[RBW] Riv-related double century - DV

[Esteban]

Hi, folks.
Just did my first double in Death Valley yesterday on the Romulus.  I
saw some steel bikes - a handful of fixies, a classic 80s Peugeot,
and, well... that's it.  It was mostly fender-less MCRBs, even though
the forecast called for a 50% chance of rain. It rained on my for
about an hour from mile 160-175.  The Romulus was more up to the task
than I:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25671...@n02/4414962251/

At a few points, I was worried about finishing under the 17 hr. limit,
but I pushed pretty hard the last 75 miles, after loligagging the
first 50 and suffering through much of the climbing.

Here's a little write-up:
http://veloflaneur.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/theres-beauty-in-the-suffering/

I think some folks are making it to Solvang?  If so, write it up.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] the Baggins theme song?

[Jon Grant]

Oh, I¹m sorry, but that¹s atrocious. What a thing to have to see just before
going to bed. 

--
Jon ³Papa² Grant
Illustration + Information Graphics
Austin, Texas
jgr...@papagrant.com
512-284-9599



From: Aaron Thomas 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:52:08 -0800 (PST)
To: RBW Owners Bunch 
Subject: [RBW] the Baggins theme song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] the Baggins theme song?

[Aaron Thomas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] What's a good way to dispose of cf bike forks? (was ... carbon fork to the dump)

[LF]

On Mar 7, 3:09 pm, Beth H  wrote:
> DON'T send that carbon fork to the dump!
> Carbon fiber parts don't break down in a way that's healthy.
> It's like watching a Corvette crash; all shards and fibers, something
> to be swept away while wearing a construction safety mask. Seriously.
> Instead, consider shellacking it and turning it into art.
> And send pictures.
> Cheers --Beth
..
I reply:

Beth,

Ah, the best way to dispose of CF?  It's a real problem. My impulse to
send it to the dump has drawbacks. The stuff doesn't break down.

If I recycle it (with or without the CF vs. steel fork fight), it
could conceivably be recycled into another CF bicycle fork, with the
cheaper price of recycled CF bringing the fork to a more attractive
price point. ...  "a small group of pioneering carbon fiber recyclers
believes it is not only possible, but probable that reclaimed carbon
fiber can be sold at a significantly lower-than-virgin but still
profitable price and expect market opportunities to expand as their
recycling technologies are further refined and perfected. One such
firm is Adherent Technologies (Albuquerque, N.M.), which says that
demand for chopped and milled carbon fiber is growing as carbon fiber
is used in greater quantities outside the aerospace market, especially
in applications where cost savings associated with fiber reuse are
overcoming initial resistance to “recycled” materials."


If I were a better tinkerer, I could turn it into a wheel truing
stand.  Getting it to work for truing rear wheels would be quite a
hack.

Your suggestion to turn it into art is a good one. Maybe  I could turn
it into a warning piece of art "friends don't let friend's ride CF
forks" ... with some pics or anecdotes along with it. I doubt my LBS
would be willing to exhibit it, but it would be controversial.

 I've got plenty of undone projects as is. Ah time to
contemplate ...
What is a good quick and effecient way to dispose of a CF bike fork?
All suggestions welcome.

Best,
Larry





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:44 PM, cm wrote:


I think it is pretty common sense for the builder of a certain thing
to explain why they built it the way they did and not the way someone
else did. So if you make steel bikes because you think they are the
best, it has to be true that you think something else is not the best.
And on that spectrum, there has to be a yang to your ying-- ie carbon
fiber to grant's steel. Disagree all you want, have your own ying--
but isnt the bike industries turn away from steel to other materials
saying the same thing about steel that G is saying about CF? Read the
mags and they routinely say things like "every cyclist should aspire
to CF."


No, I think that change is to an extent cynical and profit driven.   
The higher tech something seems, the more can be charged for it and  
the better the profit margin.  Actual performance is not really  
important for sales- and, when the item is shown to fail or not work  
as well as was hoped, it's already obsolete and a new higher-tech  
widget is already at your LBS for sale.   You can trust us this time.


