[RBW] Re: Rearview mirrors: necessary, effective, recommendations?

[ted]

Necessary? No. Handy and useful? Yes. Will one make the occasional head 
check entirely superfluous? No.
On upright back swept bars the german mirror RBW sells is great (have two 
of those).
On drop bars (and longer rides with more country road miles) I'm liking the 
GB mirror from RH in conjunction with a varia 510 rear radar these days. 
(silly expensive setup. but, if you can pay for it, nice).

I think this is one of those areas where different folks find different 
things suit them best. So since you are interested, I encourage you to get 
a reasonably priced one (lots of good suggestions here) and see how you 
like it. There is nothing like trying for knowing.


On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 9:21:36 AM UTC-7, Matthew Williams wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm thinking about getting a small, bar-mounted rearview mirror. For the 
> past forty-five years I've ridden without one and I'm in the habit of 
> constantly checking my surroundings, but after riding in traffic for 
> several months I'm thinking a mirror might be a good idea.
>
> Do you use a mirror, or is it unnecessary? Does it help, or is it just a 
> gadget that isn't a substitute for turning your head? What are your 
> recommendations for rearview mirrors? 
>

-- 
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/0a05c97e-7d00-4f06-8c1b-67f934347c77o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB 56 QB

[ted]

Just QB or QB/SO?

On Thursday, August 20, 2020 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, J L wrote:
>
> Anyone sitting on a size 56 Quickbeam that needs a new home? Let me know 
> offlist because I would really like to but it. 
>
> Jason

-- 
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/a0774ebd-033e-4752-a206-467cc7972c3ao%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: CL outting: Bombadil

[ted]

Need and want are two different things.
Do any of us really need every riv we own?
Or any of them for that matter?

-- 
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/7f0c01ff-2cbc-409d-bb28-ce0f092b5a10o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: 31.8 quill stems now available in 0, 30, 50 and 70mm

[ted]

My wife's pbh is long for her torso (relative to many folks), and she's 
prone to neck and shoulder pain if too stretched out on a bike for more 
than a few miles.
The other week I finally swapped out the 50mm stem on her Roadini with a 0 
offset stem I bought from James/Analog a looong time go.
(I rationalize my inexcusable delinquency by observing her upright bared 
Sam H serves her fine, so really she doesn't need the Roadini.)
She came back from the first round the block test with a big smile on her 
face. The bike finally fits her the way she wants, and we're both much 
happier.

Thanks James. Real nice stem.


On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 8:11:39 AM UTC-7, James / Analog Cycles wrote:
>
> [image: DSC08805.JPG]
> Discord Components now has a range of quill stems that might be of 
> interest to the group.  In fact, we specifically developed these for 
> Rivendell riders who wanted to run drop bars.  There are a bunch of great 
> bars available in 31.8 clamp diameters, and a decreasing number of good 
> bars in 25.4 or 26mm.  We've found the added stiffness of the larger bar 
> helps with tracking over rough terrain, feels more solid with a loaded 
> bike.  Add in steel as the stem material, stiffness is further increased.  
> 4 bolt faceplate means you can run alt bars or drops, and have plenty of 
> clamping force. 
>
> Made in Massachusetts by Alex Meade of Alex Meade Bikeworks for Discord.  
> Cerakoted gloss clear or satin black in Mass.  Designed in Vermont by 
> Discord.  
>
> 200mm quill.  22.2 diameter quill.  
>
> These are available at a few Riv dealers: Analog Cycles, the Psychic 
> Derailleur.  Also available at a few Riv friendly but not Riv specific 
> shops: C+L cycles in Montreal, Crumbworks in Japan.  
>
> -James / Discord Components 
>
> [image: DSC08830.JPG]
>
>

-- 
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/18c3eb15-b3c7-4695-a0b4-749f4f02bbf7o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: CL outting: Bombadil

[ted]

Good plan Joe, I believe you will be glad you did. I'm sure pleased with my 
clearcoated 52.

On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 7:30:07 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> I shall throw this wild assertion out: I'm buying it. Money hasn't 
> actually changed hands yet (this is a 'no PayPal' proposition) but I got 
> the 52cm size confirmed and said "Yeah I'll take it!" Stay tuned for 
> updates as they develop. Or developments as they update, your choice. 

-- 
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/e78ba8a7-6586-40b9-aa00-f5b311ec3ce6o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: CL outting: Bombadil

[ted]

I've got one of those early clearcoated bomadils. Like Joe the spider rust 
doesn't bother me. 
I did trade a few emails with RBW re the clearcoat "issue". My takeaway was 
that it's really a powdercoat "issue", but with colored powdercoat you cant 
see whats going on.
Mine isn't as clean as the one here. I've got what I think is leftover 
brazing flux and other telltale "features" clearly visible under the 
topcoat. 
Someday I might have it bead blasted, get all the minor leftovers cleaned 
up, and go for the full fancy wet paint Joe Bell treatment, but for now I'm 
loving the combination of fancy lug work and slightly brutish industrial 
utilitarian vibe. I feel it's a unique frame with some nice character.
The one here looks very cool too. I am confused about the size though. 
Stated stand over sounds like a 52 but it looked like they gave a bigger 
number for the st length.

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 1:29:45 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> Yes it's one of the raw finish frames Riv did for a bit before customers 
> freaked out over the rust forming under the clearcoat. I'm not a 
> freaker-outer, I dig it! 

-- 
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/69b7154c-73e7-489d-a6dd-5d105518f5f9o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[ted]

I think the GBW is the stoutest rough stuff loaded camping bike RBW makes, 
and no double top tubes there.
So clearly RBW doesn't think twin top tubes or diagatubes or rainbow tubes 
are the only way to make a large frame with the strength / stiffness they 
want in a touring bike.
For some of the frames they choose to go the extra tube route to get the 
strength / stiffness they want for that model in that size (I presume).
To my eye the MIT Atlantis is a complete redesign, longer chain stays, more 
tt slope, who knows what all else is altered from the original.
I wouldn't be surprised if the existence of the extra tube influenced the 
choice of tubing specs.
It may be overly simplistic to assume that all things are equal except for 
the addition of a whole nother tube.
It seems possible that the presence (or absence) of an extra tube on a 
particular model and size of RBW frame tells less about its mechanical 
properties than some of us tend to think.

If I were in the market for a frame for the uses RBW recommends the 
Atlantis for, and was tall enough to ride one with a rainbow tube, I 
wouldn't be second guessing Grant about that tube being an appropriate 
design choice unless I disliked the way it looks. YMMV of course.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 3:29:15 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> And yet, the original Atlantis was also meant for loaded touring, 
> performed splendidly in that role, and lacked the second top tube in all 
> sizes.
>
>
> On 8/4/20 11:01 AM, Vincent Tamer wrote:
>
> The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded touring. 
> The second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are presumably 
> heavier. That along with a heavy touring load makes the extra tube a good 
> idea.
>
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally; 
>> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is 
>> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by 
>> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by 
>> the added tube. 
>>
>> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the 
>> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just 
>> right.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>>
>>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true, 
>>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be 
>>> negligible. 
>>>
>>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the 
>>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me 
>>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others 
>>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those 
>>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the 
>>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes 
>>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the 
>>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame 
>>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely, 
>>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes, 
>>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative 
>>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes. 
>>>
>>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling 
>>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's 
>>> anecdotal. 
>>>
>>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding 
>>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be 
>>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's 
>>> totally off base from an engineering point of view. 
>>>
>>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I 
>>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue. 
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and 
 carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best 
 level top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 
 56 
 c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made 
 from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes. 

 I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is 
 also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork + 
 steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm 
 175.

 And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried 
 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight 
 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed 
 7 

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[ted]

The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you 
don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be 
there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be 
justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of 
arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does 
not belong.
"Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a tautology 
and as such is basically meaningless.
Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not practical? 
If yes I disagree.
Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as 
opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but 
insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are 
aesthetic and practical antonyms. 
Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at the 
thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The appearance 
of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they look 
like). YMMV.
Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply that 
the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or 
inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually 
used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike 
in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might 
get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the 
down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube 
"impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with 
lacking a practical reason for being.
qed ish 

ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his 52 
bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or 
something like that.


On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need.
>
> Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, but 
> the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the qualifications 
> already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of chromed steel to 
> a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can wear a 1 lb 
> weight around one's waist; no practical difference, but there's certainly 
> no structural reason for doing so.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics 
>> **is** a practical purpose.
>> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike 
>> + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight 
>> is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to theoretical) 
>> detriment.
>>
>>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f75597ef-dfae-4d8b-8760-5a846447048fo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[ted]

Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics **is** 
a practical purpose.
I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike + 
rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight 
is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to theoretical) 
detriment.


On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally; 
> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is 
> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by 
> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by 
> the added tube.
>
> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the 
> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just 
> right.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S > wrote:
>
>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true, 
>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be 
>> negligible. 
>>
>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the 
>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me 
>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others 
>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those 
>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the 
>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes 
>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the 
>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame 
>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely, 
>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes, 
>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative 
>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes. 
>>
>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling 
>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's 
>> anecdotal. 
>>
>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding 
>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be 
>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's 
>> totally off base from an engineering point of view. 
>>
>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I 
>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue. 
>>
>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and carry 
>>> heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best level 
>>> top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56 
>>> c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made 
>>> from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.
>>>
>>> I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is 
>>> also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork + 
>>> steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm 
>>> 175.
>>>
>>> And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried 
>>> 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight 
>>> 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed 
>>> 7 lb for frame + fork and Ultegra headset. This frame was a 58 c-c, IIRC.
>>>
>>> For anyone under say 250 lb who does not carry camping loads, a second 
>>> top tube is ornamental, not structural. Amen.
>>>
>>> Back when I lived in India and Pakistan and Kenya, you'd often see heavy 
>>> duty models of the stereotypical rod brake roadster wtih a second top tube 
>>> (and with heavy aftermarket fork braces), but these were bikes cheaply made 
>>> from cheap, weak tubing that carried 100 lb loads of firewood or 200 lb 
>>> loads of charcoal in gunny sacks, or a family of 4; even so, most Indian 
>>> and Pakistani made r b roadsters have single top tubes.
>>>
>>> Upshot: they look cool, but their benefit is purely aesthetic.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:19 PM S  wrote:
>>>
 Yes, the extra tube strengthens the frame. Otherwise you would be left 
 with a wobblier triangle and have to use thicker tubes and there goes at 
 least some of your weight savings. I think it's a good solution and looks 
 cool, so a double win. 

 On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 11:42:08 AM UTC-7 Jason Fuller wrote:

> I can imagine it's useful once you get into the 60cm range, since the 
> average rider weight is going up while the structural triangulation of 
> the 
> frame is going down.  But I can't deny that I love the totally 
> unnecessary 
> extra tube on the Hunq so who am I to judge. 
>
> The "unnecessary tube" I want, and 

[RBW] The Quickbeam Rides Again!

[ted]

Fabulous 

-- 
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/c1bbfe7a-d3c6-4183-ad79-b2d1e23c81d7o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Hot Waxing Chains

[Ted Durant]

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 6:18:22 PM UTC-5 mhec...@gmail.com wrote:

> Your experience, appreciated.
>

And lots of experience posted from all over! I gave wax a try for a couple 
of years, but it never made it through winters very well here (salty slush 
on the roads is a nightmare for chains and gears). To be fair, I didn't 
have a good, dedicated pot for heating the wax. I now have a caddy loaded 
with pretty much all the commercial concoctions aimed at bike chains from 
Dry to Epic conditions. Every one of them promise to be clean and long 
lasting, and none of them deliver on it. I have not yet tried NFS.

A couple of people have given the thumbs up to WD-40. I agree, it's tough 
to beat WD-40 for cleaning and a quick lube. If you want it to last the 
duration of a 200km or longer brevet, especially a wet one, well, that's 
not going to happen. I saw an article somewhere, as I was noodling on this 
issue, that showed WD-40 is the best lube and also is the shortest-lasting. 
Chain saw oil, which you can also find packaged as Phil (Wood) Tenacious 
Oil, is quite long lasting, quite messy, and higher friction. Higher is 
relative - as the Spicer research notes, friction losses are tiny.

In the course of my experimentation, I spied the old bottle of 3-in-One on 
my shelf and thought, "huh, why not?" It even says right on the front that 
it's great for bicycle chains. I've been using it for a few years now and 
am very happy with it. I can easily go a few hundred miles without care. I 
haven't had to ride a brevet in the rain with it, but I've had some wet 
rides and it lasts pretty well. In the winter, as with any lube, I have to 
clean, dry, and re-lube after every ride if the roads are wet and salty. 
Between lubes, an occasional wipe with a rag sprayed with WD-40 keeps the 
outside clean. Cleaning (more WD-40 and a rag) and relubing takes about 15 
minutes if I'm being slow. I also like to keep my derailer pulleys and cogs 
clean (more WD-40) at the same time.

One part of this topic I haven't seen discussed, but I think is crucial, is 
how the lube is applied. Waxing techniques are their own thing. Applying 
wet lubes, the biggest game changer for me was putting the 3-in-One into an 
old valve oil bottle with a needle applicator (from my other hobby, playing 
horn). The needle applicator allows for precise delivery of a small drop on 
each link - no more flooding the chain and spending another hour trying to 
get rid of the excess. My new bottle of 3-in-One appears to be a lifetime 
supply at this rate. And, the little bottle with the needle rides easily in 
my handlebar bag for a long ride.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee, WI USA

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5f6a0217-346f-4f95-b1a7-c639f8ed5416n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Derailer / Shifter Math for my Custom

[Ted Durant]

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-5 lconley wrote:

> ... I have an 11 speed Dura Ace 12-28 cassette and an 11 speed Campagnolo 
> Athena derailer. I have a bunch of shifters of all sorts, so I wondered if 
> any of them would allow indexing of the mixed components. So my research 
> says: the Shimano cassette has a cog spacing of 3.69 mm. The Campagnolo 
> derailer has a shift ratio of 1.5. Divide the cog spacing by shift ratio to 
> get required cable pull - 3.69 / 1.5 = 2.46. A 9 speed Dura Ace bar end 
> shifter (or Microshift 9 speed - of which I have both) has a cable pull of 
> 2.5 - sounds like it might work..
>
>
I've put together a spreadsheet of all this info, as much as I could 
collect from the Web. My info agrees - the rear derailer moves at a ratio 
of 1.5 : 1, and Shimano 11 Road (not the same as Shimano 11 Mountain) is 
3.96mm between cog centers, and that means you need 2.46mm of cable pull 
per click to make the Campy derailer hit the cogs on the Shimano cassette. 
My calc for Shimano 9-speed shifters is 2.53mm per click, which is a bit 
more, but if you're only using 9 of 11 you might find it works quite well. 

Interestingly, the math also works out to ~2.5mm for a SunTour derailer on 
Shimano 8-speed, so I'm using Shimano 9-speed bar ends with a SunTour XC 
pro rear derailer and an 8-speed cassette.

I find it more palatable to use only 8 of 9 clicks on a shifter than to use 
only 9 of 11 cogs on a cassette. Seems like you're carrying extra weight if 
you don't get to use those two cogs ;-)

Ted Durant
Milwaukee, WI, USA

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bccd7ae7-4938-4572-8b47-888a9b50ee8an%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: A different Mustache/Albastache set-up?

[Ted Durant]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 6:05:48 AM UTC-5 Dave Small wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> Do you have a picture of your set-up?  Before I read your post I'd 
> determined that the set-up I asked about won't work, but it seems you've 
> done it.  
>

I did not take any pictures of mine when I had it set up that way. 
 

> Below are pics of VO's City Levers installed on a Mustache bar.  The 
> levers are pushed up to the end of the straight section of the grip area, 
> and stop at the point that the bars start to curve.  The straight section 
> isn't long enough to accommodate the levers, which extend a fair bit beyond 
> the bar end.  From the bar end to the brake lever-retaining ring is only 7 
> cm.  Is that enough for you, or did you push 'em higher, or...something 
> else?
>

I positioned the levers more into the curve, and angled outward a bit 
rather than straight down toward the ground.


-- 
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/be0c28b7-4693-4101-94d0-ebada94a64d1n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: A different Mustache/Albastache set-up?

[Ted Durant]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 9:14:34 PM UTC-5 Dave Small wrote:

> I don't recall ever seeing a Mustache or Albastache bar set up like an 
> Albatross bar, with city brake levers and grips installed in typical 
> upright-bar fashion.  Is anyone aware of a reason that wouldn't work well? 
>  I'm tempted to try it but thought I'd ask here first in case there's a 
> reason that I simply don't see.  Thanks.
>
>
Excellent inquiry!! I had the same thought, and I bought some of the VO 
city levers for road bars to try it out. It's a huge improvement, IMO, for 
using M bars for upright, city-ish riding. Even for off-roading, I 
preferred them over regular road levers. I could never find a comfortable, 
useful brake lever position on M bars before that.  


-- 
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/be175145-645c-4be1-82f9-d6ad2a25b0dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: anyone know how to figure out Tire Radius/rim radius?

[Ted Durant]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21:55 PM UTC-5 Joel Stern wrote:

> I was asked to get my tire radius and I have no cluehow to do it.
>
>
Jason gave the straight math version from the rim and tire sizes, which is 
fine for most purposes.

If you want to get it more precisely, here are two approaches. For both of 
them, if you want it accurate for when you are on the bike, you'll want 
some help. Note that the results are tire pressure dependent.

With the bike as close to perpendicular to the ground as you can make it, 
measure the distance from the ground at the center of the tire contact 
patch to the center of the axle. Measure both sides several times and take 
the average of all the measurements (throwing out any oddball outliers if 
you have them).

The old Avocet Cyclometer prescribed method: Set the front wheel so the 
valve stem is at the very bottom and mark a line on the ground at the 
center of the tire contact patch, where the valve stem is. Ride the bike 
forward in a straight line one revolution of the front wheel, and mark 
another line where the center of the contact patch (and the valve stem) now 
are. Measure the distance between the two marks. Divide that distance by 
2*Pi, and that's your radius. (For more accuracy, repeat that measurement 
several times and take the average.). It's possible to put a chalk line on 
your tire and do this yourself, without help.


-- 
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/83f4113d-703e-4787-b5ee-276c56429957n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: FS: Rivendell Protovelo Bleriot S 57cm

[Ted Durant]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 4:30:05 PM UTC-5 ☆ Paul ☆ wrote:

> Ted, maybe I missed it in your post, but where did you get the S 
> couplers added?


Bilenky Cycle Works, Philadelphia
 

-- 
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/978bf524-4dbe-409c-ac61-1a2352724d81n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] A different Mustache/Albastache set-up?

[ted]

Bar diameter and lever clamp size are different for city vs road.

-- 
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/95102967-7166-415c-820f-ec5ceec753dbo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: XO-1 or Roadini

[ted]

Are you sure that a Roadini will fit 38mm tires? Would you be getting the 
47cm size that is built for 650b or one of the larger sizes that is 700c?

On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 7:47:40 AM UTC-7, Zack Medow wrote:
>
> RBW Owners Bunch I need your help!
>
> I'm looking to venture into the world of my first Rivendell/Bridgestone. 
>
> I'm at an impasse right now. I'm thinking of putting in an order for a 
> Roadini and set it up with the new Shikoro 38mm tires Riv is carrying. But 
> there's also a mint condition XO-1 right now on eBay in my size. 
>
> I'm going to be using this bike for road and city riding, maybe some very 
> light grav grav. I have a Jones for a trail bike, so that's not really a 
> concern. My goal is to find a supple steel bike that fits a wider tire 
> without resorting to a disc break and the stiff fork that comes with it. 
>
> Which one would you go for?? Is this a silly comparison?? 
>
>
>

-- 
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/684caeb1-13cd-46e2-8ff5-ca1373bda51ao%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Riv ripples in the bike world

[ted]

I was about to say "great, now there will be more normal reach brakes on 
the market", then I realized it's probably got disk brakes. Oh, and forget 
friction, it's probably built for electric shifting only with no cable 
stops at all.

