Re: [RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Eric Marth]

Ted, glad to see you got an Appaloosa ordered. Do let us know how it all 
works out with the fit and the ride once you have it all built up!

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-4 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks for the info, Garth! So, apologies about the confusion in my last 
> email. I am on a bike tour this week and trying to do everything on my 
> phone leads to funny wording sometimes, not to mention the difficulty 
> constructing coherent thoughts with the brain fog from all day riding. I 
> did not mean to say they were “mostly identical”, you are correct, there is 
> quite a difference. However, considering that I needed a longer set back 
> seat post and very long stem on the LHT, the extra room should be a 
> welcomed difference and the end result of the fit should be mostly 
> identical using normal-ish parts (standard set back and reasonable length 
> stem). I was able to use the LHT as a reference for how the Appa would fit 
> in relation to something I had experience with, despite their differences 
> and that’s teLly what I was trying to figure out. The last thing I wanted 
> to do was wind up with something that was severally out of whack to where I 
> wouldn’t enjoy such an otherwise lovely bike.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:48 AM Garth  wrote:
>
>> Ted, Origin8 makes a "Pro Fit"  zero setback 26.8 silver seatpost. (365 
>> Cycles sells them) I don't know about the quality of the hardware. I'm 
>> mainly referring to the bolts and the length of the clamp itself as to how 
>> long it holds the rails. Kalloy for example, sucks !  Nitto and Thomson 
>> make them in 26.8 for more money but have proper clamps and stout bolts. 
>> This will allow you to get your saddle positioned over the BB where you 
>> need it. *This positioning comes first*, before any consideration of 
>> reach to the bars. 
>>
>> By the way, the STA and HTA are anything but nearly identical ! The 
>> difference between 71.5d and 73d in seat angle = appx. 18mm further back of 
>> the seat tube at saddle height. The 72d and 71d HTA means the Appa bars 
>> don't move back as much as they do with the shallower LHT. This is where 
>> when comparing frames you must look at everything in relation with 
>> everything else. I'm assuming these two frames : 
>>
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa4,5f5e45837fbbda0017192063
>>
>> You can input things here https://www.bikegeocalc.com/ if you really 
>> want to see how things change. It's sorta geeky, but you catch on how it 
>> works. It beats buying the wrong frame though. 
>>
>> I've edited this so much my heads spinning so forgive me if it's a bit 
>> scattered !
>>
>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/551b3706-f6cb-4bf3-b69b-e2e552e89876n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
> -- 
> Ted Wood < ted.l...@gmail.com >
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/00180fb1-4820-4d83-9089-0f8033401ca2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Ted W]

Thanks for the info, Garth! So, apologies about the confusion in my last
email. I am on a bike tour this week and trying to do everything on my
phone leads to funny wording sometimes, not to mention the difficulty
constructing coherent thoughts with the brain fog from all day riding. I
did not mean to say they were “mostly identical”, you are correct, there is
quite a difference. However, considering that I needed a longer set back
seat post and very long stem on the LHT, the extra room should be a
welcomed difference and the end result of the fit should be mostly
identical using normal-ish parts (standard set back and reasonable length
stem). I was able to use the LHT as a reference for how the Appa would fit
in relation to something I had experience with, despite their differences
and that’s teLly what I was trying to figure out. The last thing I wanted
to do was wind up with something that was severally out of whack to where I
wouldn’t enjoy such an otherwise lovely bike.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:48 AM Garth  wrote:

> Ted, Origin8 makes a "Pro Fit"  zero setback 26.8 silver seatpost. (365
> Cycles sells them) I don't know about the quality of the hardware. I'm
> mainly referring to the bolts and the length of the clamp itself as to how
> long it holds the rails. Kalloy for example, sucks !  Nitto and Thomson
> make them in 26.8 for more money but have proper clamps and stout bolts.
> This will allow you to get your saddle positioned over the BB where you
> need it. *This positioning comes first*, before any consideration of
> reach to the bars.
>
> By the way, the STA and HTA are anything but nearly identical ! The
> difference between 71.5d and 73d in seat angle = appx. 18mm further back of
> the seat tube at saddle height. The 72d and 71d HTA means the Appa bars
> don't move back as much as they do with the shallower LHT. This is where
> when comparing frames you must look at everything in relation with
> everything else. I'm assuming these two frames :
>
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa4,5f5e45837fbbda0017192063
>
> You can input things here https://www.bikegeocalc.com/ if you really want
> to see how things change. It's sorta geeky, but you catch on how it works.
> It beats buying the wrong frame though.
>
> I've edited this so much my heads spinning so forgive me if it's a bit
> scattered !
>
> --
> 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/551b3706-f6cb-4bf3-b69b-e2e552e89876n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Ted Wood < ted.l.w...@gmail.com >