If you look at the bikes of people who commute to wrk year round, or  
ride 10,000 miles a year, or are touring... many if not most are  
riding steel frames.  That's not necessarily specific to the  
material, since there are few CF bikes with fenders, fat tire  
clearance or pannier rack mounts.  CF is aimed at people with  
disposable income or a perceived need for the newest-fastest-latest- 
greatest, whose purpose is to look cool or to go fast.


I get a kick out of seeing old-guys-in-my-age-group-or-older-which- 
is-50+ on an $8,000 CF bike and hauling 30 extra lbs of bellyfat.   
I'm no longer very fast, certainly not lean at 6'4" and 215-220 lbs,  
and at least once a week during the riding season I get amused and/or  
annoyed off at one of these old farts for jumping onto my wheel when  
I pass them and drafting me for miles with no offer to help.  On  
their own they can't roll along faster than 20 mph, so they draft the  
guy on the steel bike with fenders, 32 mm wide tires, generator  
lights, a front rack and handlebar bag...


BTW, not being a particularly hardy guy, I just got out for my first  
bike ride of 2010 now that the snow pack is down to a foot or so.  I  
hate riding on thawing streets and getting my bikes all schmutzed up,  
but it was 47F today and that's riding weather even with big snow  
drifts and potholes. I envy people who live somewhere warm and where  
it's not normal to have feet of snow on the ground and the roads for  
5 months a year.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:36 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Tim McNamara   
wrote:


Aluminum alloys fall in between and are worth inspecting,  
especially cranks at the pedal eye, handlebars/stems and rim  
braking surfaces.


I wonder: if all the research and attention and money had gone into  
updating those wonderfull-looking, spidery-thin pro-level cottered  
cranks of yore, as well as the old steel stems and bars, how light  
could we have gotten them with modern alloys while still  
maintaining that steel-don't-usually-snap safety margin?


(No better looking cranks IMO than some of those old steel ones  
used by Bartali et alii.)


My friend John McD has an old Swiss bike, can't recall the brand but  
it came with Campionato Del Mundos when it was new, and has a Campy  
steel crank.  Beautiful slim arms and just elegant looking.  And  
those old Chater Leas and Williams cranks, wow.


Crank Bros tried tubular steel cranks back in earlier MTB times; they  
had a reputation for failing at the welds.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:57 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:

And, to put another red herring to sleep: yes, of course, you can  
make a cf anything stronger than any steel frame out there, and yes  
the navy makes nuclear shields for aircraft carriers out of the  
stuff, but that, as someone wisely pointed out, is not the issue;  
what is the issue is the reported, and again I say reported,  
breakage of many, if indeed not all, of the brands and makes cf  
frames and bits and pieces on the market -- "many" relative to  
similar breakage of steel and aluminum.


Bicycles are a very complex structure from the physics standpoint and  
the loads on them in use are also complex.  It's pretty easy to  
mathematically model a simple flat or curved surface (such as a  
bulkhead or a wing) and to design the CF layup for that.  Mold making  
and manufacturing processes to ensure there are no voids are also  
more straightforward.  CF does big flat sheets well- precisely what  
makes it suitable for aircraft, naval craft, Formula 1 and Indy  
cars.  And all or most of those have the benefit of a lot of very  
precise real-world telemetric data especially aircraft and racing cars.


Laying up the CF for a bike frame or fork is *hard.*  Every tube on  
the bike sees multiple loads from multiple vectors- some are loaded  
in compression and bending, some in tension and bending, some in  
compression and torque, some in tension and torque... and in some  
cases the tubes see all of these at different points in the duty  
cycle.  And that's only one problem.  CF's impact toughness and  
fracture resistance are the other major problem.


Steel doesn't have the issue of being strong in some directions and  
weak in others to the extent that CF has.  Steel bike design has been  
developed and refined over 150 years compared to CF's 20 or so.  As  
I've said before, some smartie will come up with ways to address the  
deficits of CF for use in bicycles.  Eventually.  Calfee and Trek and  
those folks are burning the midnight oil.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[R Gonet]

I don't think the manufacturers of carbon bikes are saying that they
are safer, they are saying that they are lighter.  Grant agrees that
they are lighter, they are just less safe.  So the user has to decide
whether the increased risk of injury justifies the benefits from the
reduced weight of the bike.  For Greg Lemond, it might.  For a 190
slug like me, it doesn't.  Besides, like most people, I don't race.