On Sunday, July 12, 2020 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-7, Fullylugged wrote:
>
> While prepping for a FB live class this week on steering, I happened to 
> look up the geometry for the 2020 TREK Domane.  Here's the latest and 
> newest development in the race world:   
> "First and foremost, consider the tire size. The original Domane came with 
> 25mm-wide tires, but the new Domane has 32mm-wide ones as standard 
> equipment, with Trek’s official blessing for tires up to 38mm-wide front 
> and rear. When fenders are installed to the neatly hidden mounts, that 
> figure creeps down to a still-generous 35mm."  Hmm, sounds an awful lot 
> like the spec for the 2003 Rambouillet :)  Mine came with 32mm rubber and 
> can take up to 1 1/2" too!.  That Grant, such a trailblazer! 
>
> Tailwinds, 
>
> Bruce

-- 
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/8b20037b-bb1f-4edb-a018-ed2493718f7fo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Single-speed country bike(?)

[ted]

Yep with prototypes at RBW WHQ and early graphics in the blug/blhag, 
Platypi by xmas seems plausible. Barely hinted at 1 speeds, not so much.

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 12:40:04 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> Right now I'm just hoping the Platypus - which I don't need and may buy 
> anyway!  - lands by Christmas. I wouldn't be holding out for a 
> singlespeed Riv this year...

-- 
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/74cd290c-d396-4ec1-983c-dcbc74f6ad11o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ball In Socket Seat Tube Lug

[ted]

Yep, frame size and design flexibility. One lug to rule them all.
Aesthetically I do prefer the classic seat stay capped and brazed to the 
side of the seat lug design, but I like the new lug just fine too.


On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-7, S wrote:
>
> In addition to the advantages Ryan mentions, I suppose another advantage 
> of the ball-and-socket lug is that it allows Grant to use the same lug on 
> different bikes and to tweak the rear end on existing models, all without 
> having to design and pay for a new lug each time. 
>
> I don't like the looks of the ball and socket lug either, I think it looks 
> sort of clunky, but developing and casting new lugs is super expensive, and 
> if I am right about the flexibility it affords, then I can't argue with the 
> design on practical grounds. 
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 8:19:13 PM UTC-7 Scott McLain wrote:
>
>> I am curious to see what other's think of the new ball-in-socket seat 
>> tube lug that has now found its way on to all Riv bikes.  I don't like it.  
>> I don't know why or why not.  I hate to be critical of our good brothers 
>> and sisters at Riv.  I just love the old school lugs.  I would be 
>> interested to know how much money is saved going with the ball in socket 
>> lug and not using a bottom bracket lug.  Anyone know more about it?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>

-- 
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/a4efbb8d-9f91-458f-8861-07557b4d50e2o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Single-speed country bike(?)

[ted]

Given all that’s going on, I wouldn’t be surprised if late 2020 becomes spring 
or summer 2021.

-- 
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/07469f3a-202a-49ea-8306-319331f82553o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ball In Socket Seat Tube Lug

[ted]

I think the main advantage of the RBW ball and socket seat lug is that it 
works for most any seat stay to seat tube angle, so one casting works for 
all sizes.
Aesthetics are always in the eye of the beholder. Personally I like the 
looks of the new lug fine. Of course others may not.
Another beneficial feature of the new lug is that the stays will trap the 
handle end of a frame pump nicely. On my FJ Sr. I put a topeak frame pump 
along the back side of the seat tube with one end on the left side chain 
stay and the other tucked between the seat stays at the seat lug. Nice.

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 6:57:44 AM UTC-7, Ryan M. wrote:
>
>
> https://rivbike.tumblr.com/post/173252562647/note-this-unearthed-blug-was-supposed-to-appear
>  
>
> Here is a Blug post that has pictures of the Riv. ball and socket seat 
> tube lug. 
>
> "  The ball-and-socket seat stay joint eliminates sheer forces and adds 
> strength. The main shoreline of the seat lug is familiarly Rivendell, the 
> same-ish swirls and all, and like all Rivendell seat lugs, it has other 
> obsessive details that — well, if you’re going to make it from scratch, 
> might as well be there— "
>
> I have an Appaloosa with the older non-ball and socket lug and just picked 
> up a Frank Jones with the new ball and socket lug and have to say I really 
> dig the new style. It looks nice and has some extra "cream" windows in the 
> lug that the other one doesn't have. I think it is visually appealing and 
> if had to choose between the two I would go with the lug that the Frank 
> Jones has. Not that there is anything wrong with the lug on the Appaloosa, 
> but the Frank is just a bit fancier looking.
>
> On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 6:17:46 AM UTC-5 Nick Payne wrote:
>
>> I like the way that Llewellyn does his socketed seat lugs, but others 
>> that I've seen - including the Rivendell ones - leave me cold. About 20 
>> years back I was thinking of buying a Heron frame, but in the end I didn't 
>> because it used that design of seat lug.
>>
>> These is the Llewellyn seat lug (centre):
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> And how it looks in a finished frame:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>

-- 
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/ad2c3dfa-bcca-43a4-99e9-40c1b944fda5o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] SOLD: FS: Rivendell Protovelo Bleriot S 57cm

[Ted Durant]

And it's sold, just that quick. You folks are awesome!

On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 5:40:04 PM UTC-5 Ted Durant wrote:

> For sale is my "Travelo" - a Rivendell Protovelo Bleriot that has S 
> couplers installed by Bilenky and a recent repaint (with Bleriot decals and 
> head badge) by Waterford. The paint is a stunning Metallic Copper with 
> cream head tube and fork, which I like to call "root beer with a creamy 
> head". I'm getting a travel bike that allows even fatter tires than these, 
> so sadly this one has to go. Will sell complete or will sell as 
> frame/fork/hs along with whatever other components you want to purchase. 
> There are a few scuffs/scratches on the frame from travel. Saddle and 
> pedals are NOT included.
>
> Asking $1450 for the whole bike (no saddle or pedals), $975 for the 
> frame/fork/hs (and travel cases), plus shipping. It will ship in its S 
> hard case, probably by Bike Flights, with all the tubes padded. Also 
> included with either the frame or whole bike is an S soft case, which I 
> will ship separately.
>
> Photos attached to this group posting. If you have trouble getting them, 
> ask and I'll send them to you.
>
> The current build includes:
> Stronglight headset
> Velo Orange wheels
> Compass Babyshoe Pass EL tires
> Rivendell Silver dual-pivot long-reach brakes
> Aero Gran Compe brake levers
> Ritchey WCS cranks (170mm) with Willow 49/34 chainrings
> Shimano Octalink BB
> Shimano Deore XT rear and 105 front derailleurs
> Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters
> Shimano 9-speed cassette 12-32 (Harris Cycles custom touring mix)
> Nitto Model 177 handlebars (44cm)
> Nitto/Ritchey 90deg (9cm) stem (OEM from '92 XO-1!)
> Nitto S65 seat post
>
> Ted Durant
> Milwaukee, WI USA
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/13dc01cf-e441-4101-b2fc-3134d4ec87fan%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bike frame suggestions for longish distance 95% road comfort

[ted]

Wahoo. Gotta love that.
Time to go buy a lottery ticket while your luck is hot.
Congratulations.

-- 
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/bbfbf19e-02bb-41ea-8d83-55f7075df0f7o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Single-speed country bike(?)

[ted]

First there was the QB
After a hiatus, there was one batch of SOs.
Another hiatus.
Then the Blue Lug instigated FJ Sr.
And another hiatus.

Another dedicated single speed coming out wouldn't surprise me.
I also wouldn't hold my breath.
RBW has a lot on their plate at the moment, and SS models don't seem to do 
all that well for them (IIRC the SO's were cleared out at a slight 
discount).

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 10:30:50 AM UTC-7, S wrote:
>
> Grant mentioned that a new single speed frame of some kind was a 
> possibility, but that if it happens, it won't be anytime soon. 
>
> On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 2:02:48 PM UTC-7 Tully Lanter wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall a mention of a single-speed country bike in the works, 
>> but can't for the life of me find the thread. It may have been a few months 
>> ago.
>>
>> Anyhow, is that the case, or strictly fanciful? I'm generally out of 
>> touch with RBW news these days...
>>
>

-- 
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/692314d9-4599-4b77-8acb-88730ed4403do%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 650b new Rivendell models (to me)

[ted]

Joel,

I'm sure you deserve a 401k funded retirement treat. It's great you are 
able to ride again. I too am recently (~1.5yr) retired. Great deal aint it? 
Everybody should be so lucky.

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 10:53:23 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>
> Ted, I have had 8 Rivendells before my accident 10 years ago, 4 were still 
> with me.  Sold 3 of my last 4 as I thought I would not ride again but kept 
> the Bleriot in the hope that I would as I bonded with the 650b.  Now 
> retired and riding again and I have not touched my 401 money.  Maybe I 
> deserve a treat.  
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:24 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Joel,
>>
>> Prices have certainly gone up since the Bleriot days, I think a lot of 
>> that is just years of inflation but still ...
>>
>> I encourage you to give the fine folks at RBW WH a call to discuss ride 
>> and handling of current models wrt your Bleriot. 
>> That said I would expect the AHH to be closer to your Bleriot but perhaps 
>> a bit more stable, and the Joe A and Atlantis to be more stable. 
>>
>> regards
>> ted
>>
>> On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>>>
>>> Ted, thanks.  I am beginning to understand the slopping TT and what that 
>>> means. From what I am reading I would be a 51 on the Homer and Appaloosa 
>>> and a 50 on the Atlantis.  My Bleriot was a bargain as these new MIT models 
>>> are snout what I paid for my first Road, and my next custom was just a tad 
>>> more.  The Longer chain stays would be welcome if the increase comfort, my 
>>> back would appreciate that.  I am also curious about he stability of the 
>>> front end, the Bleriot is good but just today I noticed a bit of a twitchy 
>>> feel which could have been me.  I have new 42mm tires on but I don’t think 
>>> that would have caused it.  
>>>
>>> Thanks, Joel
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:46 PM ted  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joel,
>>>>
>>>> The top tubes of most MIT Rivs (including the MIT AHH and Atlantis) 
>>>> have significantly more slope than the older models like your Bleriot.
>>>> Therefore the size for a given bar height with respect to seat height 
>>>> is smaller, and ones proper size based on pbh is smaller.
>>>> Stand over is increased by about half the difference in size (with 
>>>> respect to a more horizontal tt model).
>>>> Just changing the top tube slope should not cause perceptible 
>>>> differences in the ride qualities of an otherwise identical design.
>>>> The new MIT Atlantis and AHH also have longer chain stays (and I 
>>>> presume wheelbases) than the earlier Toyo and Waterford versions. I think 
>>>> there are other threads that speak to how these versions ride and handling 
>>>> compare, but a short answer would be longer wb and sitting further from 
>>>> the 
>>>> rear axle should give a smoother ride over bumps.
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 7:10:42 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was really confused at first at the A Homer Hilson, Appaloosa and 
>>>>> the new Atlantis. The sizing is very different than of old, like for my 
>>>>> Bleriot where I ride a 55cm bike, looks like on the Hilson and Appaloosa 
>>>>> I 
>>>>> would take a 51cm and on the new Atlantis a 50. So my question for those 
>>>>> that follow this do any of these have a more relaxed geometry or a more 
>>>>> comfortable ride than my Bleriot which is already comfortable? What can 
>>>>> anyone tell me about the sizing changes? When Grant measured me years ago 
>>>>> I 
>>>>> believe he had my PBH to 83 or a bit more, while when I had help from my 
>>>>> wife today it was on first measurement 80.645 and on second at 81.28 and 
>>>>> a 
>>>>> third at 82.5. Now when Grant measure me I thought I would pass out (well 
>>>>> not really but it was a bit drastic) and the bike had no extra standover 
>>>>> for me. The Bleriot has a bit of standover so I have no doubt that I 
>>>>> could 
>>>>> probably go down a bit. It also looks like the TT have gotten even longer 
>>>>> on these bikes, not maybe the added degree of slope makes that a non 
>>>>> issue 
>>>>> and maybe there is something there with position of the rider on these. 
>>>>> Do the l

Re: [RBW] Re: 650b new Rivendell models (to me)

[ted]

Hey Joel,

Prices have certainly gone up since the Bleriot days, I think a lot of that 
is just years of inflation but still ...

I encourage you to give the fine folks at RBW WH a call to discuss ride and 
handling of current models wrt your Bleriot. 
That said I would expect the AHH to be closer to your Bleriot but perhaps a 
bit more stable, and the Joe A and Atlantis to be more stable. 

regards
ted

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>
> Ted, thanks.  I am beginning to understand the slopping TT and what that 
> means. From what I am reading I would be a 51 on the Homer and Appaloosa 
> and a 50 on the Atlantis.  My Bleriot was a bargain as these new MIT models 
> are snout what I paid for my first Road, and my next custom was just a tad 
> more.  The Longer chain stays would be welcome if the increase comfort, my 
> back would appreciate that.  I am also curious about he stability of the 
> front end, the Bleriot is good but just today I noticed a bit of a twitchy 
> feel which could have been me.  I have new 42mm tires on but I don’t think 
> that would have caused it.  
>
> Thanks, Joel
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:46 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Joel,
>>
>> The top tubes of most MIT Rivs (including the MIT AHH and Atlantis) have 
>> significantly more slope than the older models like your Bleriot.
>> Therefore the size for a given bar height with respect to seat height is 
>> smaller, and ones proper size based on pbh is smaller.
>> Stand over is increased by about half the difference in size (with 
>> respect to a more horizontal tt model).
>> Just changing the top tube slope should not cause perceptible differences 
>> in the ride qualities of an otherwise identical design.
>> The new MIT Atlantis and AHH also have longer chain stays (and I presume 
>> wheelbases) than the earlier Toyo and Waterford versions. I think there are 
>> other threads that speak to how these versions ride and handling compare, 
>> but a short answer would be longer wb and sitting further from the rear 
>> axle should give a smoother ride over bumps.
>>
>> On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 7:10:42 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I was really confused at first at the A Homer Hilson, Appaloosa and the 
>>> new Atlantis. The sizing is very different than of old, like for my Bleriot 
>>> where I ride a 55cm bike, looks like on the Hilson and Appaloosa I would 
>>> take a 51cm and on the new Atlantis a 50. So my question for those that 
>>> follow this do any of these have a more relaxed geometry or a more 
>>> comfortable ride than my Bleriot which is already comfortable? What can 
>>> anyone tell me about the sizing changes? When Grant measured me years ago I 
>>> believe he had my PBH to 83 or a bit more, while when I had help from my 
>>> wife today it was on first measurement 80.645 and on second at 81.28 and a 
>>> third at 82.5. Now when Grant measure me I thought I would pass out (well 
>>> not really but it was a bit drastic) and the bike had no extra standover 
>>> for me. The Bleriot has a bit of standover so I have no doubt that I could 
>>> probably go down a bit. It also looks like the TT have gotten even longer 
>>> on these bikes, not maybe the added degree of slope makes that a non issue 
>>> and maybe there is something there with position of the rider on these. 
>>> Do the longer chain stays contribute to more comfort? 
>>> I also ride upright.
>>>
>>> So I guess I am confused.
>>>
>>> Any input is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Joel
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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/WdEHPCJKVGU/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b07f499d-a176-4009-b0b3-152c3efb7df4o%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b07f499d-a176-4009-b0b3-152c3efb7df4o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> -- 
> ~IMPORTANT~ Note to all~~ EMAIL ETIQUETTE
> If you forward this email, please highlight and delete the forwarding 
> history, which includes my email address and maybe others. It is a courtesy 
> to me and others who may not wish to have their email addresses sent all 
> 

[RBW] Re: 650b new Rivendell models (to me)

[ted]

Joel,

The top tubes of most MIT Rivs (including the MIT AHH and Atlantis) have 
significantly more slope than the older models like your Bleriot.
Therefore the size for a given bar height with respect to seat height is 
smaller, and ones proper size based on pbh is smaller.
Stand over is increased by about half the difference in size (with respect 
to a more horizontal tt model).
Just changing the top tube slope should not cause perceptible differences 
in the ride qualities of an otherwise identical design.
The new MIT Atlantis and AHH also have longer chain stays (and I presume 
wheelbases) than the earlier Toyo and Waterford versions. I think there are 
other threads that speak to how these versions ride and handling compare, 
but a short answer would be longer wb and sitting further from the rear 
axle should give a smoother ride over bumps.

On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 7:10:42 AM UTC-7, Joel Stern wrote:
>
>
> I was really confused at first at the A Homer Hilson, Appaloosa and the 
> new Atlantis. The sizing is very different than of old, like for my Bleriot 
> where I ride a 55cm bike, looks like on the Hilson and Appaloosa I would 
> take a 51cm and on the new Atlantis a 50. So my question for those that 
> follow this do any of these have a more relaxed geometry or a more 
> comfortable ride than my Bleriot which is already comfortable? What can 
> anyone tell me about the sizing changes? When Grant measured me years ago I 
> believe he had my PBH to 83 or a bit more, while when I had help from my 
> wife today it was on first measurement 80.645 and on second at 81.28 and a 
> third at 82.5. Now when Grant measure me I thought I would pass out (well 
> not really but it was a bit drastic) and the bike had no extra standover 
> for me. The Bleriot has a bit of standover so I have no doubt that I could 
> probably go down a bit. It also looks like the TT have gotten even longer 
> on these bikes, not maybe the added degree of slope makes that a non issue 
> and maybe there is something there with position of the rider on these. 
> Do the longer chain stays contribute to more comfort? 
> I also ride upright.
>
> So I guess I am confused.
>
> Any input is appreciated.
>
> Thanks, Joel
>

-- 
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/b07f499d-a176-4009-b0b3-152c3efb7df4o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Problems with Nitto stems and bars?