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CANCvShpT%2B-EB%2BqkvW_rJ0U-i_67%2BhujW14rzH804OPSAOeh7fw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Garth]

Ted, Origin8 makes a "Pro Fit"  zero setback 26.8 silver seatpost. (365 
Cycles sells them) I don't know about the quality of the hardware. I'm 
mainly referring to the bolts and the length of the clamp itself as to how 
long it holds the rails. Kalloy for example, sucks !  Nitto and Thomson 
make them in 26.8 for more money but have proper clamps and stout bolts. 
This will allow you to get your saddle positioned over the BB where you 
need it. *This positioning comes first*, before any consideration of reach 
to the bars. 

By the way, the STA and HTA are anything but nearly identical ! The 
difference between 71.5d and 73d in seat angle = appx. 18mm further back of 
the seat tube at saddle height. The 72d and 71d HTA means the Appa bars 
don't move back as much as they do with the shallower LHT. This is where 
when comparing frames you must look at everything in relation with 
everything else. I'm assuming these two frames : 
https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa4,5f5e45837fbbda0017192063

You can input things here https://www.bikegeocalc.com/ if you really want 
to see how things change. It's sorta geeky, but you catch on how it works. 
It beats buying the wrong frame though. 

I've edited this so much my heads spinning so forgive me if it's a bit 
scattered !

-- 
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/551b3706-f6cb-4bf3-b69b-e2e552e89876n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Hoch in ut]

You’ve already concluded the 57 was the right size. I think so, too, based 
on the fact you wanted to set this up as an Upright dropbar bike. Higher 
the bars, closer the bars come towards you. 54 would’ve felt too cramped. 
Best wishes on the build!

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks to the help from my LBS I was directed to bike insights and pulled 
> up another frame I own and compared it to the Appa. I came to the 
> conclusion that I should go with the 57cm based on the overlaid wire frames 
> of the bikes and purchased one of these in purple.
>
> To Hoch’s question, I want to run drop bars. I’ve tried swept back bars on 
> my Gus and while I like it, this build will serve a different purpose and 
> I’m generally more comfortable with a more upright, drop bar position.
>
> To expand a bit (ok a lot), the 57cm Appa had a difference of about 45mm 
> overall compared to the 54cm Surly Disc Trucker it will be replacing. I 
> naively purchased the trucker thinking I could get away with the smaller 
> frame to maintain 26” wheels by stretching it out with a longer stem and 
> long setback seat post. I was successful, however, in doing so I changed 
> the handling characteristics quite negatively (I believe due to extending 
> the reach so dramatically) and this make it feel like the front wheel 
> wanted to flop over when cornering. When lining up the BB in the wire frame 
> models, the seat tube and head tube angles of the two bikes were nearly 
> identical and the tops of the seat post collar was fairly similar. The 
> primary differences were the extended wheelbase of the Appa due to the 
> extra long chainstays and the head tube being about 45mm further forward, 
> as mentioned previously. So, this made it fairly easy to realize that I 
> could get the 57cm Appa and got quite nicely with a rather “normal” stem 
> length of around 50mm instead of the 120mm I needed on the Surly.
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:33 PM DavidP  wrote:
>
>> Hoch's question about intended bars gets to the crux of choosing a frame 
>> size, I think - you want a larger roomier frame for swept back bars and 
>> less reach for drop bars though by changing stem length you can likely get 
>> both bars to work on either.
>>
>> I have the same PBH as you and am comfortable on drop bar bikes with 58cm 
>> ETT. By comparison the ETT on my 60cm Platy seems astronomical, and yet I 
>> run a 120mm stem along with swept back bars and have a fairly upright 
>> position (~75deg back angle) when back on the grips.
>>
>> With regards to your concern about reach - I may be missing something but 
>> the extra 2cm reach also means the BB moves back along with the seat tube 
>> (since reach is measured from BB forward) so the saddle / knee / pedal 
>> alignment isn't impacted? What would impact the saddle to BB alignment is a 
>> difference in seat tube angle.
>>
>> Have you compared the bike geometries on Bike Insights?
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa5,,
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 PM UTC-4 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ted, are you setting up the Appaloosa with dropbars or flat bars? 
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:09:50 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Long rambling post ahead, but bear with me...

