Yes,as Steve pointed out, Rivendells use oversized tubing. My Homer is perhaps
stiffer than my 155 lb body needs. I read with great interest Jan's writings on
frame flex and planing with standard diameter tubing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
My experience doesn't reflect this. I recently picked up a low trail
Rawland Nordavinvden, and it handles very well with no load and high, wide
bars (above saddle by maybe 1.5) I actually haven't even ridden it with
any front load yet.
Though I also like my higher trail, stiffer tubed Crosscheck
Comments on two prior posts.
Yes Rene, I've enjoyed it also. I drooled over Rivendells when I first saw
a Romulus ad. The first production bike that would fit me off the rack
though was a smaller Rambouillet, so I got one at the end of 2006. 10,000
miles later, I still love it. Later, I started
Me too! Thanks for the clarification, Steve!
On Friday, May 10, 2013 5:28:09 PM UTC-5, Evan wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail vs.
geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!)
--
You received this message because you are
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Evan evanellio...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started a new
follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions about trail?
You can get back issues of Bike Quarterly for a reasonable price. A
good
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Soma forks have 1-1/8 threadless
steerers - too big to fit in Riv frames, which are made for 1 steerers. So
converting your Riv to low trail isn't quite that easy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 22:27 -0700, Evan wrote:
Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started
a new follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions
about trail?
This may help: http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php
1. Does fork rake/offset
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Soma forks have 1-1/8
threadless steerers - too big to fit in Riv frames, which are made for 1
steerers. So converting your Riv to low trail isn't quite that easy.
I do not know about Soma, but the Rene Herse store currently has 1
threadless
actually the smaller wheel diameter of the 650B reduces the trail on the
example provided. The mechanical trail per Jim's calculator is 43 mm for
the 700c wheel and 40 mm for the 650B wheel. Both would be considered low
trail.
~mike
--
You received this message because you are
Thanks, Jan-terrific reading, and it informs the discussion to have it
direct from (one of) the horses mouth as it were...
Steve
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote:
I think there is less difference between Grant's ideas and Bicycle Quarterly
than many
Some of the things that influence trail include:
fork rake
head tube angle
tire width
rim diameter
I suspect that the following influence the feel of trail:
handlebar height
handlebar width
point-of-balance on the bicycle
I've used the trail calculator linked in this thread quit a bit and
Indeed. Reminds me of a quote I read in a novel, something like
Academic infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small.
B-)
Steve
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, RonaTD teddur...@gmail.com wrote:
I am completely baffled by people who seem determined to pick a fight over
Jan vs
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 06:43 -0700, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:
Some of the things that influence trail include:
fork rake
head tube angle
tire width
rim diameter
I suspect that the following influence the feel of trail:
handlebar height
handlebar width
point-of-balance on the bicycle
Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail vs.
geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 15:28 -0700, Evan wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail
vs. geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!)
The end result -- intuitive handling -- is easy. The variables to get
you there are subtle. It's only
Dave Moulton's blog (http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/) discusses trail
toward the bottom where a link takes you to an earlier entry on trail --
and that in turn to a yet older one. I can't say if he is right, but he has
certainly ridden a lot and built a lot of bikes. At any rate, an
What a great discussion. As someone who has changed two of his four
Rivendell bikes to low trail forks to try to discover what the whole trail
thing was about, I can say the following in a completely subjective manner:
- Had I discovered Jan's low trail randonneurs instead of Grant's versatile
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 20:09 -0600, René Sterental wrote:
- Had I discovered Jan's low trail randonneurs instead of Grant's
versatile Rivendell mid-trail bikes, I would have completely missed
the boat and would have become convinced that riding any bike
pain-free was an utopic dream (for
On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:27:02 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote:
Handlebar position has nothing to do with whether a bike has low, medium
or high trail.
I don't know if that is entirely true. Certainly, lower trail bikes favor
having a load at the front to feel normal, at least for me.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
wrote:
Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of
plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort and
sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with undersized
The Real Soon Now models are quite popular. :-)
Cheers,
David
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Cecily Walker cecily.wal...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
wrote:
Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of
What if, as an experienced rider, what you want is something that you can
easily modify over time, because you've been riding long enough to know
that your riding changes over the days/years/decades, your body changes,
and furthermore your bike is just as likely to be ridden on rocky/root
This is apples and oranges ... that's all. There is no one right way for
all only the ways it works for each as themselves. We each have our
purpose ... our reasons for riding ... for living as we do... and no one
needs to justify or give reasons as to why they choose what they choose.
Steve P., what are your riding? Any pics (link). Also, anyone know if there is
low trail google group or equivalent? (I'm already familiar with BQ and Jan
but just wondering if there is a general discussion/group going on elsewhere.)
Thanks,
Perry
--
You received this message because you are
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 05:50 -0700, bobish wrote:
Steve P., what are your riding? Any pics (link).