[ted]

All the technomic ish stems I've had are of the deluxish genus with the 
nice custom "nut" that matches the stem shape.
But If presented with one of the other kind with a standard nut, I would 
put a wrench on it and not trust the, in my view, sketchy ledge to hold it.
Because, I don't buy aluminum wrenches or sockets, and much prefer 6 point 
tools over 12. So even if the clearance were very tight I wouldn't trust it.
But hey that's just me. YMMV

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-7, John Hawrylak wrote:
>
> aeroprof
>
> I agree with you, no substitution was made on Leah's stem.
>
> What I meant was Nitto designed the stem for a Standard M6 hex nut (13mm 
> flats) some time before 2000 when I bought my 225mm Technomic with 80mm 
> stem.  Some time between 2000 and 2010 Nitto made a design change to go to 
> a JIS M6 hex nut with 12mm flats.
> The design change added 0.5mm of margin between the nut flat and the 
> ledge and is reasonable, but not as tolerate to the allowed tolerances in 
> the bolt hole location and the ledge shape/location.
>
> I would guess they made a change if they were running into too many 
> problems with the clearance between the nut flat and ledge.  All very 
> reasonable, but *only* Nitto can say for sure.
>
> I think Leah's stem simply fell outside of the 6-sigma bell curve and was 
> not caught by Nitto.
>
> I think she ought to return it to RBW, and if they want they can pursue it 
> with Nitto.  Or maybe RBW/Nitto might say, " Ok it's 1 out X000's, which we 
> expected.  Give the a new one"
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
>
> On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-4, aeroperf wrote:
>>
>>
>> John—
>>
>> No, I don’t think they substituted a JIS nut for a standard M8 nut in 
>> this particular unit.  That was my first thought but my nut is close enough 
>> to the “step” that it looks like the design is for the JIS 12mm.
>>
>> My thought is more like #1 or #6 in Paul’s entry above, and your comment 
>> yesterday.
>> Say the hole is drilled a little off, or at a very tiny angle, or 
>> something like that.  You have to drill a hole a tiny bit oversized to 
>> account for manufacturing tolerance of the bolts, but just a little more 
>> and things can be off center.
>> There is also the fact that the step has a “draft” - it has a slight 
>> radius, at least on mine.  So the nut already may have an opportunity to 
>> misalign a little, and a very slightly misaligned or oversized hole would 
>> let it spin.
>> Finally, Leah’s photo indicates that the bolt/nut was slightly offset 
>> from the center of the hole.
>>
>> We tend to think “It’s just a bicycle”, but it is really a collection of 
>> precision parts clamped in loose formation.
>> Sometimes a part has a bad day in the manufacturing process and sometimes 
>> the quality inspectors don’t catch that.
>>
>>

-- 
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/ca8bdfc6-4faf-4a0e-bdb4-a52c984e2672o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bike frame suggestions for longish distance 95% road comfort

[ted]

I'd suggest a right sized roadini, note the latest email says they are 
going to start letting buyers take care of frame prep and headset install, 
either themselves or via a shop they trust.
Or a Black Mountain Cycles Road. Heck of a good value for your $.
Were I buying new with your priorities I'd pick between those two based on 
aesthetic and stem style preference.

I'm very happy with my BMC Road V3, very well behaved, quite zippy. I also 
really like the looks of my wife's Roadini though I've not ridden it.


On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 7:06:09 PM UTC-7, Andrew Turner wrote:
>
> Hello Group.
> Maybe I'll just start this conversation off with what I'm searching for 
> and I'll add the backstory after. 
>
>- steel frame + fork (lugged preferably) that could clear 700x32 tires 
>- rim brake
>- lightish tubing ( I weigh a scant 132lbs at 6'1") 
>- DT shifter braze-ons 
>- Trying to keep the price to no more than $1000 for frame + fork
>- Frames of all ages welcome 
>- Designed to hold weight in the front (but I can make do with a 
>saddlebag)
>
> Bikes I've had in the past to try to fit these requirements: 
>
>- VO Campeur: way better suited for heavy touring. Way stouter than I 
>need.
>- Black Mtn Cycles monster cross: pretty nice but that frame really 
>wanted tires in the 38mm+ range which is overkill for me. 
>- Rivendell Roadini: damn fine frame and very comfortable. Tig welded 
>though and I might've gotten too large of frame with the 61cm. On my list 
>of possibilities though. The quality was also a disappointment for my 
> first 
>riv, chipped paint out of the box and very poorly installed headset. 
>
> I just got done with my first longer ride on a 58cm Gazelle Champion 
> Mondial AA frame . I built it up because riding my first brevet on the VO 
> Campeur a year ago made me realize how important a more nimble bike, 
> especially for majority road use, is. But I might've gone too far. It's a 
> rocket no doubt but I found it fatiguing having to stay so vigilant on 
> descents. And putting the weight up front lead to a very close call down a 
> particularly sketchy downhill. I think slacker geometry might help with 
> that ;) 
>
> All this to say, if any of you rando kids have some suggestions I'm all 
> ears! 
>
> Thanks Group, 
> Andrew
>
>

-- 
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/ff949fe0-b55a-4cbf-9c7a-2bcc367d43bdo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Problems with Nitto stems and bars?

[ted]

"Don’t know why this stem chewed up my bars ... "
I don't think this is uncommon. Nitto sells a tool to help avoid it.
https://www.benscycle.com/nitto-tool-4-stem-handlebar-clamp-spreader/stem_tool_nitto__870-900-11_870-900-11/product
A large flat head screwdriver, or some such, can sometimes work instead.

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:
>
> Riv shows out of stock so I called and luckily, their crackerjack mechanic 
> answered the phone. Mark said lubricate the interface (stem/bar) and use 
> wrench to stabilize nut. Meanwhile, he found a triangular nut to sell me, 
> so I’ll try that, too. The shelf that the hex nut snugs up against is too 
> shallow. Plus the aluminum must have worn a bit, making the issue worse 
> (that explains the shavings in my hand).
>
> Don’t know why this stem chewed up my bars or why the ticking, but these 
> are reasonable steps. I’m scared of something as important as a stem being 
> defective, and I’d almost just spring for a new one, but there are none 
> available online.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:37 AM, lconley > 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Rivendell sells them for $5, or you can just put a wrench on the nut you 
> have.
>
> Laing.
>
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 12:35:21 PM UTC-4, Eric Norris wrote:
>
>> Rivendell? Anybody who sells Nitto parts should be able to get one.
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy  
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:33 AM, Leah Peterson  wrote:
>>
>> The one on my teenager’s Clem has that. I’d love to have it for this stem 
>> - where do I get it?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:32 AM, 'Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch <
>> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is what you should have:
>>
>> 
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy   
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Leah Peterson  wrote:
>>
>> Eric, that’s the nut that came with it, and it’s the same nut on the 
>> other Technomic stem I have. How can it be wrong? Both stems were purchased 
>> new.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:29 AM, 'Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch <
>> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is the wrong nut. Nitto uses a triangular shaped nut on the back 
>> side. I don’t know that what you’re using is dangerous, but you should by 
>> all means get the proper Nitto nut.
>>
>> --Eric Norris
>> campyo...@me.com
>> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
>> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy   
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Leah Peterson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-owne...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/EA8DE212-405B-44B9-B964-AFEA9C1E431D%40gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> 
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:39 AM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
>> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> ++1 on this.
>>
>> The nut flats contact a 'flat' in the casting, and when you tighten the 
>> allen in front, the 2 flats contact each other, and the nut does not rotate 
>> as you tighten it.  Visually check the BACK of the stem for the nut flat to 
>> line up with the stem casting flat to line up.
>>
>> I would do this before greasing or oiling anything.  The bar is NOT 
>> designed to move or rotate in the clamp and needs grease only to prevent 
>> galvanic corrosion (dis-simiiar metals like steel in Al)
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, lconley wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Ok, what of the strangely spinning bolt? 

 Some Nitto stems have a nut on the backside that needs a wrench on it 
 when you turn the Allen wrench on the front bolt to keep it from spinning, 
 some do not. If you have a nut on the back of the stem that you did not 
 hold still while you were turning the Allen wrench, that is likely your 
 problem - the stem bolt was never tight.

>>>
>>> Laing 
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/FHIW1F5qAE0/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/27254025-63a2-48a3-8c29-1a949402a15eo%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 

Re: [RBW] Problems with Nitto stems and bars?

[ted]

The photo Eric posted looks like a Technomic Delux. What you are describing 
sounds like a plain Technomic.
If you want to find a 50mm Technomic Delux, I suggest trying Ben's / 
Milwaukee cycles
https://www.benscycle.com/
   
https://www.benscycle.com/nitto-ntc-dx-technomic-deluxe-long-quill-stem/stem_nitto_ntc-dxlong_870/product
   
https://www.benscycle.com/nitto-technomic-l225-long-quill-stem/stem_nitto_technomicl225_870/product
Excellent source for all things Nitto.

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 9:33:40 AM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:
>
> The one on my teenager’s Clem has that. I’d love to have it for this stem 
> - where do I get it?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:32 AM, 'Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Here is what you should have:
>
> 
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com 
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy  
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Leah Peterson  > wrote:
>
> Eric, that’s the nut that came with it, and it’s the same nut on the other 
> Technomic stem I have. How can it be wrong? Both stems were purchased new.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:29 AM, 'Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> That is the wrong nut. Nitto uses a triangular shaped nut on the back 
> side. I don’t know that what you’re using is dangerous, but you should by 
> all means get the proper Nitto nut.
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com 
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy   
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Leah Peterson  > wrote:
>
>
> -- 
> 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-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/EA8DE212-405B-44B9-B964-AFEA9C1E431D%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
> 
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:39 AM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> 
> ++1 on this.
>
> The nut flats contact a 'flat' in the casting, and when you tighten the 
> allen in front, the 2 flats contact each other, and the nut does not rotate 
> as you tighten it.  Visually check the BACK of the stem for the nut flat to 
> line up with the stem casting flat to line up.
>
> I would do this before greasing or oiling anything.  The bar is NOT 
> designed to move or rotate in the clamp and needs grease only to prevent 
> galvanic corrosion (dis-simiiar metals like steel in Al)
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, lconley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok, what of the strangely spinning bolt? 
>>>
>>> Some Nitto stems have a nut on the backside that needs a wrench on it 
>>> when you turn the Allen wrench on the front bolt to keep it from spinning, 
>>> some do not. If you have a nut on the back of the stem that you did not 
>>> hold still while you were turning the Allen wrench, that is likely your 
>>> problem - the stem bolt was never tight.
>>>
>>
>> Laing 
>>
>
> -- 
> 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/FHIW1F5qAE0/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/27254025-63a2-48a3-8c29-1a949402a15eo%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-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/EA8DE212-405B-44B9-B964-AFEA9C1E431D%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/FHIW1F5qAE0/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rene Herse Tires with tubes

[ted]

Patrick M,

Hm.

First I'd encourage anybody who hasn't used tubulars, is up for the gluing 
aspect, and has an interest in it to give them a try.

Though I like my RH tires, I think comparing RH tires to tubulars is sort 
of apples to oranges. The tubulars I rode were 21 or 22 mm road racing (or 
training) tires. The good ones had a round cross section even before you 
inflated them, and they all had a round cross section when inflated. The 
effect of that roundness may have been primarily psychological, but somehow 
tubulars never felt as narrow as 23mm clinchers do to me. The tubulars gave 
a remarkably comfy ride even pumped to ~100psi. They also gave very 
immediate and responsive handling. It's possible the different wheel types 
played a roll too. I used light low profile rims like Arc En Ciel, and 
gl330 or gl280. I think even a "light" clincher rim like the Pacenti Brevet 
or the MA-40s that were ubiquitous in the 90s is significantly stiffer than 
those old tubular rims. Surely the more aero rims common today are.
I don't think my recollections are good enough to pass judgement on the 
relative rolling resistance compared to tires I ride these days, but I'd 
hazard a guess that they (the good hand made tubulars) roll more easily. 

Most of the tires I ride now are a lot bigger than a road tubular. I like 
them a lot, they are comfy, and handle well if I don't run the pressure too 
low. But I don't think I would like riding those tires in a criterium, 
particularly not a technical downtown one (as opposes to a wide open course 
in a business park). Perhaps not even for a road race, where shoulder 
rubbing bar bumping crunches weren't unheard of either. However I don't do 
those things anymore so it's not really relevant for me.

The 26mm cayuse extralights mounted to Hed Ardennes+ rims on my BMC Road 
are probably close to a good hand made tubular, but I doubt they are quite 
the same. They are very nice though and I doubt Ill ever go to the trouble 
and expense of setting up a road bike just to have for riding tubulars when 
I want to do so. But I'd never call into question anybody else's decision 
to so.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 10:16:12 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Ted: Wrestling in prayer not to jerk the thread onto a tangent, but giving 
> in to sin with the consolation that the tangent isn't irrelevant: Do you 
> find that the best GB and RH clinchers perform (criteria: rolling 
> resistance, at least perceived, and cushioning over bumps of any sort) as 
> well as tubulars? If no, can you explicate?
>
> Thanks. Patrick "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" Moore, in full confidence of 
> the group's absolution.
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:51 AM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Trying is knowing. Do it.
>>
>> After riding strictly on tubulars for a couple decades I went back to 
>> clinches and never got results I was really happy with till I tried a pair 
>> of Grand Boise extralights I bought from Compass bikes (before JH 
>> introduced his like of tires). If you are at all interested in RH tires, I 
>> encourage you to try them. They were around and used very successfully by 
>> many folks before TC versions were even available.
>>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3887d7b6-91a2-4ff1-8bf4-5f5cee3e5bffo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Rene Herse Tires with tubes

[ted]

Trying is knowing. Do it.

After riding strictly on tubulars for a couple decades I went back to 
clinches and never got results I was really happy with till I tried a pair 
of Grand Boise extralights I bought from Compass bikes (before JH 
introduced his like of tires). If you are at all interested in RH tires, I 
encourage you to try them. They were around and used very successfully by 
many folks before TC versions were even available.

I've had GrandBois extralight 32s, Soma GR (similarly "fragile" ~41mm), and 
two sets of Compass/RH extralight 38s on my 650b AHH. All run with tubes. I 
don't keep good records but I feel like I rarely get flats. Certainly go 
months at a time without one. I think I've had two sidewall cuts in my 
entire life, and one of those was on a continental "gatorskin".

My experience has been that the number of flats I get (using tubes) depends 
more on where and how I ride than it does on what tires I use. Most of the 
flats I get are from sharp thorns or debris that when pulled from the tire 
look like something that would have gone through any tire I would like to 
ride. E.g. riding continental gator skins didn't seem any more flat proof 
than light (no belt) Jack Browns, or Compass/RH extralights when I was 
commuting.

Abhorrence of goat heads, and the roadside debris that rains seem to bring 
onto the roadsides has me experimenting with tubeless on my BMC RoadPlus 
(WTB Byways set up by Mike V). For some conditions, I do like the sense of 
invulnerability they give me. But the set up with tubes is working so well 
on my AHH that, despite having wheels that give me the option, I'm not 
really considering changing that bike to tubeless.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 6:37:46 AM UTC-7, Brady Smith wrote:
>
> I’ve been Herse-curious for a while, but have always decided against them 
> due to concerns about durability, especially since I don’t have 
> tubeless-compatible rims. But I also recently read that Jan Heine actually 
> runs his tubed, and I’ve encountered other people doing the same. Since 
> there are lots of Herse-users here, I thought I’d ask about your 
> experiences. Tubed or tubeless? How often do you flat? I’m thinking about a 
> set of Snoqualmie or Barlow Pass tires for my BMC Monster Cross. These 
> would be summer fun tires for suburban and country roads. When it’s back to 
> commuting season (whenever that happens...) I’d put my Pasela Protites back 
> on. Thoughts? Thanks!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bc033b64-68b7-4f4b-a7ca-475f32114052o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Platypus Excitment on IG

[ted]

To clarify I was suggesting putting the brake lugs on the underside of the 
mid stays, not on the chainstays.
I don't think they would get gunked worse there than on the top as they are 
on that prototype, and I would think the cable routing was cleaner that way.
YMMV of course.

On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> I think the cable arrangement is fine the way it is. Putting brakes on the 
> chainstays attracts gunk; keeping them on the midstays and running the 
> cable up top would, I think, detract from the pretty line along the 
> toptube. Where it's situated now with the frame-pump stop envisions the 
> brake wire hidden alongside the pump.

-- 
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/feedbf30-3448-4306-b494-504cbfbfe8e6o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Platypus Excitment on IG

[ted]

Please, please, please.
On the final design either put the v-brake studs on the bottom of the mid 
stays or put the rear brake cable stops on the top of the "top" tube.
Brake cable should NOT cross the plane of the mid stays.

On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 12:21:03 PM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:
>
> See photos below. It’s Rivendell’s new mixte, replacing the Cheviot. Due 
> late fall. (We hope.)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 12:18 PM, George Schick  > wrote:
>
> 
> OK, I must have must something that was discussed either on this blog or 
> the blag, but just exactly *what* is a Platypus (not the animal - I know 
> what *that* is)?
>
> On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 1:32:45 PM UTC-5, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>>
>> Whatever you think of the name, the decals are really great. If you 
>> aren’t on Instagram, this is what you’re missing out on!
>>
>> Per Rivendell’s IG account, see photos...
>>
>> -- 
> 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/A71HOFjI5g4/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d1d6b23f-fa45-4b5c-be81-52ae4d291292o%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/8e2f5cc0-8fa2-45f4-8e3f-09a8380697cao%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Calaveras Loop (With my new Clem!)

[ted]

recommended variation on that route:
Make a left on Welch Creek (slightly before the bridge near the bottom of 
the climb on calaveras).
Go most of the way up and hang a right into Sunol Wilderness on the Eagle 
View (?) trail at the 2.7 mile marker parking pull out (parking on left).
Proceed down through the park and out on Geary road.
Rejoin Calaveras right at the bottom of the climb.

If you're ambitious, take Cave Rocks road up to where it hits Cerro Este 
road. Great views from up there, but rather a climb.

A nice all pavement variation is to go left after descending "the wall" at 
the end of Calaveras and take Felter all the way to the top of the climb on 
Siera. Then descend that down into Milpetas, or reverse back the way you 
came.

You can also ride into Pleasanton Ridge from Sunol, There is a road that 
looks like a driveway (identifiable by the presence of a stop sign) that 
comes off Foothill just just right of where you cross if you go up Kilkare. 
Take that road up a short steep incline to the end and there is a gate for 
entering the park at is southernmost end. It's possible (though perhaps not 
legal) to go north through the park then east and down to hit Palameres 
road right at the top of that climb. 

On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 9:34:34 AM UTC-7, Justin Lai wrote:
>
> Hello, all. Long time lurker, first time poster. 
>
>
> I picked up a new complete Clem H a few weeks ago from Blue Heron Bikes in 
> Berkeley, and took it on its first proper ride this Sunday on the Calaveras 
> Loop in Northern California. I fortunately live on the route, so was able 
> to enjoy the beautiful ride up Niles Canyon in Fremont, back down along the 
> freshly paved Calaveras Road down to Milpitas (Without ever getting into a 
> car!) 
>
> My buddy and I (Fellow Clem H owner who introduced me to Rivendell and had 
> me read "Just Ride" last year) stopped at Devout Coffee in Niles Canyon for 
> some takeout, before making a leisurely pace up Niles Canyon. It was a 
> perfectly sunny and breezy 70 degrees, and we could not have asked for 
> better weather. We made plenty of stops for snacks and photos, and took in 
> the views of the Calaveras Reservoir. After making our descent back down 
> from the Calaveras hills, we stopped by Taqueria Las Vegas for some 
> burritos, tacos, and horchata. 
>
>
> I couldn't have asked for a better "maiden voyage". I'm in love with this 
> bike, and am feeling especially fortunate to live in Northern California. 
>
> We're putting together a list of rides to do next. Would love to hear your 
> recommendations! 
>
> You can find more of my photos on Instagram at @jdlclem. 
>
> Thanks for reading! 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/b1ac2410-a277-4f6c-9905-b2aa2c6cdb83o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Cracked Tension Bolt on B17

[Ted Lewis]

Whereabouts are you? Maybe try calling around to LBS that sell a lot of Brooks 
or have a good repair shop.
Failing that, try googling for places near you that would have parts on hand. 
E.g. in Seattle
http://www.rideyourbike.com/brookssaddlerepair.shtml

-- 
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/f656c76b-fd37-46a7-96d3-b87dc7ef483co%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: In Praise of Road Bikes with Road Tires

[ted]

My Bombadil has Pacenti Quasi-Moto tires. I would think any non uber stout 
2 inch tire would behave much the same in this respect.
I have another more roadish bike with 47mm tires (wtb byway) I run at 
~25psi when I want things cushy. That one does fairly well off road as well.
Keep in mind at 20 psi, 2 psi is 10%. Do the fat bike crowd run pressures 
down in the single digits?
My rules of thumb are: 
   If your tires aren't soaking up bumps the way you want, lower the 
pressure, then lower it some more until they are. (too low may not be low 
enough)
   If you start getting pinch flats in the process, get bigger tires. (got 
the first classic pinch flat of my life yesterday, guess I should try 28mm 
tires on that bike)
   If you feel like your tires have too much rolling resistance, shop for 
more supple tires.
I think that approach can produce satisfactory results for a lot of folks 
without going beyond 28-33 mm tires. Despite the current popularity of 
"wider is better" and asking "how wide is too wide?" there can be wisdom in 
asking "how wide is wide enough?".
Typically it seems like tires are so much more compliant than even "std. 
diameter" thin wall tubing, that softer tires dominate wrt vertical 
compliance. Sounds like for you, not so much. First time for everything I 
suppose.
I expect you are aware there are folks who only like more flexible extra 
thin walled "standard" diameter tubed frames. Perhaps you do too. It's good 
to know what one likes.
I hope the stress levels in your fork blades are well below the fatigue 
limit for steel. Also that's a tall head tube, perhaps some of the flex in 
your fork is in the steerer tube?
Have you seen the video of Hincapie in Paris Roubaix sitting bolt upright 
with his disconnected bars in his hand as he veered into the ditch and 
separated his shoulder?