 Folks, I'm stressing about this way more than is probably necessary but 
 I've been pining for an Appaloosa for years and I really want to make sure 
 I won't be bummed out by a poor fit. So, here's the deal. I called Riv and 
 spoke with Roman. After discussing my current bike and my size he 
 suggested 
 the 57cm. Now, I'm not doubting his knowledge on the subject but I can't 
 wrap my head around the difference in measurements between what I'm 
 currently riding and the 57cm Appaloosa and I'm hoping maybe to get some 
 more opinions on the subject to either help me be comfortable with the 
 idea 
 of the 57 or realize that I need the 54...

 Current bike has the following measurements:
 58cm ETT, approx. 39cm reach, 57cm stack and 83cm standover

 The 57cm Appa has:
 62.5cm ETT, 41.3cm reach, 63.5cm stack and 85.2cm standover

 The 54cm Appa has:
 59.8cm ETT, 39.6cm reach, 60.3cm stack and 82.3cm standover

 My PBH is around 87cm so I have plenty of room for either size

 My current bike has a standard setback seatpost with a B17 saddle. I 
 have a 100mm quill stem and Velo Orange, 50m randonneur bars and 170mm 
 crank arms. In this configuration, the bike is almost perfect. 

 Now, I think I'd be quite happy with the additional standover and stack 
 height; my current bike has around 160mm of steerer sticking up out of the 
 head tube, so being able to drop that by 70mm would be aesthetically 
 beneficial. Not to mention the extra top tube length combined with the 
 more 
 slack head tube of the 

Re: [RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Ted W]

Thanks to the help from my LBS I was directed to bike insights and pulled
up another frame I own and compared it to the Appa. I came to the
conclusion that I should go with the 57cm based on the overlaid wire frames
of the bikes and purchased one of these in purple.

To Hoch’s question, I want to run drop bars. I’ve tried swept back bars on
my Gus and while I like it, this build will serve a different purpose and
I’m generally more comfortable with a more upright, drop bar position.

To expand a bit (ok a lot), the 57cm Appa had a difference of about 45mm
overall compared to the 54cm Surly Disc Trucker it will be replacing. I
naively purchased the trucker thinking I could get away with the smaller
frame to maintain 26” wheels by stretching it out with a longer stem and
long setback seat post. I was successful, however, in doing so I changed
the handling characteristics quite negatively (I believe due to extending
the reach so dramatically) and this make it feel like the front wheel
wanted to flop over when cornering. When lining up the BB in the wire frame
models, the seat tube and head tube angles of the two bikes were nearly
identical and the tops of the seat post collar was fairly similar. The
primary differences were the extended wheelbase of the Appa due to the
extra long chainstays and the head tube being about 45mm further forward,
as mentioned previously. So, this made it fairly easy to realize that I
could get the 57cm Appa and got quite nicely with a rather “normal” stem
length of around 50mm instead of the 120mm I needed on the Surly.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:33 PM DavidP  wrote:

