[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I am pretty sure this is exactly what Garth posted, but I did stumble upon this page today... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gfiN1kOxVrthdc6eScUF9fP5n-BvRBILbBMYiEg5LM4/edit#gid=0 The older 56cm Sam with the 59cm tt always jumped out at me. There may be other models that have changed

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Thanks Garth! On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 5:04:38 PM UTC-4, Garth wrote: > > > > > >

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Re: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

They might be in one of the Readers.-Original Message- From: jandrews Sent: May 31, 2018 1:39 PM To: RBW Owners Bunch Subject: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available Does anyone have the older geo charts for the 1st round of Hillbornes?  I believe they were up on the site until just

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Does anyone have the older geo charts for the 1st round of Hillbornes? I believe they were up on the site until just recently Thanks Jason On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:10:23 PM UTC-4, tc wrote: > > I just noticed Riv has posted new geo charts with the new bikes > represented. >

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

For those debating a smaller or larger size frame if your PBH is on the line between sizes: I have settled on going with bigger frames, at least as far as Riv goes, if my PBH puts me on the line between sizes. I personally like less stem and seat post showing. I like that larger frames get

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I don't recall where but Grant said the new Atlantis and Joe A. were functional equivalents. So either would be fine with heavier loads. On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-4, Jonathan D. wrote: > > I see the difference between the Sam and the MIT Atlantis. My Joe and Sam > ride very

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Confirming what Bill said re: the Sam/Homer comparison. Couple of years ago Grant did a lengthy Blug piece on the Sam. He noted that the two felt so similar he couldn’t tell the difference. Go with one or the other and you’ll be ready for sporty riding or going on a weekend campout. OTOH an

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Hi Tom, Thanks for doing those measurements on your Sam! I have been paying particular attention to stack height on potential frames and knowing the real, even if approximate, figure on a 58cm Sam really helps. I need to measure my 58cm Joe to see how it figures in. The 2017 chart shows

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Sorry if this is a duplicate post ... I think I just lost my original. Sam and Homer are "country bikes". New Atlantis and Joe are designed for loaded touring. Anyway, Max, bottom line per the new Riv catalog is that Homer and Sam are, quote "...95 percent functional clones, and you can pick

Re: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Then there's my Cheviot, which is a Sportybike Load Carrier Longstay Mixte Cruising Racer! -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

This is correct, with many shades of grey between Sporty Bike and Loadcarrier! And don’t forget, one needs: Drop Bar Sporty Swept Back Sporty Drop Bar Load Carrier Swept Back Load Carrier > On May 27, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > Max asked: "Now, for the

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I see the difference between the Sam and the MIT Atlantis. My Joe and Sam ride very differently. What are folks thoughts on the differences between the Toyo Atlantis and the Sam Hillborne besides tire clearance? I would think both have stout tubing and the geometry charts look similar to my

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Max asked: "Now, for the functional differences between Homer, Sam, and Atlantis – increasing tire size and load capacity?.. " Homer and Sam are functionally equivalent. There's no great justification for any normal person to have a Homer and a Sam, unless you were going to execute two

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Look at the Front-Center dimension on the 58 cm Sam – clearly a typo. Also, the maximum tire size on Sam being 700x46, whereas on Homer 700x56 has got to be wrong... Good thing folks are flagging this – hopefully Riv can do a correction? Now, for the functional differences between Homer, Sam,

Re: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

There have always been subtle variations. Your story, Doug, mirrors what I said about top tubes on the 64’s: 62cm long in 2001. 60 cm long in 2007. And yes, Hillbornes too: the very earliest green ones with cantis had longer TT’s than the sidepull/canti oranges that followed them in 2010.

