jones over the Clem which I regret.
>
> I also wish that not every Riv model had growing chainstays. I still 
> daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could ride forever, I 
> understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and embrace change, and 
> know that change is the only real constant, but it's not always for the 
> better.
>

-- 
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/bdb7cfa2-bc3c-40f5-98f3-f29a9096d4b3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

the "long" chainstays on the pictured Atlantis, referred to in the picture 
of highlighted text, were "long" at the time, because the manufacturers who 
made those frames (Toyo and Waterford) had chain stays that long.  They 
would either cut them down to the desired length or leave them that length. 
 There was no such thing as longer than that from those two manufacturers. 
 Grant was designing bikes in a phone booth of manufacturing constraints.  

Grant's current manufacturer relationship has fewer constraints in some 
places, and more constraints in others.  He's still designing in a phone 
booth, but it's a different phone booth.  

What Grant comes up with in the future depends on the size and shape of the 
phone booth in the future.  

Grant's tastes keep evolving.  Those waiting for Grant's tastes to revert 
to some other time in Riv-history, or return back to some previous 
conventional forms are probably going to have to be very patient.  Whatever 
he comes up with next, I would be willing to bet it has never existed 
before.  If you are waiting for Rivendell to release a lugged clone of some 
other bike, that's not their jam.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:55:01 AM UTC-8 J J wrote:

> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) vs. 
> long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know it 
> when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely hear 
> about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>
> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
> was still producing them. 
>
> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
> [super duper long])? 
>  
> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>
>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
>> trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
>> glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
>> Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
>> Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv 
>> enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and 
>> Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, 
>> really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB 
>> with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
>>> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
>>> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
>>> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
>>> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
>>> morphed into something else, 

[RBW] Re: Mesabi Trail - Anyone ridden this?

[John]

I've visited individual sections but never a long, continuous stretch. I'd 
liken parts of if to the final section of the Munger State Trail 
 (from 
Jay Cooke State Park to Duluth) in terms of elevation and twistiness. 
Sounds right up your alley!

I personally love the Iron Range, in part for the scenery, but also the 
history and people. An educational/historically focused bike trip is one of 
my favorite activities, and this area has a lot to offer. I could spend 
weeks riding around and visiting museums and historical sites! I have to 
shout out the Forest History Center  in 
Grand Rapids and Minnesota Discovery  Center 
 in Chisholm as top notch.

There are plenty of hotels/motels in the bigger towns, but it may be worth 
confirming in advance if you're looking to stay in the smaller ones. I 
typically stay in established campgrounds, and sites can be hard to come by 
some summer weekends, so there too checking ahead would be advised. Some 
are nicer than others, or may be more geared towards RVers, but you'll most 
likely find a spot with a little planning. If you're into stealth camping 
there are plenty of wooded areas and lonely backroads.

I wouldn't say this part of the state is exactly famous for its cuisine, 
but you certainly won't go hungry or have trouble finding food. Similar to 
the Upper Peninsula there will be some pasties and the like. Plenty of bar 
food and pizza. I usually try to eat some fish (walleye, lake trout, 
whitefish, etc.) and wild rice while I'm there.

I think your idea makes for a most excellent summer adventure!

John in Minnesota

-- 
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/c4932891-c986-4a45-b193-e05f4f089624n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Feeler: ISO extra-small 26er?

[Michael Morrissey]

The rims are DT Swiss X430 Disc. The hubs are SRAM (later Salsas came with 
anodized Formula hubs stock!) and the tires are 26" x 1" Ritchey Tom Slicks.