On Mar 7, 2:44 pm, cm  wrote:
> I think it is pretty common sense for the builder of a certain thing
> to explain why they built it the way they did and not the way someone
> else did. So if you make steel bikes because you think they are the
> best, it has to be true that you think something else is not the best.
> And on that spectrum, there has to be a yang to your ying-- ie carbon
> fiber to grant's steel. Disagree all you want, have your own ying--
> but isnt the bike industries turn away from steel to other materials
> saying the same thing about steel that G is saying about CF? Read the
> mags and they routinely say things like "every cyclist should aspire
> to CF."
>
> That said,the first thing I did when i bought my steel Lemond in '03
> was replace the CF fork. Just not worth it to me-- so I am already
> entrenched
>
> Cheers!
> cm

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Wide Range Doubles and Schwalbe Kojaks

[reynoldslugs]

A quick report on two recent topics:

Been riding a 28/42 + 12-34 cassette on a couple bikes for about a
year.  I enjoy 'em, and it doesn't feel like a give up much from my
other favorite drivetrain (24/36/46 +12-34) (yes, I ride really steep
hills a lot).  The wide range shifts just fine, not a problem.  Today
I took out my Gunnar CX bike, with the wide range double set up, and
we did about 4500' of climbing in 3 hours, parked in the lower gears
most of the time.  It's just about perfect for really hilly rides.  I
like the wide range triples, too - can't say I prefer one over the
other, I just like to have different set ups.  Both types of
drivestrains work perfectly for me.

As for tires, I threw a set of Schwalbe Kojaks on the Gunnar, mounted
on a set of Aksiums -- I love Aksiums, not too Rivish, but they are a
great way to have relatively inexpensive second (or third wheelset)
for a given bike.  Different tires give a bike a whole new personality
- - like today.  The Kojaks replaced a set of Marathon Supremes (also
on Aksiums), and I would say the Kojaks were noticeable more supple,
more fun on the twisty downhill stretches, and seemed really smooth
and comfy.  Great way to make a CX bike into a happy road warrior for
a long day. They seem at least as comfy and good in the corners as
Jack Browns.

For my two pence, I feel the same way about the Jack Borwns and the
Kojaks as I do about triples versus wide-range doubles -- either
choice is a good one, lots of fun, and you don't lose much by choosing
one over the other.

Blue skies, sunshine, and sore quads... a great day.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[Ken Yokanovich]

So while it's mentioned that they are made by White Industries, why
not the White Intustries VBC?  Talk about a nice wide-range double,
low Q-factor of 142. Has anyone tried one?

Maybe not the most attractive crank, it is offered in a variety of
different lengths and as a wide-ranged double.  While it does utilize
a proprietary outside ring, a $60 replacement cost is less expensive
than many other high quality rings.