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

There have been on-going subtle variations. I tend to focus on the 58 cm Atlantis since that's what I ride. In the current chart, the gray one with the old geos shows chainstays for a 58 cm Atlantis at 45.5 cm, which is what my '03 has. But in the May '17 chart, the clock in at 47 cm. I

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I do think there are are typos and/or oddities in the geometry charts, though, who knows, maybe with certain center pull brakes 55mm is possible. I think you are certainly right about the Tektro sidepulls though. I get the impression that more goes into the recommended PBH/sizing chart than

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Anyone else notice that the new Homer has more tire clearance than a canti Sam? Or do you think that's a typo? I don't recall Tektro 559's clearing a 55mm... Also, anyone remember what the chainstay length on the previous Sam generation was? -- You received this message because you are

Re: [RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Also worth noting that the 64 Atlanti changed over the years. Mine from 2001 has a 62 cm TT. Later on that went to 60 cm on the Toyo ones. (Those are lengths before adjusting for TT upslope of 2.5 degrees.) Sent from my iPhone > On May 25, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Bob Lovejoy

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Brent, Thanks for doing that! I think the Sam numbers in the new chart were changed after the initial posting, as the 58cm Sam had a listed ETT of 61.5 (I think). That has been changed to 60, still a bit longer than the 59cm listed previously but I have no reason to believe it wrong. And,

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I have a Sam, Joe and Atlantis in the stable (lucky guy!) so I pulled out my spreadsheet. Here's what I found looking at my old vs listed new: 62 Appaloosa (2017) - no changes to new version 62 Sam (2017, non-canti) - new version has 1 cm more top tube, 3 cm more on chainstay. Only changes.,

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

The first chart is very useful. Measure your PBH & scan across the models for your size. Nice presentation. dougP On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 6:10:23 PM UTC-7, tc wrote: > > I just noticed Riv has posted new geo charts with the new bikes > represented. >

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:47:45 AM UTC-6, Bob Lovejoy wrote: > > > The actual page for the Appaloosa frame shows a chart with different > numbers (59.7 tt) but I believe that is actual/physical top tube length and > not the effective/level length, taking into account the sloping top

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I have a 58cm Appaloosa and from my basic measurements, I am going to say that the new listings (on the updated frame geometry page) for it seem correct (61.5 tt, 64.5 front center, 53cm chain stays). The actual page for the Appaloosa frame shows a chart with different numbers (59.7 tt) but I

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

In my above analysis, I meant to say that the 55cm Appaloosa appears to be bigger than the 56 cm MIT Atlantis, and that both of those are in turn bigger than either the *58cm legacy Atlantis or the 59cm, 2016 MUSA Atlantis.* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Bob Lovejoy wrote: > > > Also, in reference to iamkeith's post... It seems I remember two different > sets of geometry numbers around for the Appaloosa. I just concentrated on > the one I thought correct but I did cringe at the potential for

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I just measured the CC top tube length for my this-year 58cm canti-Sam frameset. I get 58cm. I may be doing it wrong, somehow. But 3.5cm wrong? Dunno... rod On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:10:52 AM UTC-4, Jonathan D. wrote: > > I noticed the Sam TT numbers as well. That seems a lot longer.

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I noticed the Sam TT numbers as well. That seems a lot longer. Being relatively new to Rivendell bikes I just see the increase of Top Tube and Chain Stays in each new model. I am curious, for folks who have ridden both, how does the Sam Hillborne compare to the old Atlantis (not taking

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I do agree... It helps me as well, at least I believe it does! Also, the Sam H. numbers looks off to me. It shows the 58cm Sam with a 61.5cm (effective?) top tube, the same as the Appaloosa. That would definitely be a change if correct. Also, in reference to iamkeith's post... It seems I

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

I thought I remembered the Joe Appaloosa staying the same. The Hillborne seems to have gotten a longer top tube. The 51cm used to be a 55cm top tube but now sporting 57cm. On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 5:57:48 AM UTC-4, iamkeith wrote: > > Interesting. Joe appaloosa geometry seems to have

[RBW] Re: New geometry charts available

Any more hints about the N. AHH ? -- 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 post to this group, send