M


On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:43:10 AM UTC-5 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm positive those were DT mtb rims.  I don't believe DT (or anyone?) ever 
> made a rim for disc road application.  With the move to wide rims, though, 
> "vintage" DT mtb rims like these look like modern "road" rims.
>
> Will
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:09 AM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>
>> Nice bike! Curious about the rims: I see that they're DTs but I can't 
>> read the model. I do see that they are made for disc brakes. Are these 
>> mountain bike rims or road rims? I'm tickled to see that the Tom Slick is 
>> still available, but then those DT rims must be pretty narrow and therefore 
>> -- ? -- 26" road rims ...?
>>
>> Patrick Moore, who rides 26" road wheels even tho' he also rides a 
>> theoretical level tt 60 c-c frame.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:57 PM Michael Morrissey  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [image: IMG_8082.JPG]
>>> [image: Screenshot 2024-03-06 at 2.39.47 PM.png]
>>> Thanks again to everyone on this list for helping me pick out a bike for 
>>> my wife! This is what I came up with thanks to Coal Bee Rye Anne's 
>>> suggestion (I had no idea they made a 26" version)! I bought a 2012 
>>> Salsa Vaya 50cm with 26" wheels. It fits her great. Not only was she 
>>> completely surprised, but she did that thing where someone test rides a 
>>> bike and they disappear long enough for you to seriously worry. She went 
>>> around the block. She has never had drop bars, disc brakes or a steel 
>>> frame. She reported that it was quicker and smoother riding off pavement 
>>> than she expected. This bike is so nice. I also looked at the Bike Insights 
>>> page and the geometry isn't far off of the 26" 46cm small Appaloosa. I 
>>> didn't get the best bargain price, but I found it at The Pro's Closet and 
>>> they had great service, packed up the bike nicely, and even through in a 
>>> little torque wrench. The listing is still up if you want to see the specs 
>>> and how much I paid. 
>>>
>>> The contrarian in me also appreciates that this bike has no Shimano 
>>> parts. It has a full SRAM kit, and since it is from 2012 I consider it 
>>> adequately modern but not annoyingly so. I might convert it to 1x10 for 
>>> simplicity's sake. She wanted a blue bike, so I got blue pedals and I might 
>>> get some more blue parts (anyone holding blue Chris King disc hubs?) for 
>>> some added flair. 
>>>
>>> Long live the 26" wheel,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:07:42 AM UTC-5 Michael Morrissey 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Everyone,

 I know there is a lot of bike knowledge on this board, but I was blown 
 away by the detail and thoughtful responses I got to my question. Thank 
 you 
 so much! I bought one of the bikes someone suggested from the above posts! 
 I got it shipped to my friend's house, and now I'm waiting a few weeks to 
 give it to my wife for her birthday. I'll post her reaction in a few weeks 
 when her birthday arrives. I hope it fits her and she likes it, and it 
 softens her up to let me buy more bikes.

 Thanks!

 Michael




 On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-5 mgst...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> I have a project that needs a little more work to finish it 
> up…..vintage 531 tubed gitane, originally drop barred 700c, now with 650b 
> wheels; built it up for my wife as a city bike when we lived between 2 
> places, but now back to one rural life, she rides her OG Glorius, but 
> mostly we’re tandeming.  The Gitane needs its cockpit sorted out, right 
> now 
> it’s a 1x9 with flat bars. It’s a very nice bike, she was quite fast on 
> it. 
> I; will post or send photos this eve, am in transit, and just noticing 
> this 
> late to the party
>
> Also i have a Vitus frameset, yes! that one!  Which she also rode, and 
> it was a light fast road experience. 
>
> They’re both fit my wife who is short of leg…we call it, ‘well endowed 
> in the torso’. 
>
> Ron in Western Mass 
>
> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-5 Michael Morrissey 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I'm thinking about getting a new bike for my wife. Currently, she has 
>> a Trek FX. She likes it a lot, but I can't help but think it doesn't fit 
>> her right. She is 5 feet tall, yet the bike has 700x35 tires. The frame 
>> is 
>> small but I think it's crazy to have an extra-small bike with the 
>> biggest 
>> wheel size. Google "Trek FX 13 inch" and look at this ridiculously 
>> proportioned bicycle. It looks like a penny-farthing.
>>
>> I think she would be much more comfortable on a steel 26" wheeled 
>> bike. I especially like it because I 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