On Mar 7, 12:28 pm, MichaelH  wrote:
> I believe the Davinci, a very nice triple, is listed at a modest 158
> Q, and the design allows for a very short bb, which makes it easy to
> move between a dbl & triple.  BTW, they are made by White right here
> in the US, or at least in Ca.  Not cheap, but less than TA.
> Michael
>
> On Mar 6, 4:33 pm, cyclotourist  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let us all know 'bout that triple if you find it.  The only one I know that
> > narrow (in 110bcd/square taper) is the late-great TA Zephyr.
>
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> > > Avast, heretic! This be week two (to be precise: this is the 8th day of
> > > receipt) and I've put 85 miles on it -- not a lot, but work has been busy.
>
> > > I hope to swap out the egregiously wide 160 mm Sugino for a more modestly
> > > endowed 150 or so (one hopes) Q'd 110 triple. As for the 13, I'd rather
> > > coast. Hell, after five or so years of almost exclusively fixed gear 
> > > riding,
> > > coasting feels, well, decadent, somehow.
>
> > > And, I just ordered VO's discounted 45 mm alum fenders, a
> > > stem-clamp-bolt-mount decaleur for the Ostrich and a VO non-Pletscher 
> > > 2-leg
> > > stand. Ordinarily I frown on kickstands, but the SH has a kickstand plate
> > > that, metaphysically, demands a stand to bolt to it. The Greenfield is 
> > > worth
> > > f-all when you have loaded rear panniers.
>
> > > And now I am scheming to rig up a dynolight. The Nashbar front rack
> > > prevents me, mercifully, from using the ancient Sankya bottle, so I am
> > > waiting to snag a good deal on a DN72.
>
> > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, doug peterson  wrote:
>
> > >> Patrick:
>
> > >> Is this the second or third week with the new bike?  We all knew you
> > >> wouldn't leave things alone!  I agree the 11-32 8 speed is no good for
> > >> touring.  At least you decided to keep the triple!  I'm not qualified
> > >> to get into a theological discussion with you but I'd keep the 13.  A
> > >> bit of tailwind, a slight downgrade.  It can be handy, and will look
> > >> better than another spacer :).
>
> > >> dougP
>
> > >> On Mar 6, 10:25 am, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> > >> > Today I'm taking the Sam Hill to the LBS to have the Deore rear 8/9/10
> > >> sp
> > >> > freehub body exchanged for a (scavenged; thanks Ryan) 7 sp one. And, if
> > >> I
> > >> > can find a way to do so, I'll toss the present 13 outer and have a
> > >> > 15-17-19-21-26-32 6 speed, with an extra spacer or two at the big end.
> > >> For
> > >> > why? One, to put the 19 right in line with the outer 46, for a 68"
> > >> > non-touring cruising gear (Jack Browns). I will keep the 36 since the
> > >> > remaining 67" -- 32" range will probably be nice on long uphills with a
> > >> > touring load. And there remains the 26 inner when I am tempted to
> > >> despair
> > >> > and give up. But for about town riding, the 46/19 X 28" wheel gives me
> > >> the
> > >> > ideal, the classic, nay the ultima ratio and ne plus ultra of
> > >> all-rounder
> > >> > gears and, if I am feeling effete, I can get a full 85" down to 40" on
> > >> the
> > >> > outer. Gad, the excess!
>
> > >> > The other reason is that my mind still boggles at three (3!!!) rings 
> > >> > and
> > >> six
> > >> > (6!!!) cogs: what shall I do with this excess? I dislike, for
> > >> theological
> > >> > reasons, having unused cogs on my cassette, and anything north of 15 is
> > >> > pretty useless to me. If I keep the 13, it will simply be as an 
> > >> > annoying
> > >> but
> > >> > necessary spacer for the 15.
>
> > >> > The original 11-32 8 speed is just, how to put it, crazy. 46X11 = 117".
> > >> Even
> > >> > Eddy didn't have such a gear! The 46X13 is an overkill 99". Fausto 
> > >> > would
> > >> > have sneered. The 15 brings things down to a merely athletic level.
>
> > >> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dustin Sharp 
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Yup, I pretty much ride mine as a 1x9 until the hills come. I'm
> > >> running
> > >> > > 44-30 and 12-27. I do spin out on bigger hills and occasionally wish
> > >> for
> > >> > > something a bit easier for extreme grades. Maybe I should give 44-28 
> > >> > > a
> > >> shot
> > >> > > with one of SRAM's 11-28 cassettes.
>
> > >> > > The other thing that makes this setup work well is having a big ring
> > >> that
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > positioned to let you use almost all of your gears. For me, 135 rear
> > >> > > spacing
> > >> > > and using the inner two rings of a Sugino XD triple with a 113 bb
> > >> makes for
> > >> > > a great chainline.
>
>

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

Better:

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3561856/2007/11/14/thin_french_cranks.jpg

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3561856/2007/11/10/chrome_french_cranks.jpg