I think the handling of my Bombadil is somewhat different than my other 
bikes, I like it a lot for riding the hills in my local open spaces. Prefer 
other bikes for riding on roads though.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 4:24:23 AM UTC-7, Garth wrote:
>
> What are your 50mm tires Ted ?  It seems pressure does play a large role 
> in all this ! 
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:52:31 AM UTC-4, ted wrote:
>>
>> Love my road bikes, also love my Bombadil.
>>
>> Logged lots of miles on ~21 or 22mm tubulars, was on 26mm tires today. 
>> Yep, ride great. Probably wouldn't choose them for riding over the ridge in 
>> my local open space though.
>>
>> Yes wide tires are just wider, well wider and taller. The wider tends to 
>> mean they sink in less on soft surfaces. That can be a good thing or a bad 
>> thing. The taller helps to avoid pinch flats at lower pressures. They also 
>> need lower pressure to give the same spring rate. At 20 psi the 50mm tires 
>> on my Bombadil are quite compliant. At 30 not so much. But at 20 psi short 
>> of going fast over bad deep dried out bovine hoof prints i'd never 
>> characterize its ride as "jarring as heck". Clearly your millage differs 
>> though. 
>>
>> On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 4:10:41 PM UTC-7, Garth wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>  I've been riding my Franklin Reynolds 531ST custom from from '99 a 
>>> whole lot lately. man I like that bike. I had the 62 c-c frame made 
>>> with a 62cm TT and 46cm chainstays. I originally used the Dirt Drop bars 
>>> from Nitto but now use an Albatross 56cm steel. 36/46 Origin8 crank and 
>>> Sachs 7sp. 13-32 freewheel. 
>>>
>>>  speaking of big tires and all ... well riddle me this Batman how this 
>>> bike literally just floats over patch paved and cruddy washed out gravel 
>>> roads with not so fancy 33mm Forte Metro ST tires that were about $15  
>>> and my Bombadil regardless of the tires I've used even at very low pressure 
>>> is jarring as heck ? Exact same wheels builds on both. It's also easier for 
>>> me to maintain my line and speed with the road bike up steep washed out 
>>> backwoods gravel roads also, corrections are wholly intuitive and 
>>> effortless. Watching the fork flex like crazy over bumpy roads is also fun 
>>> ! 
>>>
>>> I could only "guess" it has a whole lot to do with the tubing and it's 
>>> design I suppose. Regardless, it's great and even though I've not yet 
>>> received my Suzie it has me rethinking the whole thing. I "hope" the Susie 
>>> is a whole lot more vertically resilient than the Bomba. But those Hilly 
>>> frames are a once in a lifetime "try" for me though. If not, I'll have 
>>> another road kinda bike made. Does Reynolds even make 531 anymore ? 
>>>
>

[RBW] Re: In Praise of Road Bikes with Road Tires

[ted]

Love my road bikes, also love my Bombadil.

Logged lots of miles on ~21 or 22mm tubulars, was on 26mm tires today. Yep, 
ride great. Probably wouldn't choose them for riding over the ridge in my 
local open space though.

Yes wide tires are just wider, well wider and taller. The wider tends to 
mean they sink in less on soft surfaces. That can be a good thing or a bad 
thing. The taller helps to avoid pinch flats at lower pressures. They also 
need lower pressure to give the same spring rate. At 20 psi the 50mm tires 
on my Bombadil are quite compliant. At 30 not so much. But at 20 psi short 
of going fast over bad deep dried out bovine hoof prints i'd never 
characterize its ride as "jarring as heck". Clearly your millage differs 
though. 

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 4:10:41 PM UTC-7, Garth wrote:
>
>  
>  I've been riding my Franklin Reynolds 531ST custom from from '99 a whole 
> lot lately. man I like that bike. I had the 62 c-c frame made with a 
> 62cm TT and 46cm chainstays. I originally used the Dirt Drop bars from 
> Nitto but now use an Albatross 56cm steel. 36/46 Origin8 crank and Sachs 
> 7sp. 13-32 freewheel. 
>
>  speaking of big tires and all ... well riddle me this Batman how this 
> bike literally just floats over patch paved and cruddy washed out gravel 
> roads with not so fancy 33mm Forte Metro ST tires that were about $15  
> and my Bombadil regardless of the tires I've used even at very low pressure 
> is jarring as heck ? Exact same wheels builds on both. It's also easier for 
> me to maintain my line and speed with the road bike up steep washed out 
> backwoods gravel roads also, corrections are wholly intuitive and 
> effortless. Watching the fork flex like crazy over bumpy roads is also fun 
> ! 
>
> I could only "guess" it has a whole lot to do with the tubing and it's 
> design I suppose. Regardless, it's great and even though I've not yet 
> received my Suzie it has me rethinking the whole thing. I "hope" the Susie 
> is a whole lot more vertically resilient than the Bomba. But those Hilly 
> frames are a once in a lifetime "try" for me though. If not, I'll have 
> another road kinda bike made. Does Reynolds even make 531 anymore ? 
>
> Also, a wider tire is just wider, not necessarily better or worse. I love 
> narrow tires as I grew up riding them so it's quite intuitive for me. I 
> rode many a pairs of Specialized Touring Turbo 27x 1/8 or 1/4. Those are 
> what I knew as "road tires" even before I got into road racing tires which 
> were even narrower. There is such a distinct feel, a precision that gets 
> lost in wider tires from all the bikes I've ridden. I've tried some wider 
> tires on my road bike and it just felt odd. It seems pretty obvious to me 
> that a frame that is quite compliant doesn't need overly wide tires to ride 
> "soft" and cushy.
>
> Then there's the simplicity of double crank and the ease of which to throw 
> on various parts. I also had cantilevers put on the frame and use Suntour 
> XC Pro's, and they are outstanding, I've never had such a effective brake. 
> It's also darn light to me, even with the heavy duty Phil/Mavic wheels that 
> are on it. 
>
> Hooray for road-tire bikes !  
>
>
>

-- 
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/8ecbb34b-8f67-44fc-a048-badf42872dcdo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Peace. Nobody should ever try to mess with your tubeless Big Ones. The 
proof is in the pudding, or something.

Schwalbe SV19A tubes for 700C x 40-62mm 140gr.
https://www.renehersecycles.com/shop/components/tires/700c/schwalbe-tubes-for-700c-tires/
doubtless available elsewhere too.


On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 4:54:02 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> I don't want to hear more evidence. I want my tubeless Big Ones. *Quod 
> erat demonstrandum *(as Euclid would say).
>
> But I'm pleased to hear you can buy 140 gram fat tubes.
>
> Patrick "the evidence is good enough for me, data be damned" Moore
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:46 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't doubt she shaved 1.5 lbs in the switch at all, just that it is 
>> all in swapping tubes for sealant.
>>
>> Try your calcs again ignoring the tires.
>> e.g:
>>(250-60)*2/454 -> ~ 0.84 lbs
>>
>> Now the tires alone:
>>(800-450)*2/454 -> ~ 1.54 lbs
>>
>> It's the tires man, the tires. Is all I'm saying.
>>
>> Oh and you could have saved 
>>   (250-140)*2/455 -> ~ .48 lbs
>> just by buying lighter tubes. That's .48/.84 -> ~ 57% of what you save by 
>> only swapping sealant for box stock tubes.
>>
>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is what I can calculate from memory for the switch for my 29er 
>>> wheels; I realize that Leah uses 650B, so adjust accordingly.
>>>
>>> 700C X 60 Big Apple, the "Liteskin" version: 800 grams on my scale.
>>> Box-stock 29er tube: 250 grams.
>>> Total: 1050 grams.
>>>
>>> 700C X 60 Big One: 450 grams on my scale.
>>> 2 fl oz sealant: 60 grams.
>>> Total: 510 grams.
>>>
>>> 1050 - 510 = 540 grams, which is ~1.2 lb, and that's for 1 wheel; 2.4 
>>> for both. So perhaps Leah's calculation is accurate. 
>>>
>>> I also swapped out the very nice 2" wide Snocat (also "Extralights!) at 
>>> 800 grams each even with big holes drilled in them for Velocity Blunt 
>>> SS's at a claimed 435 grams each; let's say 500 grams. That's another 300 
>>> per wheel or 600 total, 1.5 lb, for a grand total of 3.9 lb saved on both 
>>> wheels. Actually, I originally saved  another 0.4 lb -- 4.3 lb total -- 
>>> because I first installed 700C X 50 Furious Freds at 360 grams each.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 4:57 PM ted  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depending on the size tires you ride, replacing your tubes with sealant 
>>>> can save a few ounces but 1.5 pounds seems implausible.
>>>>
>>>> 1.5 pounds is 24 oz. add 3 for sealant (mind i think that 2-4 oz. is 
>>>> per wheel so I should add 6) and you get 27 so your tubes were over 13oz. 
>>>> each? That's about 370gr per tube.
>>>> A standard Schwalbe tube for 700c 40-62mm tires is only 220gr, the 
>>>> superlight one is 140gr. (ref: 
>>>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/shop/components/tires/700c/schwalbe-tubes-for-700c-tires/
>>>> )
>>>> Coming at it a different way, the 2-4 ounces is per wheel, that's 85 gr 
>>>> plus or minus, a schwalbe tube for a big tire is 140 or 220 gr. So 
>>>> replacing tubes with sealant should save something like 135gr per wheel 
>>>> for 
>>>> regular tubes, 55gr for light ones. That's 0.12 to 0.30 lb per wheel, or 
>>>> .24 to .6 pounds combined.
>>>> Something is not adding up here.
>>>> Also remember in about 6 months you'll add another ~2oz of sealant to 
>>>> each wheel. That's adding about 1/4 pound to your bike.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect most of your 1.5 pounds is lighter tires. I'd be very 
>>>> surprised if replacing the sealant in your tires with tubes would add 1.5 
>>>> pounds to your new wheels. And in 6 months (if you haven't worn out your 
>>>> tires you'll be adding) 0.25 pounds to refresh the sealant.
>>>> I am all for trimming fat off a bike. I'm also in favor of being 
>>>> accurate about where the fat is coming from.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is perfectly reasonable to not care where the lbs come 
>>>> from, hey your bike is now lighter, YAY.
>>>>
>>>> To try and lighten the mood after raining on the parade I offer:
>>>> Your on the road repair kit for tubeless may well be lighter than what 
>>>> you would carry for tubes. So that makes your bike even lighter.
>>>> Bonus fun, those beautiful colored s

Re: [RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

I don't doubt she shaved 1.5 lbs in the switch at all, just that it is all 
in swapping tubes for sealant.

Try your calcs again ignoring the tires.
e.g:
   (250-60)*2/454 -> ~ 0.84 lbs

Now the tires alone:
   (800-450)*2/454 -> ~ 1.54 lbs

It's the tires man, the tires. Is all I'm saying.

Oh and you could have saved 
  (250-140)*2/455 -> ~ .48 lbs
just by buying lighter tubes. That's .48/.84 -> ~ 57% of what you save by 
only swapping sealant for box stock tubes.

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 4:21:10 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Here is what I can calculate from memory for the switch for my 29er 
> wheels; I realize that Leah uses 650B, so adjust accordingly.
>
> 700C X 60 Big Apple, the "Liteskin" version: 800 grams on my scale.
> Box-stock 29er tube: 250 grams.
> Total: 1050 grams.
>
> 700C X 60 Big One: 450 grams on my scale.
> 2 fl oz sealant: 60 grams.
> Total: 510 grams.
>
> 1050 - 510 = 540 grams, which is ~1.2 lb, and that's for 1 wheel; 2.4 for 
> both. So perhaps Leah's calculation is accurate. 
>
> I also swapped out the very nice 2" wide Snocat (also "Extralights!) at 
> 800 grams each even with big holes drilled in them for Velocity Blunt 
> SS's at a claimed 435 grams each; let's say 500 grams. That's another 300 
> per wheel or 600 total, 1.5 lb, for a grand total of 3.9 lb saved on both 
> wheels. Actually, I originally saved  another 0.4 lb -- 4.3 lb total -- 
> because I first installed 700C X 50 Furious Freds at 360 grams each.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 4:57 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Depending on the size tires you ride, replacing your tubes with sealant 
>> can save a few ounces but 1.5 pounds seems implausible.
>>
>> 1.5 pounds is 24 oz. add 3 for sealant (mind i think that 2-4 oz. is per 
>> wheel so I should add 6) and you get 27 so your tubes were over 13oz. each? 
>> That's about 370gr per tube.
>> A standard Schwalbe tube for 700c 40-62mm tires is only 220gr, the 
>> superlight one is 140gr. (ref: 
>> https://www.renehersecycles.com/shop/components/tires/700c/schwalbe-tubes-for-700c-tires/
>> )
>> Coming at it a different way, the 2-4 ounces is per wheel, that's 85 gr 
>> plus or minus, a schwalbe tube for a big tire is 140 or 220 gr. So 
>> replacing tubes with sealant should save something like 135gr per wheel for 
>> regular tubes, 55gr for light ones. That's 0.12 to 0.30 lb per wheel, or 
>> .24 to .6 pounds combined.
>> Something is not adding up here.
>> Also remember in about 6 months you'll add another ~2oz of sealant to 
>> each wheel. That's adding about 1/4 pound to your bike.
>>
>> I suspect most of your 1.5 pounds is lighter tires. I'd be very surprised 
>> if replacing the sealant in your tires with tubes would add 1.5 pounds to 
>> your new wheels. And in 6 months (if you haven't worn out your tires you'll 
>> be adding) 0.25 pounds to refresh the sealant.
>> I am all for trimming fat off a bike. I'm also in favor of being accurate 
>> about where the fat is coming from.
>>
>> Of course it is perfectly reasonable to not care where the lbs come from, 
>> hey your bike is now lighter, YAY.
>>
>> To try and lighten the mood after raining on the parade I offer:
>> Your on the road repair kit for tubeless may well be lighter than what 
>> you would carry for tubes. So that makes your bike even lighter.
>> Bonus fun, those beautiful colored spoke nipples are Al instead of the 
>> typical brass, so not only do they look great they are lighter too.
>>
>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the other thing the #RivSisters wanted was less weight. Tubes are 
>>> heavier than sealant - the sealant was only 2-4 ounces. If I remember 
>>> right, I got rid of 1.5 pounds by shedding tubes. That said, none of us 
>>> women are weight weenies - we’re choosing stout Rivendell bikes as our 
>>> daily riders after all, but if we can trim some of the fat to make the 
>>> bikes more maneuverable, we do. 
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad 
>>>
>>> > On Jun 7, 2020, at 1:57 PM, ted  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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-owne...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/30821e92-b885-4b2d-aa25-b6c1a2944684o%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://grou

Re: [RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Depending on the size tires you ride, replacing your tubes with sealant can 
save a few ounces but 1.5 pounds seems implausible.

1.5 pounds is 24 oz. add 3 for sealant (mind i think that 2-4 oz. is per 
wheel so I should add 6) and you get 27 so your tubes were over 13oz. each? 
That's about 370gr per tube.
A standard Schwalbe tube for 700c 40-62mm tires is only 220gr, the 
superlight one is 140gr. (ref: 
https://www.renehersecycles.com/shop/components/tires/700c/schwalbe-tubes-for-700c-tires/)
Coming at it a different way, the 2-4 ounces is per wheel, that's 85 gr 
plus or minus, a schwalbe tube for a big tire is 140 or 220 gr. So 
replacing tubes with sealant should save something like 135gr per wheel for 
regular tubes, 55gr for light ones. That's 0.12 to 0.30 lb per wheel, or 
.24 to .6 pounds combined.
Something is not adding up here.
Also remember in about 6 months you'll add another ~2oz of sealant to each 
wheel. That's adding about 1/4 pound to your bike.

I suspect most of your 1.5 pounds is lighter tires. I'd be very surprised 
if replacing the sealant in your tires with tubes would add 1.5 pounds to 
your new wheels. And in 6 months (if you haven't worn out your tires you'll 
be adding) 0.25 pounds to refresh the sealant.
I am all for trimming fat off a bike. I'm also in favor of being accurate 
about where the fat is coming from.

Of course it is perfectly reasonable to not care where the lbs come from, 
hey your bike is now lighter, YAY.

To try and lighten the mood after raining on the parade I offer:
Your on the road repair kit for tubeless may well be lighter than what you 
would carry for tubes. So that makes your bike even lighter.
Bonus fun, those beautiful colored spoke nipples are Al instead of the 
typical brass, so not only do they look great they are lighter too.

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! wrote:
>
> Well, the other thing the #RivSisters wanted was less weight. Tubes are 
> heavier than sealant - the sealant was only 2-4 ounces. If I remember 
> right, I got rid of 1.5 pounds by shedding tubes. That said, none of us 
> women are weight weenies - we’re choosing stout Rivendell bikes as our 
> daily riders after all, but if we can trim some of the fat to make the 
> bikes more maneuverable, we do. 
>
> Sent from my iPad 
>
> > On Jun 7, 2020, at 1:57 PM, ted > 
> wrote: 
> > 
>

-- 
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/30821e92-b885-4b2d-aa25-b6c1a2944684o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

The Riv-sisters are changing three things at once (tires, wheels, tubeless) 
with wondrous results. Which of course is great. 
How much of the wondrousness is directly due to tubeless is, I think, an 
open (though perhaps unimportant) question. As such the clarity of that 
other dividing line might be in doubt. I think James would say: if they 
weren't going tubeless they would get too many flats with those tires and 
wouldn't be happy long term. So in his view the tubeless part of the puzzle 
is necessary to make the better riding tires viable. For anybody that's 
using great riding tires with tubes and not getting flats, that logic 
doesn't quite work.

No matter how you slice it, I think the tubeless v tubes thing comes down 
to what flats would one be getting with tubes that one wouldn't with 
tubeless, and how does the rider feel about those. I suppose there is also 
the matter of whether one finds the repair process for one system more or 
less onerous than the other.