I think Riv are pretty transparent about their intentions with the Gus/Susie bikes. They came up with “Hillibike” to differentiate from true (modern) mountain bikes. I too had a Jones 29 - not the spaceframe - a Diamond frame with Unicrown fork. Its modern equivalent is a Jones SWB. It was indeed a very fun, capable & versatile bike. For various reasons - some legit, some not - I decided I needed full suspension. I got this Ibis Mojo3, 27.5+ bike. On the trails I frequent, with lots of roots, some rocks, some switchbacks & generally pretty rowdy - but nothing like Utah - I was faster on the Ibis. But, I was not very comfortable. Because I had the Ibis I sold the Jones. I bought my Clem L to take its place as my everything except mountain biking duties. The Clem was transformational comfort wise. And, it is indeed capable & fun on mild trails. It convinced me I needed a Gus. I find the Gus & Clem similar but very different. The higher bottom bracket, stiffer frame & 29’er wheels make it a singletrack delight. Slower & less nimble than the Jones or Ibis? Probably. But I just don’t care. It’s just such a blast & oh so comfortable. The first time I did a serious trail on it (35 miles!) I called Riv to share my enthusiasm. Will answered. I told him they (Riv) could call their bikes anything they wanted to but it (my Gus) is a mountain bike!The transparency part is this; Riv does not endorse the thought that anything you can walk you should be able to ride. As I near 70 years of age, I endorse that notion. If I cannot clear a section on the Gus, I probably should not be doing it anyway!:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Hoch in ut  wrote:I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't feel the need to produce that particular tool.If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.    Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big 

Re: [RBW] Building a Quickbeam and wondering...

[Eric Daume]

You can buy a guard, but they are also easy to make: get a used/worn/cheap
ring that maybe 4 teeth larger than your biggest ring, and grind, snap, or
saw the teeth off, then file smooth.

Eric

On Thursday, March 7, 2024, David  wrote:

> This is all really great input. The trouble I'm having is finding a
> configuration out there (new or otherwise) that comes close to the  Sugino
> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. Where would you go
> to gather these parts?
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> I have an orange Quickbeam, which I bought new, with the original Sugino
>> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. I immediately
>> removed the provided 18t freewheel and put on a White 17/19t Dos Eno. I
>> also put a 22 on the flop side of the flip/flop hub that Riv included with
>> the bike.
>>
>> With the long dropout, I can use 40/17 (99%+ of my riding), 40/19, 32/19
>> or 32/22. I like to say I have the world’s least convenient 4 speed. I
>> haven’t “shifted” the bike about 5 years or more, but in the first 8 years
>> that I owned it, I would take it for long recreational rides and need to
>> downshift for some hills. For the locals: I even rode it up Old La Honda
>> years ago, I think in the 32/19, maybe the 32/22. Age and 2 bouts with
>> cancer have made a single speed bike only suitable for commuting for me
>> now, but it’s great for that.
>>
>> I’d definitely recommend 2 chainrings at about 8t difference if you want
>> some versatility. I have the pop off SKS fender stay things, and pack an
>> old gardening glove in my saddle bag so I can change the gearing without
>> getting too messy.
>>
>> Drew
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-8 David wrote:
>>
>>> What are your drivetrain specs? Cranks, chainrings, etc.  Simpleones,
>>> too, if that's what you're riding. It appears Riv doesn't offer the classic
>>> single speed crankset anymore.
>>
>> --
> 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/b054d6ff-6557-4b0d-bf44-
> ef2a998dc6c8n%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/CAHFNW5Ap11qU944AdmLYzPzURRYkVrBT2pELxifsdkYH7gMipg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[ian m]

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:11:06 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:

Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  


 I too had the same Clem origin story. I had always wanted a Riv but 
couldn't afford one at the time while I was daily riding, touring, and 
offroading an my '90 Fisher MTB. When the Clem was announced I was over the 
moon, it sounded like it was designed just for me and the lower price point 
meant I could stop dreaming of falling into some money to buy a Hunq and 
get my first Riv. I think it's unfortunate that it was designed around the 
Bosco bars which made it impossible for me to get a good fit with less 
aggressively upright bars, and soon found out the extra long chainstays 
made it a chore to lift the front end even enough to clear sharp tree roots.
With the Clem not being up to off-road duty where I live I picked up a 
Jones Plus LWB to hit the trails on and what a revelation. Similar 
wheelbase length but it's the front center that is extended rather than the 
rear triangle, so the bike felt incredibly nimble and handled 
fantastically. Really smart design. Unfortunately I had to sell a bike to 
free up some funds and chose the Jones over the Clem which I regret.

I also wish that not every Riv model had growing chainstays. I still 
daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could ride forever, I 
understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and embrace change, and 
know that change is the only real constant, but it's not always for the 
better.

-- 
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/3d7bc671-7dfa-488e-8e89-6536c072bd4en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Building a Quickbeam and wondering...