> Hoch's question about intended bars gets to the crux of choosing a frame
> size, I think - you want a larger roomier frame for swept back bars and
> less reach for drop bars though by changing stem length you can likely get
> both bars to work on either.
>
> I have the same PBH as you and am comfortable on drop bar bikes with 58cm
> ETT. By comparison the ETT on my 60cm Platy seems astronomical, and yet I
> run a 120mm stem along with swept back bars and have a fairly upright
> position (~75deg back angle) when back on the grips.
>
> With regards to your concern about reach - I may be missing something but
> the extra 2cm reach also means the BB moves back along with the seat tube
> (since reach is measured from BB forward) so the saddle / knee / pedal
> alignment isn't impacted? What would impact the saddle to BB alignment is a
> difference in seat tube angle.
>
> Have you compared the bike geometries on Bike Insights?
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa5,,
>
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 PM UTC-4 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>>
>> Ted, are you setting up the Appaloosa with dropbars or flat bars?
>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:09:50 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Long rambling post ahead, but bear with me...
>>>
>>> Folks, I'm stressing about this way more than is probably necessary but
>>> I've been pining for an Appaloosa for years and I really want to make sure
>>> I won't be bummed out by a poor fit. So, here's the deal. I called Riv and
>>> spoke with Roman. After discussing my current bike and my size he suggested
>>> the 57cm. Now, I'm not doubting his knowledge on the subject but I can't
>>> wrap my head around the difference in measurements between what I'm
>>> currently riding and the 57cm Appaloosa and I'm hoping maybe to get some
>>> more opinions on the subject to either help me be comfortable with the idea
>>> of the 57 or realize that I need the 54...
>>>
>>> Current bike has the following measurements:
>>> 58cm ETT, approx. 39cm reach, 57cm stack and 83cm standover
>>>
>>> The 57cm Appa has:
>>> 62.5cm ETT, 41.3cm reach, 63.5cm stack and 85.2cm standover
>>>
>>> The 54cm Appa has:
>>> 59.8cm ETT, 39.6cm reach, 60.3cm stack and 82.3cm standover
>>>
>>> My PBH is around 87cm so I have plenty of room for either size
>>>
>>> My current bike has a standard setback seatpost with a B17 saddle. I
>>> have a 100mm quill stem and Velo Orange, 50m randonneur bars and 170mm
>>> crank arms. In this configuration, the bike is almost perfect.
>>>
>>> Now, I think I'd be quite happy with the additional standover and stack
>>> height; my current bike has around 160mm of steerer sticking up out of the
>>> head tube, so being able to drop that by 70mm would be aesthetically
>>> beneficial. Not to mention the extra top tube length combined with the more
>>> slack head tube of the Appa might prevent the toe overlap And since I'm
>>> currently running a 100mm stem, I can easily cut that back to accommodate
>>> the additional reach.
>>>
>>> My main concern with the 57cm Appa is the ETT length as it relates to my
>>> knee angle / knee-ankle line. I seem to have a fairly short femur as I'm
>>> always having to push my saddles fairly far forward to get my knee in line
>>> with, or slightly over my ankle to avoid pain in my knees. Being that my
>>> current bike has only 

[RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[DavidP]

Hoch's question about intended bars gets to the crux of choosing a frame 
size, I think - you want a larger roomier frame for swept back bars and 
less reach for drop bars though by changing stem length you can likely get 
both bars to work on either.

I have the same PBH as you and am comfortable on drop bar bikes with 58cm 
ETT. By comparison the ETT on my 60cm Platy seems astronomical, and yet I 
run a 120mm stem along with swept back bars and have a fairly upright 
position (~75deg back angle) when back on the grips.

With regards to your concern about reach - I may be missing something but 
the extra 2cm reach also means the BB moves back along with the seat tube 
(since reach is measured from BB forward) so the saddle / knee / pedal 
alignment isn't impacted? What would impact the saddle to BB alignment is a 
difference in seat tube angle.

Have you compared the bike geometries on Bike Insights?
https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=646ed3ba6c60a90021cb6aa5,,

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 PM UTC-4 Hoch in ut wrote:

>
> Ted, are you setting up the Appaloosa with dropbars or flat bars? 
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:09:50 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Long rambling post ahead, but bear with me...
>>
>> Folks, I'm stressing about this way more than is probably necessary but 
>> I've been pining for an Appaloosa for years and I really want to make sure 
>> I won't be bummed out by a poor fit. So, here's the deal. I called Riv and 
>> spoke with Roman. After discussing my current bike and my size he suggested 
>> the 57cm. Now, I'm not doubting his knowledge on the subject but I can't 
>> wrap my head around the difference in measurements between what I'm 
>> currently riding and the 57cm Appaloosa and I'm hoping maybe to get some 
>> more opinions on the subject to either help me be comfortable with the idea 
>> of the 57 or realize that I need the 54...
>>
>> Current bike has the following measurements:
>> 58cm ETT, approx. 39cm reach, 57cm stack and 83cm standover
>>
>> The 57cm Appa has:
>> 62.5cm ETT, 41.3cm reach, 63.5cm stack and 85.2cm standover
>>
>> The 54cm Appa has:
>> 59.8cm ETT, 39.6cm reach, 60.3cm stack and 82.3cm standover
>>
>> My PBH is around 87cm so I have plenty of room for either size
>>
>> My current bike has a standard setback seatpost with a B17 saddle. I have 
>> a 100mm quill stem and Velo Orange, 50m randonneur bars and 170mm crank 
>> arms. In this configuration, the bike is almost perfect. 
>>
>> Now, I think I'd be quite happy with the additional standover and stack 
>> height; my current bike has around 160mm of steerer sticking up out of the 
>> head tube, so being able to drop that by 70mm would be aesthetically 
>> beneficial. Not to mention the extra top tube length combined with the more 
>> slack head tube of the Appa might prevent the toe overlap And since I'm 
>> currently running a 100mm stem, I can easily cut that back to accommodate 
>> the additional reach.
>>
>> My main concern with the 57cm Appa is the ETT length as it relates to my 
>> knee angle / knee-ankle line. I seem to have a fairly short femur as I'm 
>> always having to push my saddles fairly far forward to get my knee in line 
>> with, or slightly over my ankle to avoid pain in my knees. Being that my 
>> current bike has only about 1-2cm of additional room on the rails to slide 
>> the seat forward, and the 57cm Appa effectively places the seat tube 
>> another 2cm further back, I'm concerned I'm going to end up unable to 
>> achieve the necessary knee/ankle alignment.
>>
>> So, now that I have probably made myself sound sufficiently insane and 
>> obsessive, give me some opinions. Maybe there's a 0 setback 26.8 seatpost 
>> that could bail me out if it's a problem? Will the other differences in the 
>> frame geometry compensate for the differences in ways I'm not considering? 
>> Hit me with anything you think might be relevant :)
>>
>> -- 
>> Ted Wood < ted.l...@gmail.com >
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b2ebddf0-11da-4328-a49d-c1c7f5396036n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Need help sizing for the upcoming Appaloosa