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 12:54:39 PM UTC-7, Deacon Patrick wrote:
>
> Precisely my assessment as well, Ted. Goatheads are the dividing line I 
> see. Yet, clearly, there is another dividing line that Roberta and 
> Riv-sisters are pointing out as well, and I'm delighted it is working for 
> them.
>
> With abandon,
> Patrick
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-6, ted wrote:
>>
>> Hey Deacon,
>>
>> Though you are certainly big, and you may be an Ogre, I think we both 
>> know you're not dumb.
>> I think sometimes the move to tubeless gets conflated with the move to 
>> big supple low pressure tires, because some people do both at the same 
>> time. As you are already riding big supple low pressure tires, and are not 
>> bothered by flats, I'd argue you're clearly the opposite of a perfect case 
>> study for going tubeless. As you say you have no problem to fix. People who 
>> are familiar with goat heads however, often feel they do have a problem, 
>> and for them (and others bothered by flats resulting from similar 
>> irritants) tubeless may be an answer. Different circumstances / 
>> environments often warrant different equipment choices.
>>
>> regards
>> Ted
>>
>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-7, Deacon Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>> Sweet ride, Roberta! I know how much more my daughters love riding their 
>>> lighter Clementines compared with their previous, much heavier kid's bikes 
>>> or 90s Trek rebuilds. As an ogre who carries my bikepacking rig weighing up 
>>> to 100 pounds as needed, I don't innately appreciate that need and easily 
>>> forget it, until I am helping them get over rocks and roots on steep, 
>>> technical bits I just consider normal. Grin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Like you, Roberta, I enjoy freely wandering topics, learning much from 
>>> them. My 2.8" beefy tires on my GBW are the perfect case study for going 
>>> tubeless, yet I do not. Why? I've yet to experience the need. Cross 
>>> reference "big, dumb ogre." Grin. For me, the weight isn't a big deal. I 
>>> get plenty of tire suppleness with a tube with the carefully chosen suppler 
>>> tires I ride, and I still don't grasp how a field flat is addressed without 
>>> mess and frustration. Arguably, the one flat I've gotten on "Beorn" was due 
>>> to inner moving rub as it occured on the inside of the tube after months of 
>>> riding. Still, for me, tubeless is a solution looking for a problem. Grin. 
>>> I am delighted it is working for so many!
>>>
>>> With abandon,
>>> Patrick 
>>>
>>

-- 
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/72492e3d-0a2c-4070-b098-656e2b0b4393o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Hey Deacon,

Though you are certainly big, and you may be an Ogre, I think we both know 
you're not dumb.
I think sometimes the move to tubeless gets conflated with the move to big 
supple low pressure tires, because some people do both at the same time. As 
you are already riding big supple low pressure tires, and are not bothered 
by flats, I'd argue you're clearly the opposite of a perfect case study for 
going tubeless. As you say you have no problem to fix. People who are 
familiar with goat heads however, often feel they do have a problem, and 
for them (and others bothered by flats resulting from similar irritants) 
tubeless may be an answer. Different circumstances / environments often 
warrant different equipment choices.

regards
Ted

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-7, Deacon Patrick wrote:
>
> Sweet ride, Roberta! I know how much more my daughters love riding their 
> lighter Clementines compared with their previous, much heavier kid's bikes 
> or 90s Trek rebuilds. As an ogre who carries my bikepacking rig weighing up 
> to 100 pounds as needed, I don't innately appreciate that need and easily 
> forget it, until I am helping them get over rocks and roots on steep, 
> technical bits I just consider normal. Grin.
>>
>>
> Like you, Roberta, I enjoy freely wandering topics, learning much from 
> them. My 2.8" beefy tires on my GBW are the perfect case study for going 
> tubeless, yet I do not. Why? I've yet to experience the need. Cross 
> reference "big, dumb ogre." Grin. For me, the weight isn't a big deal. I 
> get plenty of tire suppleness with a tube with the carefully chosen suppler 
> tires I ride, and I still don't grasp how a field flat is addressed without 
> mess and frustration. Arguably, the one flat I've gotten on "Beorn" was due 
> to inner moving rub as it occured on the inside of the tube after months of 
> riding. Still, for me, tubeless is a solution looking for a problem. Grin. 
> I am delighted it is working for so many!
>
> With abandon,
> Patrick 
>

-- 
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/9d9354c9-a845-4e35-b752-e49bfebb5c8bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Nay, ill not leave it to proxies, though proxies are certainly welcome. But 
rather lets not fight.

Of course an ounce or two of liquid latex inside the tire is nothing like a 
1/4 inch layer of the solid kind between the tread and the casing. Nor is a 
mr tuffy liner anything like a light tube. Both naught but red herrings.

I think its been fairly well established (i.e. the engineering equivalent 
of settled science) that the vast majority of the energy losses related to 
rolling resistance are due to hysteresis losses in the tread and casing as 
they flex due to the movement of the contact patch around the tire as it 
rolls down the road. That's assuming a hard road surface of course, 
otherwise there are losses in the "road" that could dominate, and please 
lets not start on "suspension losses" occurring in the riders tissues. I 
wouldn't call hysteresis parts of the system rubbing on themselves. There 
are also losses due to bead squirm (reasonable to call that parts of the 
system rubbing against each other) and Jobst famously argued that tubulars 
have worse rolling resistance than clinchers because of losses in the glue. 
But those are small compared to the hysteresis in the tread and casing. I'm 
confident careful testing could measure losses due to the tube but I'm sure 
there would be losses from hysteresis in the tube itself, and I doubt it 
rubs against the casing in a measurable amount. I frequently have to peal 
tubes from tires when I don't talc them well. Don't think I've ever seen 
signs of abrasion. Even with a super thin latex tube and a piece of casing 
glued over a hole in the casing inside the tire.

I've used 80's hand made Clement tubulars, Vitoria CX, CG, and other 
cheeper cotton tubulars, Continental sprinter tubulars, Compass/RH 
extralights, the lighter Jack Browns, Schwalbe G-Ones, Continental BBall 
tires, Marathons, Schwalbe "fatties", Pacenti QuasiMotos, all with tubes 
and WTB Byways set up tubeless. I can certainly tell the difference between 
many of those different tires, and I consistently prefer the lighter 
flimsier ones.

I've also gone from cheep bulky heavy inner tubes to Schwalbe Superlight 
tubes. I can sure tell the difference in how bulky they are (or aren't) 
stuffing them into a patch kit, but I haven't noticed a difference in ride 
feel or effort. I have seen reports of testing with butyl vs latex vs 
sealant for rolling resistance. Can't recall how sealant fit in there but 
my recollection is the whole question was way down in the weeds.

The nearest thing to a direct tubed / tubless comparison I've experienced 
is two bikes I have where one is on WTB byways (47mm) set up tubeless and 
the other is on RH 38mm extralights with light tubes. My experience fits 
well with expectations for the higher volume lower pressure and slightly 
(?) heavier construction of the Byways compared to the RH. The bike with 
byways soaks up bigger bumps and holes better and seems a bit harder to 
push down the road. The only difference I experience that is clearly 
attributable to sealent vs tubes is: I don't give a thought to goat heads 
or road debris when I'm on the tubeless bike.

So I maintain ride, handling, and RR are dominated by tire pressure, 
construction and tread. Type of tube or tubeless has a tertiary effect and 
is lost in the weeds.
Of course YMMV and I'd not claim you cant have your own opinion.


On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 5:39:31 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Let us agree to fight it out by proxy. Proxies! Let us know your 
> (real-life, personal) experiences relevant to comparing how tubeless setups 
> affect ride quality -- resistance and cushioning. Include the effects, if 
> any, of sealant in tubeless tires.
>
> Also, why is "internal parts of the tire system rubbing against 
> themselves" not a factor? Or even, not reasonably conjectured to be a 
> factor? (Note the difference.) Perhaps it is not -- either; but I don't see 
> why it is not a factor or even a reasonably conjectured factor. Again, I 
> dump responsibility for evidence on proxies.
>
> I do not think, based on a priori and general evidence, that you can 
> reasonably suppose that an fld oz or so of liquid sealant should behave 
> like a layer of puncture belt; after all, one is liquid, one isn't. But I 
> can go beyond thought experiments. I resort to my own experience with the 
> Kojaks: these have a puncture belt (tho' be it said that they roll PDG for 
> commuter tires with such a layer), and were decent, not great, with tubes; 
> without tubes, elevated to Elk Pass (559 X 29, 175 -- !!! -- grams new!) 
> levels of felt speed and smoothness -- with 1 fl oz or so of Orange Seal in 
> them. Thus I refute your imaginings.
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 5:47 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Well, I've never run the direct experiment so I'll have to deffer to your 
>>

Re: [RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Well, I've never run the direct experiment so I'll have to deffer to your 
greater experience.
I will however mumble about confirmation bias, psychological bla bla bla 
etc.
And I'll reject your "stands to reason" outright.
I don't think "internal parts of the tire system rubbing against 
themselves" is an apt characterization at all. Also one does not just 
remove the tube and leave it at that, one replaces it with a volume of 
viscous fluid that is sloshing around in there while you ride. I think 
careful measurement would be needed to determine if the rolling resistance 
caused by a tube was greater or smaller than that caused by sealant, and I 
doubt the difference would be one that most cyclists could reliably detect 
in double blind testing.
On the opposite extreme putting a layer of latex between the tread and the 
casing, as some stout schwalbe tires do, makes for the deadest tires I've 
ever tried. Should I just assume with no careful testing that putting 
ounces of slowly drying laytex inside (and adding more every 6 months or 
so) has no effect at all?

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between stout schwalbe tires and 
similar sized RH extralights. The difference between the same tires with 
schwalbe extralight tubes or latex tubes? Not so much. Between extralight 
tubes and sealant? Also, not so much.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> My experience in comparing the same or similar tires tubeless and with 
> tubes is limited, but from based on that experience, I have to disagree: 
> getting rid of even light tubes (70 gram or even 60 gram lightweights in 
> the 26" X 1" or 650C X 23 mm sizes) certainly seemed to make Schwalbe 
> Kojaks roll faster and smoother, and I've mentioned my experience with 
> tubeless, paper-thin Big Ones. 
>
> This stands to reason: if a good amount of rolling resistance is caused by 
> the internal parts of the tire system rubbing against themselves, then 
> removing one suchj element would remove one cause of resistance. From the 
> opposite extreme, my experience adding Mr Tuffys or suchlike liners very 
> definitely makes tires feel slower, as in 6" of cold molasses.
>
> What do others with experience of both systems say?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:32 PM ted > 
> wrote:
>
>> Roberta,
>>
>> I am so glad you are thrilled with your new stuff. I hope this doesn't 
>> come out too negative/snarky/preachy/ because I can't keep from 
>> quibbling.
>>
>> I think tubeless gets a lot of unwarranted or rather I should say 
>> imprecisely stated, jumping over an important logical step, credit for 
>> giving a "better" ride. Your bikes would probably ride just as dreamy if 
>> they had light tubes between the rims and the tires as they do with the 
>> sealant that is in there now. It''s the tires, and pressure, followed 
>> perhaps by the rims and spokes that give you that ride. The tubeless thing 
>> "just" (potentially) changes how you experience flats with those tires. 
>> (Btw I think there is a similar and valid argument regarding weight.) Since 
>> you aren't a 200+ lb guy or riding 23mm tires, I'll wager you'd never have 
>> trouble with pinch flats either way. So what tubeless is really doing for 
>> you is saving you from dealing with road debris (e.g. goat heads, 
>> staples/wires, glass, etc.) induced flats. 
>>
>> The number of road debris induced flats a person encounters, as well as 
>> how inconvenient those flat are, can be quite dependent the the local and 
>> the person. For example I think there is a list member who can barely go a 
>> mile without hitting a goat head, whereas I can go months at a time on RH 
>> extralight tires with superlight tubes and never get a flat. I think James 
>> hates fixing flats in the rain and/or mud. Where I live it doesn't rain for 
>> months on end.
>>
>> On the other hand, the difference in ride qualities between uber stout 
>> tires and very light supple tires is the same for everybody everywhere 
>> (though admittedly some folks care more than others). So I think it is 
>> worth while to be clear about exactly what the direct benefits of going 
>> tubeless are.
>>
>> Anyway. Congratulations on your great upgrades. Sounds wonderful.
>>
>> regards
>> Ted
>> p.s. If you want to go crazy on the weight saving, get a Ti frame Brooks, 
>> Rivet, or Berthoud saddle and a 1/3 Ti duraAce cassette.
>>
>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:42:36 AM UTC-7, Roberta wrote:
>>>
>>> In April 2017, I rode a 2016 stock-built Rivendell Joe Appaloosa at 
>>> Gravel and Grind and fell in love.  James

[RBW] Re: Lightening up my Joe Appaloosa--a full makeover. AHH--a partial makeover. Thanks to Analog Cycles.

[ted]

Roberta,

I am so glad you are thrilled with your new stuff. I hope this doesn't come 
out too negative/snarky/preachy/ because I can't keep from quibbling.

I think tubeless gets a lot of unwarranted or rather I should say 
imprecisely stated, jumping over an important logical step, credit for 
giving a "better" ride. Your bikes would probably ride just as dreamy if 
they had light tubes between the rims and the tires as they do with the 
sealant that is in there now. It''s the tires, and pressure, followed 
perhaps by the rims and spokes that give you that ride. The tubeless thing 
"just" (potentially) changes how you experience flats with those tires. 
(Btw I think there is a similar and valid argument regarding weight.) Since 
you aren't a 200+ lb guy or riding 23mm tires, I'll wager you'd never have 
trouble with pinch flats either way. So what tubeless is really doing for 
you is saving you from dealing with road debris (e.g. goat heads, 
staples/wires, glass, etc.) induced flats. 

The number of road debris induced flats a person encounters, as well as how 
inconvenient those flat are, can be quite dependent the the local and the 
person. For example I think there is a list member who can barely go a mile 
without hitting a goat head, whereas I can go months at a time on RH 
extralight tires with superlight tubes and never get a flat. I think James 
hates fixing flats in the rain and/or mud. Where I live it doesn't rain for 
months on end.

On the other hand, the difference in ride qualities between uber stout 
tires and very light supple tires is the same for everybody everywhere 
(though admittedly some folks care more than others). So I think it is 
worth while to be clear about exactly what the direct benefits of going 
tubeless are.

Anyway. Congratulations on your great upgrades. Sounds wonderful.

regards
Ted
p.s. If you want to go crazy on the weight saving, get a Ti frame Brooks, 
Rivet, or Berthoud saddle and a 1/3 Ti duraAce cassette.

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:42:36 AM UTC-7, Roberta wrote:
>
> In April 2017, I rode a 2016 stock-built Rivendell Joe Appaloosa at Gravel 
> and Grind and fell in love.  James (formerly of G, now of Analog 
> Cycles) recommended a Brooks B-17 saddle, fenders, a rear rack, and I 
> happily pedaled away for the next three years.   My only change was to a 
> Brooks Flyer saddle.  
>
>
> I love the ride of the Appaloosa and rode it at home on the weekends.  When 
> I wanted another bike at my office for after work rides, I bought an A. 
> Homer Hilsen from a fellow RBW member.  My only issue with the Joe 
> Appaloosa was it was heavy for me to maneuver on mass transportation, 
> steps, and general lifting.  Now I had a lighter AHH, and that is the 
> bike I chose to travel with.
>
>
> But…I still loved the ride of the Appaloosa…it was just so…heavy.  A call 
> to James and Candice one day to talk about tubeless tires options, and I 
> was signing up to change nearly everything on it to lighten it and get an 
> even better ride.  I changed the saddle back to the B-17, removed the 
> heavy and too large for my use Carradice bags. Rack, fenders and kickstand 
> are too practical, so I kept them.  
>
>
> On Memorial Day weekend, I drove both bikes to Analog Cycles.  AHH got 
> 1.75” Gravel King tubeless tires and a shorter stem.  Instead of regular 
> grips, they wrapped the grip area with Fizik tape over gel.  Deity valve 
> caps in red for the finishing touch.   I didn’t need to change out 
> anything else on the bike—it already had dyno lighting and the correct 
> rims.   My new bag is a Sackville Banana Sax, just the perfect size!
>
>
> The Appaloosa got the most work.  They changed the handlebar from steel 
> Choco-moose to aluminum Albatross and changed my 3x8 (or 3x9, I forget) 
> drive train to a 1x11 with indexed shifting.  However, the biggest 
> difference came with the new wheels, tubeless tires and dyno lighting!  
> Candice 
> recommended purple spoke nipples and they look great with the butterscotch 
> frame.  Near the valve stem, she changed the colorway to gold, topped off 
> with chartreuse valve caps, and I think it looks smashing!I also got 
> nice cork grips that probably a “blend” because they have more give than 
> the Rivendell ones.   I also like the ergonomic “bulge” in the middle, 
> like the older cork grips Riv used to sell.
>
>
> The ride with the tubeless tires on both bikes, wheels built by Analog’s 
> master wheel builder Mark, is sublime.  The more I ride them, the more I 
> LOVE them.  They soak up the bad city pavement and cracks in the MUP 
> sidewalks.  Even going over railroad tracks isn’t jarring.  The tires 
> just “smush” to take up as much road vibrations as it can.  Yet, they are 
> not slow or plodding.  I explained it to Bicycle Be

[RBW] Re: WTB quickbeam or simple one

[ted]

Hang in there. They seem to go in spurts, so nothing now definitely doesn't 
mean never. 
I speculate that being hard to replace hinders folks inclination to decide 
to sell theirs. But when they see one offered, they think maybe I should 
sell mine too.

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-7, Andrew Huston wrote:
>
> I’m definitely planning on holding out for a QB. I just need to be 
> patient. 

-- 
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/3a6c9d9c-9220-4dd1-9e4c-389db2fe394b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] WTB quickbeam or simple one

[ted]

Diverging further you might look into a soma wolverine

-- 
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/9aad6bd3-473f-400d-86cc-0829e3c09b83%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB quickbeam or simple one

[ted]

I think "best" size is kinda dependent, though I'm not sure on what.

I'm about 5' 9" with a 84 or 85 pbh.
Before RBW did the SimpleOne, Kevin refused to sell me a sub 56 Quickbeam 
(they only had smaller frames left) saying that would be too small and that 
he might rather put me on a 58.
When pre-orders for the SO opened I immediately went to RBW and ordered 
mine. Kevin asked what size I wanted, and I said I was unsure but I 
expected either a 56 or a 58. He looked me up and down briefly then said, 
with conviction, 56.
Some years down the road, though I'm confident I could have done fine with 
a 58 I'm sure he was right to recommend the 56. 
I now also have a 57 FJSr. I bought that when they had one 57 and one 55 
left.  I think that bike is about as big as I'd want. Though on the whole 
I'm also glad I didn't end up with the 55.
I've used 33 and 35mm tires on those bikes.

YMMV, but I think the OP is right in the grey area where without somebody 
as knowledgeable as Kevin looking at him it's hard to know if 56 or 58 
would suit him better.



On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 10:10:38 AM UTC-7, allenmichael wrote:
>
> 5'9" and pbh of 85. I had a 58 Simple One, and it fit better than any bike 
> I've ever had.
>
> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:46:46 AM UTC-7, Andrew Huston wrote:
>>
>> Likely a long shot. Probably a 54 or 56. 5’10 and 84 PBH. 
>
>

-- 
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/c67d9579-46bc-412b-a0d2-84ece98ef870%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB quickbeam or simple one

[ted]

Andrew,

Where are you located?
I'm in the SF bay area (abt 20mi south of RBW) and have a seriously 
underutilized 56 Simple One that I commuted on before I retired.
If you are anywhere near here maybe I should consider moving on.

regards
Ted Kelly

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:46:46 AM UTC-7, Andrew Huston wrote:
>
> Likely a long shot. Probably a 54 or 56. 5’10 and 84 PBH. 