[Bill Lindsay]

All that stuff is pretty darn common.  One place to go is eBay.  

cranks: https://www.ebay.com/itm/386838756264
40 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/255458588990
32 ring: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196275801449

People find practically free bike parts at "the bike co-op", or "the local 
bike kitchen".  That takes effort but you can save a lot.  People post 
"want to buy" posts on this group, and often somebody has what you seek in 
their parts bin.  There's a hundred ways to pull a build together.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:20:23 AM UTC-8 David wrote:

> This is all really great input. The trouble I'm having is finding a 
> configuration out there (new or otherwise) that comes close to the  Sugino 
> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. Where would you go 
> to gather these parts?
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>
>> I have an orange Quickbeam, which I bought new, with the original Sugino 
>> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. I immediately 
>> removed the provided 18t freewheel and put on a White 17/19t Dos Eno. I 
>> also put a 22 on the flop side of the flip/flop hub that Riv included with 
>> the bike.
>>
>> With the long dropout, I can use 40/17 (99%+ of my riding), 40/19, 32/19 
>> or 32/22. I like to say I have the world’s least convenient 4 speed. I 
>> haven’t “shifted” the bike about 5 years or more, but in the first 8 years 
>> that I owned it, I would take it for long recreational rides and need to 
>> downshift for some hills. For the locals: I even rode it up Old La Honda 
>> years ago, I think in the 32/19, maybe the 32/22. Age and 2 bouts with 
>> cancer have made a single speed bike only suitable for commuting for me 
>> now, but it’s great for that.
>>
>> I’d definitely recommend 2 chainrings at about 8t difference if you want 
>> some versatility. I have the pop off SKS fender stay things, and pack an 
>> old gardening glove in my saddle bag so I can change the gearing without 
>> getting too messy.
>>
>> Drew
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-8 David wrote:
>>
>>> What are your drivetrain specs? Cranks, chainrings, etc.  Simpleones, 
>>> too, if that's what you're riding. It appears Riv doesn't offer the classic 
>>> single speed crankset anymore.
>>
>>

-- 
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/5db228aa-45e1-4e82-9b55-ec79e9b74a1fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Building a Quickbeam and wondering...

[David]

This is all really great input. The trouble I'm having is finding a 
configuration out there (new or otherwise) that comes close to the  Sugino 
74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. Where would you go 
to gather these parts?

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:

> I have an orange Quickbeam, which I bought new, with the original Sugino 
> 74/110 triple with the original 32/40/guard chainrings. I immediately 
> removed the provided 18t freewheel and put on a White 17/19t Dos Eno. I 
> also put a 22 on the flop side of the flip/flop hub that Riv included with 
> the bike.
>
> With the long dropout, I can use 40/17 (99%+ of my riding), 40/19, 32/19 
> or 32/22. I like to say I have the world’s least convenient 4 speed. I 
> haven’t “shifted” the bike about 5 years or more, but in the first 8 years 
> that I owned it, I would take it for long recreational rides and need to 
> downshift for some hills. For the locals: I even rode it up Old La Honda 
> years ago, I think in the 32/19, maybe the 32/22. Age and 2 bouts with 
> cancer have made a single speed bike only suitable for commuting for me 
> now, but it’s great for that.
>
> I’d definitely recommend 2 chainrings at about 8t difference if you want 
> some versatility. I have the pop off SKS fender stay things, and pack an 
> old gardening glove in my saddle bag so I can change the gearing without 
> getting too messy.
>
> Drew
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 12:21:08 PM UTC-8 David wrote:
>
>> What are your drivetrain specs? Cranks, chainrings, etc.  Simpleones, 
>> too, if that's what you're riding. It appears Riv doesn't offer the classic 
>> single speed crankset anymore.
>
>

-- 
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/b054d6ff-6557-4b0d-bf44-ef2a998dc6c8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 

I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require some 
tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. Whooptie 
doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a problem for 
the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and get off and 
walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my modern mountain 
bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But why walk when you 
can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter wheelbase bikes. 
Not fun. For me. 
All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv enthusiasts, 
I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and Wolbis are 
almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, really. Will said 
the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB with 2.4” tire 
clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of 
> it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved 
> that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  
>
> Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's 
> comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're 
> talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through 
> scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I 
> think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream 
> sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't 
> feel the need to produce that particular tool.
>
> If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' 
> bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to 
> make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's 
> what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.
> Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of 
> every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big 
> wheels into as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube 
> and re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work 
> with the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now 
> commonplace.
>
> The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely 
> mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance 
> and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The 
> "riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be 
> perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I 
> have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)
>
> The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and, 
> arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for 
> others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away 
> from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now 
> evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and 
> buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40 
> years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer, 
> slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike 
> industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas, 
> now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.  
>
> I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also 
> from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a 