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/bikes/jrj-rb1.jpg

http://www.velobase.com/CompImages/Crankset/749D8E48-5706-4714-B375-1C607B918C18.jpeg

http://www.coopertechnica.com/_image/1951-RO-Harrison-Bicycle-3.jpg

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Tim McNamara  wrote:
>
>>
>> Aluminum alloys fall in between and are worth inspecting, especially
>> cranks at the pedal eye, handlebars/stems and rim braking surfaces.
>>
>
> I wonder: if all the research and attention and money had gone into
> updating those wonderfull-looking, spidery-thin pro-level cottered cranks of
> yore, as well as the old steel stems and bars, how light could we have
> gotten them with modern alloys while still maintaining that
> steel-don't-usually-snap safety margin?
>
> (No better looking cranks IMO than some of those old steel ones used by
> Bartali et alii.)
>
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERxywogDj9Y/SaTCEzWlEjI/AR4/tr89K1SovCs/s320/DSC02857.JPG
>
>


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Tim McNamara  wrote:

>
> Aluminum alloys fall in between and are worth inspecting, especially cranks
> at the pedal eye, handlebars/stems and rim braking surfaces.
>

I wonder: if all the research and attention and money had gone into updating
those wonderfull-looking, spidery-thin pro-level cottered cranks of yore, as
well as the old steel stems and bars, how light could we have gotten them
with modern alloys while still maintaining that steel-don't-usually-snap
safety margin?

(No better looking cranks IMO than some of those old steel ones used by
Bartali et alii.)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERxywogDj9Y/SaTCEzWlEjI/AR4/tr89K1SovCs/s320/DSC02857.JPG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Phil Brown wrote:


On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:

On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:


I know many here will disagree with me, but I'm tired of Grant's
constant carbon bashing. What he doesn't mention is that carbon  
frames

can be repaired. Craig Calfee repairs carbon fiber frames and does a
fantastic job.


Unfortunately many carbon repairs fall into the scenario of shutting
the barn doors after the horse is gone.  Since the first inkling of a
carbon failure is often catastrophic, your frame or fork might be
repairable but you may be preoccupied with recovering from your
injuries when your steerer tube snapped or the head tube parted
company with the rest of the frame.

E.g.,http://www.bustedcarbon.com/

Steel just does not fail in this manner unless you ignore obvious
warning signs for a very long time. You could run over a steel bike
wiith a cement mixer and it would fare better than many of the items
on that blog have fared in pretty normal accidents.  Grant's pointing
out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as desperate, it
strikes me as concerned about people's safety.


Well, I don't mean to play devil's advocate-actually, I do, Tim, but
when was the last time any of us actually did a pre-ride inspection
similar to a pre-flight walk around a pilot of a light aircraft does?
Have we checked for cracks, damage or other indicator of ill health in
our bikes? I haven't recently and I'll bet many of us are as
delinquent.


By no means do I do this before every ride, but I do whenever I clean  
up my bikes which is every couple of weeks.  Back when I owned a  
Viscount Aerospace Pro (not that any pros actually rode them),  
several items on that bike broke.  The first was the stem, which  
cracked where the expander plug pressed against the quill.  Then the  
frame cracked at the seat tube above the bottom bracket.  And finally  
the left side of the BB axle snapped when I stood up to take off from  
a stop sign, dumping me onto the street instantly.  Had there been a  
motor vehicle coming up on my left it could have been bad news.   
Oddly enough I rode the "death fork" for 8 years without a problem-  
go figure.  I did see one rider whose Viscount fork failed; he  
escaped with half of his face covered in road rash.  Nasty looking.


Since I ride my bikes pretty regularly I am sensitive to "that  
doesn't sound/feel/look right" as many of us are.  The materials I  
choose for my bikes generally will give some advance warning before  
failure.  I try to eschew materials that don't.  Aluminum alloys fall  
in between and are worth inspecting, especially cranks at the pedal  
eye, handlebars/stems and rim braking surfaces.  Over the years I  
have found cracked frame tubes, a cracked stem, cracked rims, etc.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: sending my carbon fork to the dump

[PATRICK MOORE]

>From the scuttlebutt, that will be a helluva lot of dubious home made
artwork.