-- 
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/1b7bc3eb-42d8-4862-81e2-4f917ee394d5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 52 aluminum Bosco vs. 55 cromo Bosco bars

[ted]

Lea,

If either of us is disappointing it's probably me. I swapped the stoker bar 
on our tandem from a steel 55 bosco to an al 52 bosco and never weighed 
either one.
Sorry about that.
Hope your new bar comes in time for the shop to take care of it for you. 
But if not, don't fret. It's really not that bad to do yourself as the 
change should be small enough to avoid altering the cables and housing. 
Probably won't even need to undo the brake or shift cables.

ted.

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 9:35:19 PM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! wrote:
>
> Ted, 
>
> Ha! I know I’m disappointing. I was hoping someone less disappointing than 
> me would have real numbers, as Rivendell declined to provide them. I hope I 
> get the new bars in time to bring to the shop while they work on my bike. 
> Otherwise, I suppose I can do it, but yuck. 
>
> Well, regardless, I’m tired of hitting our vehicles with my giant Bosco 
> bars as I wheel my bike out of the garage. Backing it up is hard because 
> it’s looonnngg, and fitting it between are vehicles is hard because of the 
> wide bars.  I really have wanted 52 for a long time and if I’m getting 52s 
> I might as well get the light version, right? Also, I’m planning to drive 
> north to see my family in July, and putting 3 bikes with Bosco bars on my 
> vehicle bike rack is daunting. I’ll be very happy to have narrower Boscos 
> for THAT. 
>
> All these little things make a noticeable weight difference. I have been 
> riding the 52 Clem H and that’s not a small, light bike, but it feels like 
> it since it has so little gear on it. I can’t be without my essentials on 
> the Clementine, but if I can trim the fat off things like wheels and bars, 
> I will. 
>
> Up next: pedals. 
>
> Leah 
>
> Sent from my iPad 
>
> > On May 24, 2020, at 6:03 PM, ted > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Oops, and re bar weight, buy the al ones, they will be lighter and 
> since you didn’t weigh your new wheels I’m guessing the particular numbers 
> aren’t that important to you. Hey you’ll “know” you made your bike lighter 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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/f2XGNrqtHKM/unsubscribe. 
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/97eea707-269e-454e-8e02-eae31b5e2808%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/f0cca951-487a-48b9-ad2a-7de0de9a7836%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] 52 aluminum Bosco vs. 55 cromo Bosco bars

[ted]

Oops, and re bar weight, buy the al ones, they will be lighter and since you 
didn’t weigh your new wheels I’m guessing the particular numbers aren’t that 
important to you. Hey you’ll “know” you made your bike lighter

-- 
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/97eea707-269e-454e-8e02-eae31b5e2808%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] 52 aluminum Bosco vs. 55 cromo Bosco bars

[ted]

I doubt the narrower bars would make the stem feel different, and if it did I’d 
bet on it seeming shorter which could be easily tweaked with a 60 stem

-- 
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/e5e0502d-d026-48c9-9f8a-27afef0c3173%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: It’s dull around here, let me bring some color

[ted]

Leah wrote: "More is more. Too much is enough. And so on..."
But the perhaps applicable saying that I recall is "... too much is not 
enough", sometimes preceded by "wretched excess, ..."

On a different note, I hope you weighed those wheels (and the lights etc) 
before you took everything to the shop. We're gonna want to know exactly 
how many grams (or ounces) you've shaved off your ride. Similarly we (or 
perhaps just I) want to know how many teeth your small chain ring and 
largest cog have before and after.

ted
whos fondness for numbers approaches Leah's fondness for bling.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 6:41:10 PM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:
>
> Friends, 
>
> I have one bike to ride. It’s a Clementine with mostly stock parts, and 
> it’s heavy. 
>
> I love it. 
>
> I have been riding nearly every day and I’ve got 997.9 miles on it for 
> 2020! The hills here are brutal, and the temps are approaching triple 
> digits. So, I want to ride at night, and I want to get up the hills more 
> easily. James and Candice at Analog Cycles in Vermont have showcased their 
> beautiful work on Instagram, and I’ve long been an admirer. #RivSister 
> Roberta knows them and had planned to have them do similar work on her 
> Appaloosa (I’m sure she’ll delight us with her story here when the time 
> comes), and because we girls tend to stick together, I got in touch with 
> Analog. Dyno lighting and lighter wheels with tubeless tires were what was 
> decided. 
>
> So, here’s one photo from Analog that can’t do these wheels one whit of 
> justice; the wheels arrived today and they are showstoppers in real life. I 
> am going to follow up right after this post with a video (2nd post 
> necessary for video to work, I don’t know why) that you can access if you 
> choose to download it. The video is the only way to really capture any of 
> the beauty in these wheels. I told them to go wild with color, and they 
> did. I think the bold colors and patterns capture the zany nature of a 
> Clem. 
>
> Don’t ask me what all the details are, who KNOWS, this is me you’re 
> talking to. I do know I got tubeless Gravel Kings (Evan Elliot, I think 
> these were your suggestion months ago), something about machined sidewalls, 
> Shutter Precision/Edelux II, Son rear light. Oh, enough, what really 
> matters here is there are COLORED SPOKE NIPPLES AND VALVE STEMS. And guess 
> what they do? They fade into other colors because Analog is a straight-up 
> master of color. These wheels are a lot, which is saying something for a 
> woman whose favorite color is sparkle. I LOVE them. More is more. Too much 
> is enough. And so on... 
>
> Tomorrow, I’m taking my bike in for a list of stuff I’m having done to it, 
> and I really hope the mechanics know how to set up dyno lighting - I’ve 
> been burned by Vegas bike shops before, and this is a new shop for me. See 
> the Wiggly Fender thread.  
>
> More later when everything is on the bike and I have gotten to ride it. 
>
> Thanks for looking, this is made even more fun in the presence of like 
> minds. 
> Leah 
>
>
>

-- 
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/62ad7c32-29f4-4132-9882-8fef398517c3%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS late 70's Nobilette ffh w/ bb (sf bay area only)

[ted]

This frame is gone, picked up today by the first person to express interest.
Thanks to everybody who expressed interest.


On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:21:42 PM UTC-7, ted wrote:
>
> I'd like to find a new home for this frame. Its too small for me to ever 
> use again, and its been in the garage for years now. I'm hoping that since 
> Nobilette builds some frames for RBW these days offering it here won't be 
> too far off topic.
>
> What it is:
> This is a Mark Nobilette built frame I bought new in the late 70's. 
> Reynolds 531 tubing of standard for the time diameters (i.e. not "oversize" 
> like most steel frames these days). About 51.5 cm seat tube measured c-t-c. 
> Takes a 27.2 seat post. It takes "normal" reach (from back when, not the 
> current normal that is actually short) side/center pull brakes of the 
> through bolt style. I used both mafac racer and suntour campi copy side 
> pulls on it. I believe it was supposed to be able to accommodate either 27" 
> or 700c wheels. I had 700c tubular wheels on in most of the time I rode it. 
> Long horizontal campi drop outs. It has short fancier lugs, as opposed to 
> the simple long point lugs. The chain stays are on the longer side, and not 
> crimped. The uncrimped stays limit tire clearance but I did fit tubular 
> cyclocross tires (33mm?) on it 20 odd years ago. It also required a long bb 
> for the small ring of a road double crank to clear the stay. There are baze 
> ons for fenders and a rear rack. Downtube decals age gone, most of the N on 
> the seat tube is still there. Paint is rough with badly touched up 
> scratches and primer on the down tube where Tallerico added dt shifter 
> bosses for me in the 90s. If you want pretty get it painted and get some 
> resurecto decals from RBW (if they still have those someplace).
>
> I think this could make an excellent sport touring / rando bike for a 
> shorter individual. Not a race bike but I did race on it back in the early 
> 90s. Should be able to be seen as a "go fast" ride. Probably too flexy for 
> a real touring bike. The frame and I are close to the 580 680 interchange, 
> and I'm willing to drive a ways to deliver. But I'm not willing to ship it. 
> I would like to get this to somebody who will build it up and enjoy it, not 
> somebody looking to flip it to make some money. I don't know what its worth 
> but a glance at 531 frames on clist suggests $80 cash and carry might be a 
> good deal for the buyer.
>
> Any interest?
>

-- 
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/2ec869ae-4fc2-4c9c-a7ee-59223cc6a513%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] FS late 70's Nobilette ffh w/ bb (sf bay area only)

[ted]

I'd like to find a new home for this frame. Its too small for me to ever 
use again, and its been in the garage for years now. I'm hoping that since 
Nobilette builds some frames for RBW these days offering it here won't be 
too far off topic.

What it is:
This is a Mark Nobilette built frame I bought new in the late 70's. 
Reynolds 531 tubing of standard for the time diameters (i.e. not "oversize" 
like most steel frames these days). About 51.5 cm seat tube measured c-t-c. 
Takes a 27.2 seat post. It takes "normal" reach (from back when, not the 
current normal that is actually short) side/center pull brakes of the 
through bolt style. I used both mafac racer and suntour campi copy side 
pulls on it. I believe it was supposed to be able to accommodate either 27" 
or 700c wheels. I had 700c tubular wheels on in most of the time I rode it. 
Long horizontal campi drop outs. It has short fancier lugs, as opposed to 
the simple long point lugs. The chain stays are on the longer side, and not 
crimped. The uncrimped stays limit tire clearance but I did fit tubular 
cyclocross tires (33mm?) on it 20 odd years ago. It also required a long bb 
for the small ring of a road double crank to clear the stay. There are baze 
ons for fenders and a rear rack. Downtube decals age gone, most of the N on 
the seat tube is still there. Paint is rough with badly touched up 
scratches and primer on the down tube where Tallerico added dt shifter 
bosses for me in the 90s. If you want pretty get it painted and get some 
resurecto decals from RBW (if they still have those someplace).

I think this could make an excellent sport touring / rando bike for a 
shorter individual. Not a race bike but I did race on it back in the early 
90s. Should be able to be seen as a "go fast" ride. Probably too flexy for 
a real touring bike. The frame and I are close to the 580 680 interchange, 
and I'm willing to drive a ways to deliver. But I'm not willing to ship it. 
I would like to get this to somebody who will build it up and enjoy it, not 
somebody looking to flip it to make some money. I don't know what its worth 
but a glance at 531 frames on clist suggests $80 cash and carry might be a 
good deal for the buyer.

Any interest?

-- 
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/3b6e06a3-d46b-468a-b2b6-2564c62f1924%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Tubulars on Rivendells

[ted]

Re: association of tubulars with "roadies"
I guess really the association should be with "racers" though I think some 
folks use of the term "roadie" implies a MCFRB riding racer wana be. Back 
in the day high performance meant tubulars, but mostly only racers or racer 
wana bees bothered with them (or even knew of them). Back then racing 
pretty much meant road racing, though of course "road" racing includes 
things like Paris - Roubaix and strada bianca. There was always cyclocross 
too and from what I understand tubulars ruled there as well and still do. 
But isn't cyclocross almost by definition racing? Most folks not racing 
oriented didn't bother with the expense and perceived trouble of tubulars. 
Over time narrower and higher performance clinchers became available and 
most amateur racers and wana-bee types moved to those. By the early 90s 
when I wanted to get my campi high flange / arc-enciel tubular wheels 
rebuilt I had to traipse all over silicon valley before I found a shop that 
wanted to do it instead of trying to convince me to just go to clinchers. 
These days I don't know what a typical tubular rider would be except 
perhaps a professional racer.

Anybody in the sf bay area interested in a pair of old lightly used light 
tubular wheels? Mavic hubs (freewheel rear)  gl280 front gl330 rear rims. 
There's an AC aluminum freewheel on the rear at the moment.

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:48:04 PM UTC-7, Bill Schairer wrote:
>
> Also being a Bill, I’ll volunteer my answer to Ted’s question.  I have two 
> sets of the Vlaanderen tires, each set with about 1800 miles times 4 gives 
> me about 7200 tire miles? I have had one puncture too large for sealant 
> -glass cut.  The tire was at about the rated mileage limit and well worn 
> but, unlike Bill L, I had no previous experience repairing tubulars so 
> doing the repair was my opportunity for a learning experience.  REMA patch 
> and glue worked and the tire is still in service.  All other punctures (not 
> sure how many but not a lot) have been fixed with sealant.  I’ve opted to 
> ride with 2 spares and save sealant injections for home.  I’ve changed 
> exactly one tire on the road, the aforementioned flat. All other punctures 
> were slow enough that I got home or they sealed from previously 
> administered sealant.  So far, I’ve come to the conclusion that latex tubes 
> are more puncture resistant than butyl and leak more slowly when punctured. 
>  I’ve also pulled 3 goat heads out of tires with no sealant without any 
> resulting loss of pressure.  I don’t think I can ever remember doing that 
> with a clincher. 
>
> I also did a complete tube replacement on a used FMB tire that I acquired 
> with a leak.  That involved cutting a new $15 tube in half, pulling it 
> through and gluing it back together. Probably got the instructions on that 
> from Sheldon Brown.  It took a long time but, again, this was a learning 
> experience.  That tire has about 90 of my miles on it.  Not the greatest 
> repair job - a little lumpy - but definitely worth it. 
>
> I am also puzzled by a couple comments I’ve seen regarding these tires 
> being for “roadies.”  I don’t consider myself a roadie - never raced - 
> always been a commuter, tourer and now recreational rider too.  I’ve ridden 
> my tubulars on and off road and will ride them under any conditions I would 
> ride a clincher.  Besides that, I believe many cyclocross racers use 
> tubulars and I shouldn’t think they are roadies.  Just saying. 
>
> I apologize as I know I have a tendency to get carried away with my 
> enthusiasm but reading the positive experiences of others who debunked the 
> notion that tubulars are something exotic not worth the trouble finally 
> pushed me to give them a try.  I mean, there are similar discussions 
> regarding tubeless? Besides, the more people who will give them a shot, the 
> better chance we will get or keep more choices.  I highly recommend them 
> for anyone who enjoys working on their bicycles.  If somebody else does all 
> your work, maybe not the right choice.

-- 
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/41edad8a-cf5a-4065-a277-2ca18410758a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Tubulars on Rivendells

[ted]

So Bill, are those latex tubbed, and are you cutting em open and patching when 
you get flats?

-- 
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/f532078a-78d7-44c4-adf6-e373ce09f6ad%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Tubulars on Rivendells

[ted]

Yes but roadies are fools. The best moderate width tires give a nice ride but 
I’ve never ridden a 23mm clincher that rides near as well as a good hand made 
racing sew up. Never got a pinch flat on a sew up either.
I think the European pros still race on tubulars. Of course their employers pay 
for the gear, and their mechanics do the maintenance.

-- 
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/368d5dfc-2fcb-4670-8101-47e88c4471dc%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Camping bikes

[ted]

Ahh, slush. Grew up with it, don’t miss it.

-- 
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/d112ab35-05bb-4c9b-af11-db8407de50fc%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: What have you learned during the isolation?

[ted]

Even pre covid I noticed that drivers accustomed to driving slower than they 
would like due to traffic seem to drive as possible. Absent traffic the foot 
goes to the floor.

-- 
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/5614525e-7dcb-4688-909f-39aa27098c79%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Dyno light installation, which side of the do you prefer?

[ted]

When faced with this situation I’ve gone with mounting on the left side. This 
lights up more pavement since one rides on the right side of the lane. However 
mounting on the right would give shadow free illumination of the road edge, so 
you might prefer that.
This is why I’m so disappointed they stoped putting the plate with a mounting 
whole on the front center of the marks and mini front racks. Personally, I 
really really want my front light dead center. Not having the tire centered in 
the beam drives me crazy.

-- 
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/725bdd34-806a-4b27-8b78-1ac1ee7f7ecc%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: steps to mount a tire / tubeless is easy?

[ted]

Shouldn’t that emoji have a one finger salute?

-- 
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/87ea75d1-bb0c-4254-a466-cacea0bc6b26%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: steps to mount a tire / tubeless is easy?

[ted]

xtensive field testing has shown me that 99% of 
> tubeless flats can be fixed without a tube, faster, and easier than with a 
> tube.  To me that's a win for my customers.  Add in the lighter weight, 
> lower tire pressures and ability to run softer tubes, and you have a recipe 
> for a good idea.  
>
> By the way, soapy water spraying around is the only time my shop gets such 
> a luxury...
>
> -james
>
> On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 10:29:15 PM UTC-4, ted wrote:
>>
>> Someone I won't name, because he should be gratefully honored for his 
>> contributions and definitely never hectored about such trivia, wrote he 
>> could think of at least 11 steps to mounting a tube in a tire off the top 
>> of his head.
>>
>> I only think of 10.
>>Put a layer of rim tape on the rim
>>Put one bead of the tire on the rim down in the well
>>Put talc on the tube or the inside surface of the tire.
>>Put just enough air in the tube to give it some shape
>>Put the tube inside the tire and around the rim (with the valve 
>> through the hole of course)
>>Push the other bead of the tire onto the rim and down into the well
>>Make sure the tube isn't stuck under a tire bead anyplace
>>Inflate to seat the beads
>>Make sure the beads are seated
>>Reduce pressure to what you ride
>>
>> What am I missing?
>>
>> Now for tubeless its (assuming no difficulties/hiccups)
>>Put n layers of tubeless rim tape on the rim
>>Install the valve stem, pull the core 
>>Slather soapy water al over the place
>>Put the tire on the rim
>>Use a compressor to blow air through the valve body to seat the tire 
>> (may spray soapy water about doing this)
>>Put sealant in through the valve
>>Put the valve core back in
>>Inflate the tire (may have sealant spraying about doing this)
>>Check that sealant isn't coming out around the bead 
>>Spin the wheel a few times
>>Let it sit overnight (reminds me of gluing tubulars)
>>Re-inflate to riding pressure because it probably got soft overnight
>>
>> Now I'll agree that that doesn't sound too bad, only a dozen steps. I 
>> also agree that anyone who works on stuff, and has a shop or a garage, 
>> should get a compressor. Well worth the investment (can you say air tools, 
>> fun). But with the potential for spraying soapy water and/or sealant about, 
>> and the risk of significant difficulty seating/sealing the beads etc, I 
>> don't see how an honest appraisal can really conclude its not significantly 
>> more trouble than installing tires with tubes. Kinda like gluing tubulars. 
>> Now I can't quote anybody saying tubeless setup is trivial and as easy as 
>> using tubes, but I feel like some proponents sort of imply something close 
>> to that. Am I wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/13aadd63-bc0d-4003-b96e-51b8e6894fa6%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Quickbeam skewer question

[Ted Shwartz]

Hello
  
My QB has been running fixed since I bought it. Yesterday I flopped the rear 
wheel to the freewheel side.

When I tried to reinsert the skewer from the other side I find that it will not 
insert from the fixed side, but only on the freewheel side.

Am I doing something wrong, is my skewer damaged, or is this just another 
idiosyncrasy of a very idiosyncratic bicycle?

Regards
Ted S

-- 
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/d670c8c7-074d-42d2-a648-505be08f9ff2%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] steps to mount a tire / tubeless is easy?

[ted]

Someone I won't name, because he should be gratefully honored for his 
contributions and definitely never hectored about such trivia, wrote he 
could think of at least 11 steps to mounting a tube in a tire off the top 
of his head.

I only think of 10.
   Put a layer of rim tape on the rim
   Put one bead of the tire on the rim down in the well
   Put talc on the tube or the inside surface of the tire.
   Put just enough air in the tube to give it some shape
   Put the tube inside the tire and around the rim (with the valve through 
the hole of course)
   Push the other bead of the tire onto the rim and down into the well
   Make sure the tube isn't stuck under a tire bead anyplace
   Inflate to seat the beads
   Make sure the beads are seated
   Reduce pressure to what you ride

What am I missing?