Re: [RBW] Best Rivendell for pavement riding

[Steven Sweedler]

Bill, how wide are your tires. Thanks,

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire


On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:00 PM Bill Schairer  wrote:

> My Atlantis rolls on tubulars.
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 5:54:54 PM UTC-8 Max S wrote:
>
>> Do eet!
>>
>> - Max "Knock-knock... Hi! Have you heard the good news about carbon
>> tubulars?.." in A2
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:26:30 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> I have a tubular wheel set for my Roadeo also.  We're a GANG
>>>
>>> BL in EC
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-8 cz...@sonic.net wrote:
>>>
 Hey Max -

 If you are one of two people worldwide that run sew-ups on a Riv, I am
 the other one. I had Rich build a set of wheels for sew-ups so I could run
 them on any of four Rivs (my wife would not tolerate 33mm tires on the
 Hubbuhubbuh after riding 71mm tires).

 Regards,

 Corwin

 On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:15:09 AM UTC-8 Max S wrote:

>
> *"My first thought when I saw your RIvendell was:*
> *Off With 'is 'ead!!!*
> *Pure blasphemy. I love it." *
>
> Well, yes, thank you – shock and awe was part of the intent for this
> Halloween special "Iron Pumpkin" build  :-)
> BTW, those wheels are tubulars... I might be one of two people
> worldwide that run sew-up tires on a Riv?..
>
> - Max "totally tubular" in A2
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:25:59 AM UTC-5 mathiass...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> @Max
>> My first thought when I saw your RIvendell was:
>> Off With 'is 'ead!!!
>> Pure blasphemy. I love it.
>>
>> I reckon we can't complain -- they don't make SILVER carbon wheels
>> yet. You're forgiven.
>>
>> [Extra blather: Personally, I can't get into single speed. I went as
>> far as not shifting for a week on my commute in order to see if I wanted 
>> to
>> go SS for that purpose.
>> Can't do it. Even my snow bike has an IGH and I use the low and
>> middle gears every ride.]
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 6:50:06 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Now *that's* got to be the most different, unique, idiosyncratic
>>> Rivendell build I've seen; kudos for doing things your way!
>>>
>>> Reminds me of a mountain bike I saw parked at my WDC apartment back
>>> about 1987 with (IIRC) Scott AT-4 bar, disc wheels, and 1.5" Fatboy 
>>> slicks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:23 PM Max S  wrote:
>>>
 Here's my favorite Riv for pavement (and dirt) riding (tires and
 wheels are #1 and #2 concerns, saddle-to-bar drop is #3, and close 
 behind
 that is picking a reasonably fast color):

 [image: QuickBeam - Enve 67 carbon wheels - drive side.jpeg]

 - Max "orange you glad I didn't say banana?" in A2

 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:18:43 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Chuck, I believe the best Rivendell for pavement riding is
> whichever Rivendell that fits you well and is comfortable for your 
> body,
> that pleases you mechanically and aesthetically, that is within your
> budget, and that accomplishes whatever goals for the type of riding 
> you
> hope to do.
>
> You said you will be riding mostly on pavement. Pavement riding is
> a broad category, and there are many different modes and types of it. 
> Will
> it be "practical" pavement riding (like commuting or hauling stuff 
> from the
> supermarket), relaxed cruising on a weekend morning, or racing in a 
> group?
> Will you occasionally venture off road? All of the above?
>
> One of the things that makes Rivs so wonderful is their
> versatility. This is what I value about Rivs above all else, which is 
> why I
> gravitate to the various All Rounders. An Atlantis, for example, can 
> be set
> up many different ways and it will be brilliant in the various 
> guises. Swap
> a handlebar or tires (either wider or narrower, or to or from slicks 
> and
> knobbies) and you have a bike with different character suited for a
> different type of riding, all while retaining the Rivendell feel.
>
> If you want a "road" bike strictly speaking, there are a lot of
> great suggestions in this thread. In the end it comes back to your own
> subjectivity, and your sense of the kind of riding you will be doing.
>
> Good luck with your search!
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5 heike...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chuck--as you asked about the Appaloosa and a drop-bar
>> alternative, I'll chime in: I have a 51" 650B Appaloosa with Nitto
>> Choco bars

Re: [RBW] Best Rivendell for pavement riding

[Bill Schairer]

My Atlantis rolls on tubulars.

