Yet another way to deal with the alignment of the dropped top tube and the
mid-stays. Reynand style mid-stay attachment, no kink, just to swoop.
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/34156114@N05/11348445043/
That's a 60cm frame over 650B wheels. As others have pointed out, that's a
pretty high hurdle
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 7:03:09 PM UTC-8, Philip Williamson wrote:
Did all French builders use the TT stays?
Peugeot made many women's bikes with a single dropped top tube, but no
extra rear stays. In the 1980s, their inexpensive models had the twin
diagonal stays, but the more
There's a picture of a 60cm Betty Foy on Riv's blug, and it's the first I
remember seeing where the top/diaga-tube looks to meet its rear
counterparts in a clean straight line. On others, and I guess smaller sized
frames, the top tube meets the rear tubes with a slight kink. Again, I must
not
Maybe it has to do with the angles of available lugs?
cheers,
Andrew
(Painstakingly pecked out on my iPhone; please pardon my brevity and tpyos.)
On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:27, BSWP ashtab...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a picture of a 60cm Betty Foy on Riv's blug, and it's the first I
remember seeing
I've noticed that kink as well. I also prefer the look of a single
diagonal line; that's why the diagatube Bombadil and Appaloosa look so
good.
According to Sheldon Brown et al, in a true mixte frame the diagonal
element is actually two stays from rear dropout to head tube. Has Riv ever
The 55cm demo (congrats on getting it, Michael!) has the no-kink geometry,
compared to the 50cm demo (kinky). I used to think the kink detracted from
the look... but my mind's now used to the look, and the 55cm no-kink looks
to be the outlier!
I also think large frames w/o TT or diagatubes
Yah, the 55 Cheviot shares the kink. At least it looks that way from the
posted pics. I have gotten used to look as I have to see the 50 Betty in
the garage every day. But I do prefer the straight line.
Dan
-Marin
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Shoji Takahashi
shoji.takaha...@gmail.comwrote:
It definitely looks as though they use the same lugs (for cost savings I
assume), which just means the tubes, because of varying lengths, though at
similar angles, meet at different points.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:46:28 PM UTC-5, Shoji Takahashi wrote:
For fabricating a true mixte, the limitation is the lug-- Riv would have
to use a different headlug and seat lug () or perhaps do a filet braze
to the headtube? I think Liesl mentioned that her custom Appaloosa will
Leslie
I thought the same thing, but when I went back in the BLUG, that special
lug you are referring to is a seat lug, with the seatpost clamp and
everything. Two different lugs.
Here's the famous one:
Sheldon does not appear to support his true mixte definition, except the
implicit support of Sheldon says so.
For the most part, that's enough for me, but does anyone have a French
source to differentiate solid-tubed step-through frames as being not a
mixte? I always wondered if it was a sly
Quote from Sheldon (AASHTA):
According to Sheldon, a mixte is:
A style of lady's http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_l.html#ladys frame
in which the top tube http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ta-o.html#toptube
consists of a pair of small diameter tubes running more-or-less straight
from the
Yeah, the true mixte vs not true mixte thing is just a dumb distinction.
Mixte is not french for a step through frame with twin laterals. There is
no better name for the style of bike with a top tube hitting mid seat tube,
and it is used interchangeably by most people for a true twin lateral vs
ceci n'est pas une Bombadil:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_bunik/4494454218/
On 1/8/14, Bill Lindsay tapebu...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote from Sheldon (AASHTA):
According to Sheldon, a mixte is:
A style of lady's http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_l.html#ladys frame
in which the top tube
Fo-Sheezy, Joe Breezy
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC-8, jbu...@gmail.com wrote:
ceci n'est pas une Bombadil:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_bunik/4494454218/
On 1/8/14, Bill Lindsay tape...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Quote from Sheldon (AASHTA):
According to
it is a little bit Breezy, now that you mention it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_bunik/4899070155/
On 1/8/14, Bill Lindsay tapebu...@gmail.com wrote:
Fo-Sheezy, Joe Breezy
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC-8, jbu...@gmail.com wrote:
ceci n'est pas une Bombadil:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:39:01 PM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote:
Leslie I thought the same thing, but when I went back in the BLUG, that
special lug you are referring to is a seat lug, with the seatpost clamp and
everything. Two different lugs.
Here's the famous one: or maybe you are
Oh, and while talking mixtes, here's a bike that brought me around to
thinking about them
http://rivbike.tumblr.com/post/2349587723/mountain-mixte-custom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To unsubscribe from this group
Aha. I didn't keep the allowable variant mixte style in my mind.
This not a mixte (ATS):
http://www.biketinker.com/2012/fine-bikes/state-of-the-steyr-3-15-12/ (no third
set of stays)
This IS a mixte:
http://www.biketinker.com/2012/fine-bikes/state-of-the-belleville-3-21-12/
(twin tubes +
I agree. I recall the heated debates over fixed gear vs fixed wheel, as
well as the Singlespeed is a misnomer, since they go many speeds! and Don't
call it a fixie! controversies. I reject those on slightly different grounds,
though.
You undermined your whole position, though, by reminding me
Speaking of fixed gear, now that I've got my correspondence course diploma
on a frame I couldn't give away 10 years ago, I'd say my circle is almost
complete.
Jeff Ix-nay on the Mix-tay Hagedorn
Warragul, VIC Australia
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
21 matches
Mail list logo