Now for tubeless its (assuming no difficulties/hiccups)
   Put n layers of tubeless rim tape on the rim
   Install the valve stem, pull the core 
   Slather soapy water al over the place
   Put the tire on the rim
   Use a compressor to blow air through the valve body to seat the tire 
(may spray soapy water about doing this)
   Put sealant in through the valve
   Put the valve core back in
   Inflate the tire (may have sealant spraying about doing this)
   Check that sealant isn't coming out around the bead 
   Spin the wheel a few times
   Let it sit overnight (reminds me of gluing tubulars)
   Re-inflate to riding pressure because it probably got soft overnight

Now I'll agree that that doesn't sound too bad, only a dozen steps. I also 
agree that anyone who works on stuff, and has a shop or a garage, should 
get a compressor. Well worth the investment (can you say air tools, fun). 
But with the potential for spraying soapy water and/or sealant about, and 
the risk of significant difficulty seating/sealing the beads etc, I don't 
see how an honest appraisal can really conclude its not significantly more 
trouble than installing tires with tubes. Kinda like gluing tubulars. Now I 
can't quote anybody saying tubeless setup is trivial and as easy as using 
tubes, but I feel like some proponents sort of imply something close to 
that. Am I wrong?




-- 
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/97ef4eb3-2cf4-4cb4-9116-858dcdffe270%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Seen on the road: A fire engine red Rivendell step through

[ted]

Careful Biil. Don't be accused of inciting murder, cause I'll wager that 
owner is in the "pry it from my cold dead hands" department.. 

-- 
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/2cca1eed-8850-4a39-98ea-ae82fd0165c9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Sorry, I guess I'm just too dense to grasp implicit assumptions in 160 post 
threads that wander about a bit. Some of the recent posts have an ok boomer 
feel with a side of righteous certainty about the absolute superiority of 
tubeless over tubes the denial of which could only be explained by the 
stubborn crotchetyness of the denier.

If the assertion is that you can get a virtually flat free experience with 
a tubeless setup that is lighter and rides nicer than an uber stout 
impenetrable tire (thereby assuring a similarly flat fee experience) and 
tube, well yea I guess I get that.

I wish all tubeless proponents should take a tip form P. Moore and stick 
with something like:
  Hey you want imperviousness to goatheads without riding tires that have a 
quarter inch of latex under the tread? Then try tubeless.

In the context of who started the thread, do you really think Leah has to 
worry about pinch flats on her Clem?
I bet she weighs less than i do, and she has room for fatter tires than any 
bike I own. No pinch flats is at best specious here.

Now can somebody point me to a 650b 38mm tire that rolls as easily as a 
Compass/RH extra light that won't weep sealant through the sidewalls if I 
set it up tubeless?

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 4:35:01 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> Yes, you can ride lighter/plusher tires at lower pressure with tubeless 
> for a similar 'no flatting' result than what something like a Schwalbe with 
> a tube and puncture protection would offer. Sure, if you're light yourself 
> and want to ride thin tires with thin tubes then maybe the benefits are 
> negated. I believe we're talking about flat protection, too, in the context 
> of this conversation and who started the thread. 

-- 
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/c9288ffc-e523-4303-b78c-0144cbb6e413%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

"But the reality is tubeless has weight and tire advantages that are 
noticeable on a ride, ..."

I keep reading assertions like this, but I don't see how its true.
Re weight:
I have two 650b bikes. One is tubeless the other has tubes. The tubes I use 
are 108gr (aka 3.8oz) schwalbe SV14 extralight. I presume my tubeless tires 
have 3oz of sealant in them. Apparently I should add 2oz to each tire after 
6 month or so. I don't see how there is a weight savings here. Certainly 
nothing noticeable.
Re tire advantages (meaning better ride?)
If you are big/heavy enough that you are forced to use higher pressure than 
you otherwise would to avoid pinch flats ok fine. But that is not my 
situation, and I suspect it is not a factor for a lot of riders.

The only advantage of tubeless that I believe is real is not flatting when 
pierced by thorns or staples/wires etc.


On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:23:31 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>
> I think the argument James is presenting applies to folks like me, a 57yo 
> guy who's been riding tubed tires for decades and knows what the deal is 
> with them. As I've expressed before (probably in this thread, definitely on 
> this forum), I struggled to figure out tubeless tires on a bike I owned and 
> kinda threw in the towel..tubes work and I understand them. 
>
> But the reality is tubeless has weight and tire advantages that are 
> noticeable on a ride, it's not something arcane like buying a rear derailer 
> with a few grams knocked off. So I watched the Analog live thing on 
> Instagram yesterday and learned a bunch. What was more interesting to me 
> than the project itself was how easy it was for folks with no tire 
> changing/mounting experience to follow. I could "see" them not having to 
> unlearn stuff I know so they could learn a new thing, they just got the new 
> thing as though that's the way it works. It helped a LOT for me to watch it 
> from their POV. 
>
> I thing tubeless makes sense, even if some folks are happy with their 
> tubes. I like friction and indexing, too  

-- 
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/692d8964-3e4f-423f-85a0-a242c9a452fc%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Why I went Tubeless

[ted]

My slightly dissenting take:

Listening to folks explain how easy setting up tubeless tires is reminds me 
of when I used to tell folks gluing on tubular racing tires was no big deal.

Though I never use a higher pressure to avoid pinch flats, I never get 
them. I mean in the last 2 decades I think I got 1 pinch flat and that was 
whomping a sizeable rock coming down a trail riding 45mm tires (schwalbe 
"fatties" from RBW) at between 20 and 25 psi. For me avoiding pinch flats 
is not a selling point for going tubeless.

I go weeks on end without getting a single flat all the time. But even 
though I live in the land of drought and am rarely out in inclement 
weather, when I do get one I don't like it, and almost all my flats are 
from wires or thorns or small flints which I expect OS would have sealed 
without me even stopping. So I have some interest in considering the whole 
tubeless thing.

To that end I have acquired and am now using a set of wheels set up 
tubeless on one of my bikes.
So far (~6 months in) it seems fine and has the following advantages for me:
  When I ride that bike along a trail with goat head producing flora all 
about I am much less worried, and so far 0 flats.
  I tend to ride that bike on days after it rains (when there tends to be 
much more crap along the side of the roads), again less worried and so far 
0 flats.

I have another bike with tubeless compatible rims that I've not gone 
tubeless on. I may consider it, but where my tubeless wheels have WTB 
Byways on em, that other bike wears 38mm RH extralights. I've heard the RH 
extralights sidewalls tend to weep when set up tubeless, and that doesn't 
sound like fun to me.



On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 5:49:23 AM UTC-7, Tim Bantham wrote:
>
> There's been some discussion on the board lately about the pros and cons 
> of tubeless tires. I am a tubeless believer but I wasn't always that way. I 
> wanted to share my experiences as a way of adding some perspective to those 
> considering giving it a go. Analog cycles is doing an Instagram live on 
> tubeless tonight at 5:00 PM ET. You should watch it if you are remotely 
> interested. Much of my current tubeless knowledge was gained by talking 
> with James and Candice. Before I met the good folks at Analog I had quite a 
> bit of experience with tubeless setups. Some good and some not so good. 
>
> The first thing I'll make clear is that you can continue to run tubes in 
> your tires and be perfectly happy for the remainder of your biking life. 
> Nothing wrong with that. Tubeless is not going to rock your world. However, 
> there are many benefits to setting your tires up tubeless. I'd like to 
> share those with you based on my own experiences. 
>
> You can run low pressure without fear of getting a pinch flat. If you are 
> a Riv fan you already know the benefit of soft tires. Subtle ride quality 
> with lots of cush to absorb the bumps. To me this is worth it alone but 
> there are other benefits. 
>
> Much easier to fix a flat tire. True confession I rarely get a flat tire 
> with tubeless. If you get a small puncture sometimes just riding the tire 
> allows sealant to get into the hole and seal the tire. If it doesn't seal 
> you have to plug the hole. Let's say you run over a nail. You can fix the 
> flat without removing the wheel. Murphy's law is that 75% of your flats 
> will be on the rear tire.With a tube you have to take the rear wheel off in 
> the field. No big deal right? I know... I've done it tons of times. That 
> said, if I can avoid doing so why wouldn't I? With tubeless you can plug 
> the hole without removing the wheel from the bike. That to me that is a 
> significant benefit. Of course there remains the possibility that you can 
> get a gash in the sidewall. That happens but if you are prepared with 
> gorilla tape and gorilla glue you can fix that without removing the wheel 
> from the bike as well. 
>
> Final tips: 
>
>- Get the Dynapill made by Dynaplug for your tubeless repairs. 
>- Still carry a tube with you. A tube could always be installed as a 
>last resort but it should be rare. 
>- Invest in a good air compressor. An air compressor is handy! The 
>pumps that are sold claiming to seat tubeless tires don't work as claimed. 
>I know because I own one. 
>- Don't try to seat tubeless with a regular bicycle pump. Doesn't work 
>and not worth the frustration. See above. 
>- Use Orange Seal Endurance Sealant. Best sealant on the market. Blows 
>away anything else I've ever tried. 
>- The tubeless tape that Analog sells is fantastic! Easy to work with, 
>has the right amount of stretch. 
>- Don't try to set up any old rim/tire combo tubeless. Look for rims 
>that are advertised as tubeless. I have Velocity Cliffhangers and Quills 
> on 
>my bikes. Both set up easily.  
>- Buy a tubeless ready tire. 
>- Don't worry about sealant randomly oozing out of your tire. Doesn't 
>

[RBW] Pedal Strikes when Turning

[ted]

On any corner with the slightest chance of a pedal strike I’m either pedaling 
or have the outside foot down. Pedals at 3 and 9 is strictly for going straight 
(or sometimes through wide sweeping turns on fast descents).

-- 
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/2912d7b6-e70b-4b97-9228-ef7a947a1985%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Another Clem fender conundrum

[ted]

"My “local hardware store” is a totally indifferent Home Depot ..."

Ouch that's rough. There are at least two hardware stores in my town that 
have a nice selection of metric stainless steel hardware. Nylon spacers too.

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 7:00:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Morrissey wrote:
>
> Measure exactly what you need and order it from McMaster Carr. I bought a 
> bunch of spacers there. You will be amazed by how many sizes and styles 
> they carry. My “local hardware store” is a totally indifferent Home Depot 
> and my trips there always end in disappointment. 

-- 
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/2ff00c79-3bdb-477b-99fb-23df47761d57%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Analog Cycles: Free Tubeless Clinic on Instagram Live

[ted]

Get an instagram account??
Get off my lawn!
Or some such

-- 
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/9dcd2e3c-efd9-4f6a-b7f6-2daffa96e329%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Joyce, you’ve likely thought of this but just in case ...
My sister puts her large Clem l on her hitch rack one end at a time. That way 
she never lifts the full weight of the bike at once. Still awkward, but 
somewhat more manageable.

-- 
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/bc5eb8c5-6ab8-4c92-a98c-a7528d07ba4d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Masmojo, I am confused. What is not the case with a Clem?

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 6:38:59 PM UTC-7, masmojo wrote:
>
> Ted, you are right both can be achieved (usually at high cost) if that is 
> the goal, that's just not the case with a Clem.

-- 
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/989a9235-0115-4503-aa2f-a03869c865df%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Masmojo wrote:
  "it's designed around being a comfortable, smooth, stable ride &  in that 
context light weight is sort of antithema."

I'm not sure what antihema means but I think the implication is that light 
weight is somehow at odds with a comfortable, smooth, stable ride.
I don't think that is true. Though it may not be hard to build a sub 20lb 
roadeo and it might not be reasonable to aim for a sub 20lb clem L, that 
doesn't mean wanting the lightest clem L one can afford is nonsensical. Put 
another way, wanting a lighter bike doesn't necessarily mean one wants the 
ride and handling of a roadeo.

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 5:09:13 PM UTC-7, masmojo wrote:
>
> Joe, Harsh? Maybe a little bit and maybe not 100% unintentionally.
>  As I said weight reduction on ANY bike is a good thing, but my point is 
> the Clem certainly doesn't seem like it's designed with an eye towards 
> weight saving, it's designed around being a comfortable, smooth, stable 
> ride &  in that context light weight is sort of antithema.
>
> But, as I think about it, I guess it's the same process many of us have 
> gone through over the years played out in real time as we witness people 
> think out loud about their bikes, the evolution of their experiences with 
> them and the mental gymnastics of identifying issues & figuring out how to 
> deal with them. I started riding when I was 6 and had the wrenches out 
> almost immediately thereafter. Working on modifying & riding. So with that 
> vantage point I can almost anticipate where this is all going. In that 
> sense many of us are sort of passengers and sometimes backseat drivers in 
> their journey. Offering the insights of our experience, but ultimately not 
> in control. 
> Sometimes it's a bit like going to a scary movie; you're watching & 
> thinking "oh no! Don't go in the isolated spooky house", but being 
> powerless to influence the outcome. 
>
> I think my natural tendency to be helpful gets stunted by the conduit that 
> is the internet.
>
>

-- 
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/a4e38e73-bb29-49de-bcfb-99044ffa2f65%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Hey Roberta,

As you wrote "It's a trade off between utility and weight, I know." you've 
clearly got a good handle on this thing.
Years ago (when they stocked toe clips) I went by RBW to pick between 
regular and long soma dual gate toe clips. As I was eyeing the two 
alternatives the guy commented that they were "not light". I opined that if 
I was gonna worry about weight I'd start by trying not to stuff so much 
into my country bag (this was back in the baggins bags days). That drew a 
large grin and talk morphed into what a great bag that was (and still is 
for that matter).

BTW the banana bag is really nice. I've got one on the front of my least 
"go fast" ish drop bar bike, and I'm really liking that set up.

I'm confident you'll have a fine time finding the perfect weight/utility 
balance for you. It's always a personal optimum. Don't let anyone else tell 
you you are wrong.
Next up, the search for just the perfect gearing/drive train (yet another 
rabbit hole).


On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-7, Roberta wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 12:42:07 PM UTC-4, ted wrote: 
> > For true weight weeniedom you need to get out a kitchen scale and weigh 
> the bag and saddles. I suspect leaving off the bag saves more weight than 
> swapping to a no spring saddle. 
>
> Hi, Ted. 
>
> According to website, he saddle saves 3/4 pound and the bag saves 1 1/4 
> pound.  What's *inside* the bag probably saved another 2 pounds.   My big 
> bags are like junk drawers, having things in there , well, just because... 
> and there's room... The real reason I got a bigger bag was to put 
> everything in one bag, including topeak road morph G pump, which is quite 
> long.  I'll put that on my two fish pump holder or lash it to the rack   
>
> I got the bigger bag also in case I wanted to go on a long ride and wanted 
> to pack a lunch (a few times), bring a blanket (never), have room to place 
> my shredded layers (often) when the sun came out.  Reality is that I can 
> lash all that to my rack, being careful not to squish my sandwich. I'll be 
> ok with a smaller bag  which won't be like a junk drawer, and you'll see at 
> least one carradice bag FS or trade shortly.  I'm thinking about getting a 
> banana sack. 
>
> It's a trade off between utility and weight, I know.  I love the way my 
> Joe A. rides and Leah loves her Clem L.  We're both looking for a practical 
> medium.  It all started with getting better tires for a better ride. Then, 
> dynamo with new wheels. And then it morphed! 
>
> I have been loving these threads and everyone's posts.  I have learned so 
> much!  Thank you.

-- 
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/3f35e609-8694-4009-8d4e-8050c5bbfc4b%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: PSA: 56cm Saluki on Ebay

[ted]

I have a Hilsen badged Saluki (SA### stamped bottom bracket). Even sized pre 
MIT Hilsens are Saluki in disguise. But the larger sized Saluki were lost in 
the consolidation. Largest 650b Hilsen is a 58cm.
I think most Saluki were side pull and the canti ones are kinda rare.

-- 
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/1a239261-5860-4f6e-a9a9-6a0a9d6a43d5%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

On the other hand 2” (51mm) tires seem like overkill for a light rider on 
anything resembling a road or mup. Going to 1.75” (45mm) seems like a good call 
for non Clydesdale folks not bombing over ruts and boulders. Heck 1.5” (38mm) 
would probably work fine, even if they might look a bit lost in all that 
clearance.

-- 
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/9c274d27-9418-4036-9d9d-f4b90aa8079f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

For true weight weeniedom you need to get out a kitchen scale and weigh the bag 
and saddles. I suspect leaving off the bag saves more weight than swapping to a 
no spring saddle.

-- 
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/0b20646b-db37-4990-b4be-bc3d5bd228da%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] PSA: 56cm Saluki on Ebay

[ted]

Just buy some thick soled shoes (e.g. keen sandals).
Cause you neeed it.
Yesss you dooo 


-- 
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/d81895da-2db6-4c07-b658-1a3f6e532bce%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

And red spoke nipples too

-- 
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/36ce78b6-43b6-49e8-9fd3-3e3d3c205152%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Son wide flange? Wide flange -> shorter axel stubs-> better aesthetics.

-- 
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/2fd56ff9-75c1-4a75-9b11-a894a15bacbb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

re: The thing with tubeless is that IF I get a flat I feel like it’s gonna 
be more trouble (maybe due to inexperience. )

I had similar concerns. After a bit of googling i've opted for carrying a 
repair kit with: one tube, two tire levers, a few tire plugs, and a plug 
tool.
To be more ready for anything bring some gel super glue and gorilla tape 
for patching side wall cuts. I've read just laying the bike on its side and 
patching sidewalls from the outside (which alleviates messing with the 
beads) works well.
For now I'm packing two co2 cartridges and a mini inflater but I think I 
may go back to a full sized frame pump. 

To date (~ half a year) i've never needed to deal with any of that on the 
road/trail.

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 7:42:40 AM UTC-7, Flowerfang wrote:
>
> Thank you for this conversation.
>
> Tube or tubeless that has been my question!
> (IMHO)
> there’s gonna be infrastructure one way or the other. w tubeless for me i 
> was intimidated due to the learning curve. 
>
> But I do like learning and once I got through some of that, tubeless isn’t 
> any more complicated than learning how to patch, etc. It’s just different. 
> I have bikes running both. 
>
> The thing with tubeless is that IF I get a flat I feel like it’s gonna be 
> more trouble (maybe due to inexperience. )
> Yet I don’t get flats with tubeless- (I know it can happen, just that I 
> haven’t yet in a year or more ).
> I have lost a lot of air a few times, so that my tubeless go squishy. (I 
> learned the old frame pump won’t  inflate enough. Now I have a lezyne pump 
> I bring w.)
>
> With the tube tires and where I ride, I am flat or slowly leaking - at 
> least once a month.  So there’s gonna be a flat, but I know how to fix it. 
> It’s easier and I‘m ready. I just have to do so way more often. What i have 
> to be prepped for with tubes is the probability that I need to be. 
>
> There’s hardly ever flats with tubeless - so it’s the differential in the 
> maintenance reality of the two systems that I think about. 
>
> (W tubeless I fill up w stans no-flow whenever the tubeless won’t hold 
> their air overnight. I have the m12 makita portable mini compressor. It’s 
> smaller than a 6pack. I use it for the cars and wheelbarrow tires too.
> But I don’t Re-fill my tubeless that much more often than my tube tires. )
>
>
>
> kim in az
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:43 AM Joe Bernard  > wrote:
>
>> See Ken, this is where I just can't get into tubeless. I've owned a 
>> couple bikes that cake to me that way, which was dandy because they were 
>> already seated and pumped up; but then I needed sealant, a tool to unscrew 
>> the valve to add sealant, and tire plugs. Ok so what do I take as tire 
>> repair stuff? Whelp, I guess I could take all this in case I need it, plus 
>> a tube and tire levers if the trick to getting home after a puncture is to 
>> pop a tube in there. Then when it's time to seat a tire I'm going to need a 
>> machine because my very good Topeak floor pump isn't good enough, or I'm 
>> not good enough at pumping. 
>>
>> So I get the advantages in ride, lightness and puncture resistance of 
>> tubeless, but for a Luddite like me who does all his own work all I see is 
>> more stuff and more work. I'm not into it. 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-owne...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c225373a-e583-4868-9e70-8b4a88ffb960%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/5da1b6f3-c88a-43b1-99fc-80fa0296f4bf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

I had a similar experience. I was commuting on my simple one with battery 
lights and thought that was just fine. I saw a pair of used single speed 
wheels with a son hub for sale on the list here and decided to give the 
dynamo thing a try. I found I appreciated the set it and forget it nature 
of the dynamo system way more than I would ever have guessed. Maybe I'm 
just extra lazy but once freed of dealing with batteries I'd not go back. 