Bill S 
San Diego

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 5:54:54 PM UTC-8 Max S wrote:

> Do eet! 
>
> - Max "Knock-knock... Hi! Have you heard the good news about carbon 
> tubulars?.." in A2
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:26:30 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I have a tubular wheel set for my Roadeo also.  We're a GANG
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 11:15:09 AM UTC-8 cz...@sonic.net wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Max -
>>>
>>> If you are one of two people worldwide that run sew-ups on a Riv, I am 
>>> the other one. I had Rich build a set of wheels for sew-ups so I could run 
>>> them on any of four Rivs (my wife would not tolerate 33mm tires on the 
>>> Hubbuhubbuh after riding 71mm tires).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Corwin
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:15:09 AM UTC-8 Max S wrote:
>>>

 *"My first thought when I saw your RIvendell was:*
 *Off With 'is 'ead!!!*
 *Pure blasphemy. I love it." *

 Well, yes, thank you – shock and awe was part of the intent for this 
 Halloween special "Iron Pumpkin" build  :-) 
 BTW, those wheels are tubulars... I might be one of two people 
 worldwide that run sew-up tires on a Riv?.. 

 - Max "totally tubular" in A2
 On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:25:59 AM UTC-5 mathiass...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> @Max
> My first thought when I saw your RIvendell was:
> Off With 'is 'ead!!!
> Pure blasphemy. I love it.
>
> I reckon we can't complain -- they don't make SILVER carbon wheels 
> yet. You're forgiven.
>
> [Extra blather: Personally, I can't get into single speed. I went as 
> far as not shifting for a week on my commute in order to see if I wanted 
> to 
> go SS for that purpose. 
> Can't do it. Even my snow bike has an IGH and I use the low and middle 
> gears every ride.]
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 6:50:06 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Now *that's* got to be the most different, unique, idiosyncratic 
>> Rivendell build I've seen; kudos for doing things your way!
>>
>> Reminds me of a mountain bike I saw parked at my WDC apartment back 
>> about 1987 with (IIRC) Scott AT-4 bar, disc wheels, and 1.5" Fatboy 
>> slicks.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:23 PM Max S  wrote:
>>
>>> Here's my favorite Riv for pavement (and dirt) riding (tires and 
>>> wheels are #1 and #2 concerns, saddle-to-bar drop is #3, and close 
>>> behind 
>>> that is picking a reasonably fast color): 
>>>
>>> [image: QuickBeam - Enve 67 carbon wheels - drive side.jpeg]
>>>
>>> - Max "orange you glad I didn't say banana?" in A2
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:18:43 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>>
 Chuck, I believe the best Rivendell for pavement riding is 
 whichever Rivendell that fits you well and is comfortable for your 
 body, 
 that pleases you mechanically and aesthetically, that is within your 
 budget, and that accomplishes whatever goals for the type of riding 
 you 
 hope to do. 

 You said you will be riding mostly on pavement. Pavement riding is 
 a broad category, and there are many different modes and types of it. 
 Will 
 it be "practical" pavement riding (like commuting or hauling stuff 
 from the 
 supermarket), relaxed cruising on a weekend morning, or racing in a 
 group? 
 Will you occasionally venture off road? All of the above?

 One of the things that makes Rivs so wonderful is their 
 versatility. This is what I value about Rivs above all else, which is 
 why I 
 gravitate to the various All Rounders. An Atlantis, for example, can 
 be set 
 up many different ways and it will be brilliant in the various guises. 
 Swap 
 a handlebar or tires (either wider or narrower, or to or from slicks 
 and 
 knobbies) and you have a bike with different character suited for a 
 different type of riding, all while retaining the Rivendell feel. 

 If you want a "road" bike strictly speaking, there are a lot of 
 great suggestions in this thread. In the end it comes back to your own 
 subjectivity, and your sense of the kind of riding you will be doing.

 Good luck with your search!