MAP Randonneur:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/7252011134/in/set-72157627155309179
seen here on tour in Ohio last year
Kogswell P/R:
There really is no one bike to rule them all. That's why I have approximately
10 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
There is one bike. It's whichever one I happen to be riding RIGHT NOW. :)
And then I change bikes then it's THAT ONE. :)
-sv
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
thill@gmail.com wrote:
There really is no one bike to rule them all. That's why I have
I can't argue with that!
I'm glad you meant that; I'd be disappointed if you meant the other. I
sincerely think BQ is one of the best, possibly the best, cycling mag out
today and I'm glad you keep an open mind to your tests.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote:
Thanks, Steve. Those are some awesome looking bikes (and rides).
Perry
--
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
“He delighted to tread upon the brink of meaning”. (Dr. Johnson of John
Dryden.)
Patrick Moore, saying it affectionately and not at all deprecatingly of
Garth.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Garth garth...@gmail.com wrote:
This is apples and oranges ... that's all. There is no one right way
Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started a new
follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions about trail?
1. Does fork rake/offset alone determine trail?
2. If so, how much rake is low trail? About 45mm?
3. How much rake is mid trail? About 55mm?
Jan and Grant remind me of old Outdoor Life writers like Jack O'Connor
who brought romance and excitement to their sport (hunting). They promote
the sport they love through their ideas and designs, but both love
different things about the sport/lifestyle. I generally love reading
everything they
I think I posted into the comments when that article originally came out. I
have to go through it though.
I believe she went and bought herself a seven axiom and has since sold the
Hillborne. I remember her saying that she never really did carry much in
the way of gear on the bike and never
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 20:09 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of
plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort
and sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with
undersized tubes, and
This is all a matter of taste, I think. I'm 170 - 175, and my custom Rivs
ride just fine -- I've never felt that they are sluggish in any way, and
this compared to other bikes with the old standard sized and all 531
tubing.* My seat-of-the-pants test is how fast I can turn the cranks in a
given
What actually is a Randonneur frame?
Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more suited
to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - fenderability and
tire width and ad- ons capability excluded?
--
You received this message because you are
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote:
What actually is a Randonneur frame?
Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more
suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes -
fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded?
Palincsar palin...@his.com
Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote:
What actually is a Randonneur frame?
Meaning, what is it about its geometry
is an apples/oranges thing.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com
Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote:
What actually
Randonneur is the new cyclocross. Nothing wrong with either, but like 10
years ago it seemed everyone started making cyclocross bikes and everybody
started racing, now it has shifted to Rando. But I agree with Jim Thill,
get a nice bike you like and JUST RIDE!
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Steve P: I used the term undersized in reference to tubing because the
smaller tubing diameter has become nonstandard over the last 20 or so years.
You can switch it around and refer to that which is the current norm as
oversized if you prefer, but that seems like too much effort swimming
I've never given this whole debate much thought. I like Rivendell bikes
because when I manage to squeeze two or three hours out of my busy schedule
on a weekend for a ride in the local mountains, I want to ride a road
bike that will take me anywhere, including rocky trails if the notion
grabs
I am somewhat contrarian - at least from the Riv / BQ perspective.
In the nine years now I've been without a car, I have come to the
conclusion that I far prefer a a low trail bike with porteur style rack for
urban commuting and errand running. For me it is easier popping my things
and
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 09:03 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
Steve P: I used the term undersized in reference to tubing because
the smaller tubing diameter has become nonstandard over the last 20 or
so years. You can switch it around and refer to that which is the
current norm as
So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to
agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right.
Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by extension
that Grant was/is objectively wrong. You mean that subjectively, for you
and the riding
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote:
So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to
agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right.
Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by
extension that Grant was/is
, May 08, 2013 3:28 PM
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote:
So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to
agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 19:40 +, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote:
It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's
all you've said -- is that you personally (and subjectively) value the
incremental benefit in climbing/pedaling efficiency (relative to the
efficiency of your
...very few people have ridden a bike like Jan suggests so it's hard to
accept that there is a difference. A standard dia. 531 tubed bike is built
stiffer than Jan's performance based Randonneuring bikes.
While I believe humans can adapt to most any thing, there are
subtle advantages to the
, May 08, 2013 3:47 PM
To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 19:40 +, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote:
It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's
all you've said -- is that you
This excellent summation of a randonneur bike's mission also describes a
commute bike's mission. You need to get yourself and some gear to a
destination, on time. A commuter (this one, anyway), may get a randonneur's
five hour feeling at the 40 minute mark.
In the bigger debate, I don't
I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. I think
part of that is curiosity about the type of ride that Rivendell's provide.
I've heard so many glowing reports that I want to experience it for
myself. Also, I'm an uber-clydesdale and I trust Rivendell bicycles to be
These types of threads are equivalent to arguing over which is the better
type of screw dirver, flat head or phillips head? Whichever best suites the
job you want to accomplish. A true rando bike is a purpose built machine.