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 9:40:18 AM UTC-7, Dorothy C wrote:
>
> Re: dynamos. I got one on my Cheviot as it was the only 650b wheelset Riv 
> had in at the time, and I have found a big benefit for me is that 1. I 
> don’t have to remember to turn lights on and off, so they never discharge 
> if forgotten and 2. when I go grocery shopping and park the bike I don’t 
> have to detach and reattach the lights to prevent theft. 
> In fact those were such big plusses, I had the local bike shop rebuild my 
> Alex rim on my Appaloosa to have a dynamo too

-- 
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/eb4254af-0665-4a3b-9872-ae55f9ad8307%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Helpless in Nevada: How do you secure this fender?

[ted]

Congratulations, way to go.
Now, quick before you forget how frustrating that was, order yourself a nice 
collapsible free standing work stand. 
It should last you a lifetime, and will prove well worth the $$. Honest, a 
decade from now you will be so glad you did.

-- 
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/a7fc0bf8-b6b7-4997-a946-4f483dd5780d%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Roberta,

Re air retention of my tubeless tire setup:
  Caveats/context:
I have WTB byway tires (650b 48mm) on WTB rims set up with orange seal 
(pretty sure) by Mike at Black Mountain Cycles.
I weigh between 150 and 160 lbs.
I tend to run what I think is pretty low pressure in them, like 25/30 
psi for all pavement. A bit less if heading onto trails/fire roads.
I'm a bit over obsessive about tire pressure.
  Leakage:
Absent doing a poor job patching a tube, I am used to going several 
days without a measurable change in tire pressure.
With my tubeless wheels at first it seemed like they might be loosing 
about 1 psi a day, but I don't keep good records so ...
I got in the habit of topping up the tires with a floor pump most every 
time I ride that bike (usually I don't ride that one every day).
The other day when I went to ride it the rear was much lower than the 
front. I don't know if that is related to a self sealed leak I never 
noticed or not.
I've heard and read that after 6 months or so you may need to add some 
fresh sealant, and I've had that bike ~6 months now so ...
  My opinion:
If one were to let your bike sit for weeks on end without riding it 
(which I don't think you do) tubeless might not hold air as well as desired.
For near daily use (or even just weekly) its a non issue but something 
to be aware of, particularly if you are in the habit of ignoring your tires.
If you don't already have a nice floor pump with an integrated gauge, 
buy one immediately. They last a long time and are way worth it.

regards
ted



On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-7, Roberta wrote:
>
> *Joe and Franklin*--Is the compressor for only originally seating the 
> tire, or is it for ongoing pumping in air?  So, if I have James mount the 
> tire, i'm OK with my standard floor pump for pumping air in?
>
> *Ted--*when you say it doesn't hold air as well, are you talking pumping 
> on a daily or hourly basis instead of weekly, or is it in the same 
> ballpark, but just slightly more often?
>
> Thanks,
> Roberta
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:24:09 PM UTC-4, franklyn wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Tubeless sealant in inner tubes is a good compromise if you don't want to 
>> worry about compressors, but want to have the benefits of the sealant. I 
>> have two bikes with tubeless and 3 with tubes. I also don't have a 
>> compressor. With new tubeless tires I have had good luck using my floor 
>> pump to seat the beads. With used tires, I go to a nearby gas station and 
>> use a valve converter and a quarter to inflate quickly! 
>>
>> Franklyn
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:53:53 AM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a Tubeless Denier because I've had miserable luck mounting them with 
>>> a floor pump and I'm not willing to pay for a noisy compressor to do the 
>>> job, but I've been fixing flats for more decades than I care to number here 
>>> and consider it part of the cycling deal. For folks who are not me and 
>>> aren't fixing/mounting tires anyway, tubeless seems the way to go for 
>>> lightness and less flats. I had them on a Crust Lightning Bolt I got from 
>>> James and Candice @ Analog and they were light and plush. 
>>>
>>> Roberta: I did get one puncture which sent some goo flying because I 
>>> didn't use fenders, but it sealed up right away and got me back home. I had 
>>> some cleanup to do later but it was a lot less work than if I'd had to stop 
>>> and swap tubes on the road. 
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Don't be like Old School Joe, go tubeless, be light with no 
>>> flats! 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/69e1877e-cffd-43ba-89c9-ddc280cdcda7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

No argument, though how do you feel about Romance languages where everything is 
gendered?
With boats I’d say it’s just cultural tradition dating way back, and any 
rationalization would likely seem sexist.
Alls I’m saying is I think the notion that giving a conveyance a female name 
makes it ill suited for male use or ownership seems odd to 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/b20ac32c-2534-42d3-b5f0-304eb7ff1c60%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

I’ve long thought it odd that boats are female but bikes aren’t.
Have you ever known a guy who wouldn’t own a boat with female name?

-- 
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/78500d59-a63a-4daa-b160-5769030d6505%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Roberta,

I am an old dog, and slow to learn new tricks. With decades of riding on 
light tires I'm familiar and comfortable with fixing flats roadside, and 
skeptical of the purported wounderfulness of tubeless, particularly with 
higher pressure lower volume roadie tires. However last fall I got yet 
another bike and opted for a tubeless setup. Now 6 months in I'll say:
   i  I've had zero trouble with my tubless tires 
  ii  My tubless tires don't hold air as well as my tires with tubes in 
them (absent flats of course)
 iii  I've yet to need to mess with my tubeless tires during a ride.
 iv  I find I tend to ride my tubless bike after it rains (rain washes more 
stuff onto the roads and flats seem more frequent)
  v  I'm much more relaxed riding along trails that have "goat head" 
producing flora all over the place with the tubeless tires
 vi  It's time to add more sealant to my tires. Apparently this is a "cost" 
of tubless, the sealant dries up over time. Something to be aware of going 
in.

If you won't tolerate flats, and you don't like the ride of uber stout 
tires or want to shave weight by running light tires I'd say giving the 
tubeless thing a go is probably a good idea. 

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 8:26:38 AM UTC-7, Roberta wrote:
>
> James,  I guess I listen too.  :)  I just imagine tubeless goo all over 
> the place if it leaks. Let's talk.  Also, black sidewalls, not tan.
>
> Roberta
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:41:26 AM UTC-4, ted wrote:
>>
>> James wrote "If I could convince her to go tubeless, we'd save another 
>> 200+ grams...  "
>>
>> James would you mind breaking that down, and detailing what you are 
>> including in each alternative?
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:57:03 AM UTC-7, James / Analog Cycles 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The wheels we're building and tire change on Roberta's bike alone save 
>>> 3lbs.  The 1x conversion will save even more.  I told her to ditch her 
>>> kickstand, because you can lean your bike or use a curb / pedal kickstand 
>>> easily.   The bike will never be light, but lighter wheels will make it 
>>> feel very light, and if we save 5 lbs, she can heft it easier onto the 
>>> train.   If I could convince her to go tubeless, we'd save another 200+ 
>>> grams...  
>>>
>>> -James / Analog Cycles / Get Enlightened.  
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:02:00 AM UTC-4, Bicycle Belle Ding 
>>> Ding! wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m not fully committing to this yet. Roberta and I get into trouble 
>>>> because we talk on Marco Polo and then we get ideas and then we like each 
>>>> other’s ideas and the next thing we know our wallets are on fire. 
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>
>>>> So, I am ordering a Cheviot, and I am spending extra $ to build it with 
>>>> light parts. But that bike is a long way off, months, in fact. Meanwhile, 
>>>> Roberta is giving her beloved Appaloosa a makeover and it is getting lots 
>>>> of new parts and she’s having all the fun. And since we’re #Rivsisters and 
>>>> I’m like that little sister who wants what her sister has, I want to 
>>>> explore what it would take to lighten up my Clem L, which is my only bike 
>>>> at present, and which is quite heavy. You’ll have heard me mention this in 
>>>> Joe’s What Is A Cheviot thread. If my Clem could lose a little weight it 
>>>> would be the most perfect bike anyone could dream up. A Susie version of 
>>>> Clems would be just so ideal - someone should tell Riv. 
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if I got aluminum Bosco bars, and new wheels (don’t ask me what 
>>>> kind, how would I know?) would this make my bike feel considerably 
>>>> lighter? 
>>>> I don’t think I can give up my front derailleur because I use it for 
>>>> Killer 
>>>> Hill. And what if I wanted to add dyno while I was at it? Would that 
>>>> negate 
>>>> my weight savings? Also, I’m keeping my racks; I can’t part with those. 
>>>> Maybe I’m not the best candidate for this... 
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone built a Clem up with lighter parts? Does it make a big 
>>>> difference? As in, is it worth the money? 
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! 
>>>> Leah
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/05e22ab6-8f2b-4254-85c9-2bbd399d8e4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

Which should be motivating you to do that experiment.
Ride your bike, weigh it, strip off the bags, racks, fenders, kick stand, 
etc., weigh it again, and ride it again.
Note how many lbs you removed and how different (or similar) the striped 
bike is to the original configuration.


On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:
>
> 8 pounds, wow! That would feel like a huge difference. 
>
> Nope, I’ll never not enjoy a mixte-style bike. I just cannot give up the 
> freedom of not being constrained by a top tube. YOU should buy a Cheviot. 
> Because having two bikes that are significantly different makes sense!  
> All the cool kid are buying Cheviots.
>
> But wow, 26 pounds would be great! 
> In fun,
> Leah
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 8, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Brian Campbell  > wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 10:31:22 AM UTC-4, Brian Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Buy a Roadeo and put upright bars on it. I guarantee your Clem will be 
>> relegated to "shopping bike" status afterward. 
>>
>
> D'oh hit post before I finished! I have an AHH (old version) that with 
> fenders,dyno lights weighs 26lbs. I had the same bike built up with racks 
> and bags that I rarely used. When I removed them I save 8lbs and it made a 
> huge difference for me. To me having two bikes that are significantly 
> different makes sense. Having a non-mixte style bike might be something you 
> really enjoy. 
>
> I can tell you from my own experience riding a lighter bike can be more 
> enjoyable. It simply depends on what you are using the bike for.
>
> -- 
> 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/5DfZJEj-hqw/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/89e69ca6-b91d-4ab9-9f46-e195071ed55d%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/49812682-af84-46cf-8275-26bf2d8a21ed%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Lighten Up: Clem Edition

[ted]

James wrote "If I could convince her to go tubeless, we'd save another 200+ 
grams...  "

James would you mind breaking that down, and detailing what you are 
including in each alternative?


On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 6:57:03 AM UTC-7, James / Analog Cycles 
wrote:
>
> The wheels we're building and tire change on Roberta's bike alone save 
> 3lbs.  The 1x conversion will save even more.  I told her to ditch her 
> kickstand, because you can lean your bike or use a curb / pedal kickstand 
> easily.   The bike will never be light, but lighter wheels will make it 
> feel very light, and if we save 5 lbs, she can heft it easier onto the 
> train.   If I could convince her to go tubeless, we'd save another 200+ 
> grams...  
>
> -James / Analog Cycles / Get Enlightened.  
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:02:00 AM UTC-4, Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>>
>> I’m not fully committing to this yet. Roberta and I get into trouble 
>> because we talk on Marco Polo and then we get ideas and then we like each 
>> other’s ideas and the next thing we know our wallets are on fire. 
>>
>>  
>
>> So, I am ordering a Cheviot, and I am spending extra $ to build it with 
>> light parts. But that bike is a long way off, months, in fact. Meanwhile, 
>> Roberta is giving her beloved Appaloosa a makeover and it is getting lots 
>> of new parts and she’s having all the fun. And since we’re #Rivsisters and 
>> I’m like that little sister who wants what her sister has, I want to 
>> explore what it would take to lighten up my Clem L, which is my only bike 
>> at present, and which is quite heavy. You’ll have heard me mention this in 
>> Joe’s What Is A Cheviot thread. If my Clem could lose a little weight it 
>> would be the most perfect bike anyone could dream up. A Susie version of 
>> Clems would be just so ideal - someone should tell Riv. 
>>
>> Anyway, if I got aluminum Bosco bars, and new wheels (don’t ask me what 
>> kind, how would I know?) would this make my bike feel considerably lighter? 
>> I don’t think I can give up my front derailleur because I use it for Killer 
>> Hill. And what if I wanted to add dyno while I was at it? Would that negate 
>> my weight savings? Also, I’m keeping my racks; I can’t part with those. 
>> Maybe I’m not the best candidate for this... 
>>
>> Has anyone built a Clem up with lighter parts? Does it make a big 
>> difference? As in, is it worth the money? 
>>
>> Thanks! 
>> Leah
>
>

-- 
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/04219c34-7911-4d22-ac47-582bc258ff5a%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Chocomoose Versions

[ted]

I think there was only one batch of 200mm bullmoose bars, with all the others 
being 150mm. I suspect they are rare and am glad to have one. Similarly I’m 
glad I snagged a chocomoose before they were all gone (apparently for good).
As others have observed elsewhere, if rbw has something you want buy it 
directly. Do not assume it’ll be there in the future.

-- 
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/7e22fbc1-3ff0-46e2-98c1-b8b5bff4a027%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] FS: MUSA Atlantis. 56 cm / 650b

[ted]

Looks to me like you got the stand over from the 53 row.

-- 
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/416d849c-4357-4ffb-bd86-53695849fb1e%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sew-Ups Anyone?

[ted]

Aren't cycle cross tires (uci sanctioned anyway) restricted to something 
like 33 or 35mm?
I think I've read that pro mtn bikers also use tubulars, though I've never 
seen em for sale. Perhaps they exist but are not generally available.

Back in the early 90's when I was still riding sew ups (got my first set in 
the late 70's) I had a hard time finding a shop in silicon valley that 
would rebuild my campi hi flange / arc en ciel wheels as tubulars. Shop 
after shop wanted me to go with mavic clincher rims. I finally stumbled 
onto uncle al on the north end of cupertino (i think) who of course made a 
fabulous job of it (built wheels for lemond too). He even spontaneously 
tied and soldered em cause it seemed like a nice classic touch for a 
classic pair of wheels.

I never thought tubulars were all that hard to deal with, and they 
definitely rode great. Also I never had a pinch flat or "snake bite". But 
eventually I've adopted more mainstream modern equipment and no longer ride 
sew ups or freewheel hubs. Except for a track bike, I don't think I would 
accept the expense and limited selection/availability of tires and rims 
that going back to sew ups would entail.

I do think its neat that some folks outside the pro racing scene are doing 
it though, and I look forward to hearing more about how they are doing with 
it.



On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 8:05:39 AM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>
> "Schwalbe Racing Ralphs - really a class by themselves - I’d prefer a 
> smoother tread but not a lot of choice at 50mm."
>
> I didn't realize there was a Racing Ralph tubular.  I looked it up and 
> there it is.  It's really cool to me that there is a Rivendell Atlantis out 
> there in the world running Cyclocross Racing Sewups!  
>
> Anyway, the size I found was a 700x35.  You say you have a 700x50 version 
> of the Racing Ralph sewup?  Where did you buy it?  I'm SUPER intrigued by 
> that possibility, and it has the brain gears turning...
>
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 7:30:09 AM UTC-7, Bill Schairer wrote:
>>
>> Over the past year and a half I have converted my 4 most ridden bikes, 
>> including my Atlantis, to tubular.  The Atlantis was the last and the only 
>> one with “modern” tubular rims, the Major Toms.  The rear hub is a Deore XT 
>> and the front a Shimano dynahub.  Right now I have Schwalbe Racing Ralph 
>> 50mm tires on the Atlantis.  I’ve put more or less 300 miles on this setup 
>> and am quite happy with it.  Overall, I’m guessing I have roughly 6,000 
>> tubular miles.  I have changed exactly two tires on the road, one puncture 
>> and one blowout of a used, rotten tire I shouldn’t have been riding. 
>>  Definitely easier than fixing a clincher on the road.  I have opened up 
>> two tires to repair punctures.  One was a used FMB purchased with the 
>> puncture.  Definitely a bit time consuming but not as bad as I expected and 
>> all part of the learning process and experience.  I am no longer 
>> intimidated by it.  Otherwise, my experience has been that if the tire will 
>> hold enough air to get reasonably hard, sealant will do the trick.  If it 
>> can’t hold air at all, sealant will make a mess.  Open the tire up instead. 
>>  Once the tire has sealant, as near as I can tell, it must be like riding 
>> tubeless.  I pulled a 1” brad out of a tire that I found after I got home. 
>>  I’m still riding the tire. I’ve pulled 3 goat-heads out of front tires 
>> without sealant without suffering punctures.  I did a 400 mile tour in New 
>> England with 4 spares and sealant because I didn’t want to become a 
>> liability to my buddies.  Figured I’d have to get 5 flats that sealant 
>> wouldn’t cure before I would have to worry about opening a tire.  There 
>> were 4 of us.  Two flats but none were mine.  The others were paranoid 
>> about riding off pavement on their clinchers but I had no fear and no 
>> problems. Around home, I was riding with one spare and sealant but have 
>> switched to two spares, saving sealant for home repairs. 
>>
>> I began my journey with Vittoria Rallys despite all the negative reviews. 
>>  They are cheap so made a good learning tire for stretching, gluing, 
>> mounting etc and now serve as spares.  They got me over the intimidation 
>> phase.  I really like Veloflex Vlaanderen tires.  They are 28mm and super 
>> comfortable and easy to mount.  I ride them at 60 psi in front and 75psi in 
>> back.  I’m 170 lbs.  I picked up a pair of used FMB Sprints (32mm, 33 mm). 
>>  They are absolutely dreamy.  I had them on a backup bike which became not 
>> a backup.  I finally took them off wanting to save them for a planned tour 
>> this fall  (ha - good luck with that).  The bike has fallen back to backup 
>> status.  I was riding those at 30/35!  At the pressures I’ve been riding 
>> tubulars I would be pinch flatting clinchers and not tolerating the 
>> squishy, lack of control feeling.  I was just never able to dial in any 
>> 

Re: [RBW] Re: What Is a Cheviot?

[ted]

As one who is prone to arguing that shaving a few lbs off a bike won’t make you 
all that much faster up a hill, let me clarify that I’m all in favor of making 
your bike light enough to pick up easily. Particularly if you have to lift it 
frequently.

-- 
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/a9a4c316-03fb-4a39-a1c3-0cb9ddff80ed%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Who needs a custom?

[ted]

True, dat 

-- 
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/823f2d7a-8000-465e-9433-21ce9c1ab91e%40googlegroups.com.