 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5 heike...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Hi Chuck--as you asked about the Appaloosa and a drop-bar 
> alternative, I'll chime in: I have a 51" 650B Appaloosa with Nitto 
> Choco bars 
> ,
>  
> which Riv describes thus: "It's also good for road bikes instead of a 
> drop 

[RBW] Re: Video: Repairing Pam Murray's Silver shifters

[ascpgh]

Thanks for that Eric, I really appreciate when things are opened and 
demystified. Suntour's pawled/friction shifter guts have been diagrammed 
but watching them be opened, disassembled and serviced/reassembled is very 
rewarding. 

Really brings out the non-artist, inquisitive amateur mechanic in me, like 
Daniel Rebour's illustrations do. 

Andy Cheatham
Pittsburgh

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:48:05 AM UTC-5 eric...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi everyone — Last fall Pam Murray sent me some Silver shifter levers that 
> were in need of repair. They came off her high-mileage Betty Foy after the 
> springs wore out. 
>
> Thanks to Mike Godwin for sending me a broken pair of the old Suntour 
> Sprint levers, they provided the parts I needed to get Pam's shifters back 
> up and running. 
>
> I made a video about the process, it's up here: 
> https://youtu.be/0g67pjAPYZk
>
> I hope this is helpful to anyone looking to get their worn out or broken 
> Silver v1 or v2 shifters back into shape.
>
> Cheers! 
>

-- 
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/f9f05eef-edd6-41a7-bceb-aaac9dc01f8an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

You don’t know you “need” it until you’ve lived with it.:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 1:36 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:Eric D asked what model Treks.  Good question, as I just walked in on the sout side of the store and exited on the north side. The bikes are lined up in the 2-stack wall-mounted stands. Flat bars, sloping top tube, tall headtube, flat black with large diameter tubes, disc brakes, nothing I am going to do a double take on, for sure. But since the shop is on the other side of town and it is fun to look at the Paramount, and Cinelli, and Colnago in there, might as well take a gander at the long chainstay bikes. I can always ask about the mt bike rentals too. FYI, Foothill Cycles on Foothill in SLO towards the campus side of town. Mike SLO CA. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:What Treks did you see? Looking at their website, I don't see anything that long, outside their Electra cruisers. Trek has a LOT of models though, so it's easy to overlook something.EricOn Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:Went to my LBS looking for a bike box, and there is one wall with new long-chain stay-wheelbase Treks ready to ride out the door. I figured someone would copy Riv sooner or later. People have been copying Riv since late in the last century, much like folks are copying RH tires since about 2010. I guess they know a good thing when they ride it.Mike SLO CA On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who love anything "new" and lots that don't. The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have bailed on Specialized entirely.  What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth.  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike.  There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Will Boericke]

Here's an example of an extra long MTB, Esker's Hayduke.  I think there's a
shorter version but this one is definitely long.

Will

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024, 2:11 AM iamkeith  wrote:

> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones
> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated,
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of
> it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved
> that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.
>
> Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's
> comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're
> talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through
> scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I
> think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream
> sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't
> feel the need to produce that particular tool.
>
> If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones'
> bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to
> make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's
> what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.
> Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of
> every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big
> wheels into as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube
> and re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work
> with the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now
> commonplace.
>
> The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely
> mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance
> and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The
> "riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be
> perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I
> have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)
>
> The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and,
> arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for
> others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away
> from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now
> evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and
> buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40
> years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer,
> slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike
> industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas,
> now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.
>
> I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also
> from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that approached
> the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and criticized to no
> end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and wheelbases - to the
> point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold the company.  They
> were probably on the right track years early, but closed-minded critics and
> a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and progress for a decade and a
> half or more.  I had to go to the wayback machine to find this, but here
> they talk about that battle.  It's interesting to read in retrospect.
> (This was the real point of my now long-winded post.)(The other interesting
> thing to look at would be the relentless vassago hate threads from
> contemporary mtbr forums.):
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html
>
> I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when, in
> reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things,
> opinions of others be damned.  And Jones, on a whole other track.
>
> Last thought:  I have several older more-traditional rivendell models,
> with short stays and near-level top tubes.  I'm so accustomed to them after
> years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever
> upgrade.  But they look dated to my eye - not "classic."  Longer stays,
> sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me.  It's  a bit
> form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones?
>> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like