[Hoch in ut]

Ted, are you setting up the Appaloosa with dropbars or flat bars? 
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:09:50 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:

> Long rambling post ahead, but bear with me...
>
> Folks, I'm stressing about this way more than is probably necessary but 
> I've been pining for an Appaloosa for years and I really want to make sure 
> I won't be bummed out by a poor fit. So, here's the deal. I called Riv and 
> spoke with Roman. After discussing my current bike and my size he suggested 
> the 57cm. Now, I'm not doubting his knowledge on the subject but I can't 
> wrap my head around the difference in measurements between what I'm 
> currently riding and the 57cm Appaloosa and I'm hoping maybe to get some 
> more opinions on the subject to either help me be comfortable with the idea 
> of the 57 or realize that I need the 54...
>
> Current bike has the following measurements:
> 58cm ETT, approx. 39cm reach, 57cm stack and 83cm standover
>
> The 57cm Appa has:
> 62.5cm ETT, 41.3cm reach, 63.5cm stack and 85.2cm standover
>
> The 54cm Appa has:
> 59.8cm ETT, 39.6cm reach, 60.3cm stack and 82.3cm standover
>
> My PBH is around 87cm so I have plenty of room for either size
>
> My current bike has a standard setback seatpost with a B17 saddle. I have 
> a 100mm quill stem and Velo Orange, 50m randonneur bars and 170mm crank 
> arms. In this configuration, the bike is almost perfect. 
>
> Now, I think I'd be quite happy with the additional standover and stack 
> height; my current bike has around 160mm of steerer sticking up out of the 
> head tube, so being able to drop that by 70mm would be aesthetically 
> beneficial. Not to mention the extra top tube length combined with the more 
> slack head tube of the Appa might prevent the toe overlap And since I'm 
> currently running a 100mm stem, I can easily cut that back to accommodate 
> the additional reach.
>
> My main concern with the 57cm Appa is the ETT length as it relates to my 
> knee angle / knee-ankle line. I seem to have a fairly short femur as I'm 
> always having to push my saddles fairly far forward to get my knee in line 
> with, or slightly over my ankle to avoid pain in my knees. Being that my 
> current bike has only about 1-2cm of additional room on the rails to slide 
> the seat forward, and the 57cm Appa effectively places the seat tube 
> another 2cm further back, I'm concerned I'm going to end up unable to 
> achieve the necessary knee/ankle alignment.
>
> So, now that I have probably made myself sound sufficiently insane and 
> obsessive, give me some opinions. Maybe there's a 0 setback 26.8 seatpost 
> that could bail me out if it's a problem? Will the other differences in the 
> frame geometry compensate for the differences in ways I'm not considering? 
> Hit me with anything you think might be relevant :)
>
> -- 
> Ted Wood < ted.l...@gmail.com >
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fe18dea6-b85e-4061-a9e1-bfdc8f7fdad8n%40googlegroups.com.