Riv's are not built as rando bikes (integrated lights, front loading
:
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote:
What actually is a Randonneur frame?
Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it
more suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road
.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Palincsar pali...@his.com
Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote:
What actually is a Randonneur frame?
Meaning, what
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:12 -0700, Philip Williamson wrote:
This excellent summation of a randonneur bike's mission also describes
a commute bike's mission. You need to get yourself and some gear to a
destination, on time. A commuter (this one, anyway), may get a
randonneur's five hour feeling
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, samh wrote:
I was fascinated by the discussion here:
http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html
One difference between Riv and BQ that I may have missed is their
preference in handlebar width. Grant/Riv likes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 14:29 -0700, Brewster Fong wrote:
One difference between Riv and BQ that I may have missed is their
preference in handlebar width. Grant/Riv likes them wide like 46cm or
even 48cm. In contrast, Jan H appears to like them narrower like
38-40cm. Could be body difference,
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, as well as the right to
express it in a peaceful fashion. But I can't help asking ... why would
someone who so blatantly feels all Rivendell frames are designed wrong
spend so much time hanging out and chatting with the RBW Owner's Bunch? I
I think there is less difference between Grant's ideas and *Bicycle
Quarterly* than many surmise. We both want versatile and durable bikes that
are fun to ride and look nice. Whether it's a fully integrated 650B
randonneur bike or a Homer Hilsen, both machines allow you to ride in
places where
Right for you. Not right for everyone else.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote:
So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to
agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was
Another generalization from particular experiences. I like narrow bars on
my Rivendells. To put it in the language of this debate, narrower bars
work better with higher trail.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote:
Higher trail works better with wider bars,
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:42 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
Right for you. Not right for everyone else.
Nobody ever said everyone else. I sure didn't.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Another false generalization from particular experience.
If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride
enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, then
the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without equal.
--
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:48 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
Another false generalization from particular experience.
Actually I think the problem is simply the omission of the phrase and
what you want is the sort of thing the constructeur bike offers
inserted between want, and and in the first
Summing up the thread neatly, it was written:
I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles.
Jan and Grant have both stated numerous times that the differences between them
are greatly exaggerated. When I compare Rivendell to BQ to Trek to Cannondale
to Blue to
That is very correct. It may well be that Jan's preferred bikes are best
for randonees -- I don't know that, and it may well be that some educated
randoneurs prefer the qualities of Rivendell style bikes or racing bikes or
whatever else for the same riding. But I do know that Rivendells -- to take
I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, this
is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want to
spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred
types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and
money
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM UTC-7, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:
I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles.
Yeah, that tends to be my experience. Also, I love waffles.
--mike
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners
Waffles are the best. They serve pancakes in hell.
Cheers,
David
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Mike mjawn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM UTC-7, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:
I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles.
Yeah, that tends to be my
Sticking together is what good waffles do.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:58 PM, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote:
Waffles are the best. They serve pancakes in hell.
Cheers,
David
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Mike mjawn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:15:52 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least,
this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want
to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred
I am completely baffled by people who seem determined to pick a fight over Jan
vs Grant. I know them both, have been in fun discussions with them about
bikes, read a lot of what they have written, and can't for the life of me
figure out why people think there is some sort of holy war worth
What's funny is that Lovelybike wrote this 2 years ago. She has since sold
her Sam Hillborne and bought a skinny tubed low trail Rawland with Hetres.
~mike
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, samh wrote:
I was fascinated by the discussion here:
Personally, I really like the idea of d) all of the above. I love my Homer
Hilsen and look forward to the day when i find the right constructeur to
build a custom fully integrated bike just for me.
Peace.
-Jimmy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
She's done a decently balanced review. I love my Atlantis (now well over
40,000 miles) and anxiously await every issue of BQ. I do not agree
completely with either Grant or Jan but both have well substantiated
arguments for their philosophies. To me, it boils down to Grant's
statement
I'm a strong advocate of not reading too much navel-gazing analyses of geometry
and other BS, and JUST RIDE. That said...
It could be that what makes an optimal bike for brevets in the Cascades is
somewhat different than what goes into GP's family of all-rounders that get
tested on the rocky
I agree with your points on lighter or thinner tubing, Jim, One thing I
have considered, thought, is sending off the romulus and getting a new fork
made for it in what would be a decidedly high rake (low trail) bike.
Like Rene has done on this list.
I think that would be a better test to see if
+1 on what Jim said. I love my Hilsen and still learning about it's
behavior which so far is stable and nimble enough.
Hugh
Sunland, CA
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
wrote:
I'm a strong advocate of not reading too much navel-gazing analyses of
--She's done a decently balanced review.
I think the really interesting stuff is in the comments.
--
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
80 matches
Mail list logo