Patrick "never got beyond potholders" Moore

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Beth H  wrote:

> DON'T send that carbon fork to the dump!
> Carbon fiber parts don't break down in a way that's healthy.
> It's like watching a Corvette crash; all shards and fibers, something
> to be swept away while wearing a construction safety mask. Seriously.
> Instead, consider shellacking it and turning it into art.
> And send pictures.
> Cheers --Beth
>
> On Mar 7, 6:51 am, LF  wrote:
> > OK. I'm convinced by Grant's 3/6 "carbon bashing" in "Rivendell
> > News."  The carbon fork in my used parts bin is going to the dump,
> > where it belongs.  Thanks Grant.
> > Best,
> > Larry
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:11 AM, bfd wrote:


However, it seems that a man of his insight, connections and knowledge
would be able to distinguish between a FORK and a FRAME. Carbon frames
build by good builders like Calfee, Crumpton, Parlee and Serotta, to
name a few, don't seem to break just "riding along."  May be they do
and since he's an industry "insider" he may see it. But you would
think with the internet and all, that we be hearing about it. For some
reason we don't. Carbon forks, handlebars, seatpost and other bike
parts, are a different issue.



We have heard about such frame failures in rec.bicycles.tech over the  
past few years, most often in the context of the frame failing  
catastrophically in a situation that a steel frame would shrug off,  
like hitting potholes.  By and large, to the best of my recollection,  
these have mostly been failure of the downtube/head tube joint.  In  
at one case I remember reading about, what appeared to happen was  
that hitting the pothole forced the tire to make contact with the  
down tube which then basically shattered.  Another reason to not ride  
low-clearance bikes!


Forks seem to be more common in reports, and CF wheels too.  There  
have been some videos of such failures although searching for them  
today I didn't find any quickly.  Given that lawsuits are involved in  
several of these, that might not be a surprise.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:28 AM, MichaelH  wrote:

> I believe the Davinci, a very nice triple, is listed at a modest 158
> Q, and the design allows for a very short bb, which makes it easy to
> move between a dbl & triple.  BTW, they are made by White right here
> in the US, or at least in Ca.  Not cheap, but less than TA.
> Michael
>
> Perhaps the clarity of my hindsight is clouded by the pink haze of
nostalgia (or the purple haze of something else), but IIRC, the original XTs
and clones, from the late '80s and early '90s, those that took the 122.5 mm
bb spindle, had a Q of about 150 mm. 158 is to wide for my taste -- I feel
as if I am giving birth -- *parturans montem*, as 'twere, like the
proverbial *mus*.

Patrick "resolutely bottom trimming, and I don't mean derailleurs" Moore,
who is being annoyingly literary.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: sending my carbon fork to the dump

[Beth H]

DON'T send that carbon fork to the dump!
Carbon fiber parts don't break down in a way that's healthy.
It's like watching a Corvette crash; all shards and fibers, something
to be swept away while wearing a construction safety mask. Seriously.
Instead, consider shellacking it and turning it into art.
And send pictures.
Cheers --Beth

On Mar 7, 6:51 am, LF  wrote:
> OK. I'm convinced by Grant's 3/6 "carbon bashing" in "Rivendell
> News."  The carbon fork in my used parts bin is going to the dump,
> where it belongs.  Thanks Grant.
> Best,
> Larry

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[cyclotourist]

, they're pretty, too:
http://www.davincitandems.com/images/crank4.jpg

Thanks for that lead as I hadn't heard of them!

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:28 AM, MichaelH  wrote:

> I believe the Davinci, a very nice triple, is listed at a modest 158
> Q, and the design allows for a very short bb, which makes it easy to
> move between a dbl & triple.  BTW, they are made by White right here
> in the US, or at least in Ca.  Not cheap, but less than TA.
> Michael
>
> On Mar 6, 4:33 pm, cyclotourist  wrote:
> > Let us all know 'bout that triple if you find it.  The only one I know
> that
> > narrow (in 110bcd/square taper) is the late-great TA Zephyr.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM, PATRICK MOORE 
> wrote:
> > > Avast, heretic! This be week two (to be precise: this is the 8th day of
> > > receipt) and I've put 85 miles on it -- not a lot, but work has been
> busy.
> >
> > > I hope to swap out the egregiously wide 160 mm Sugino for a more
> modestly
> > > endowed 150 or so (one hopes) Q'd 110 triple. As for the 13, I'd rather
> > > coast. Hell, after five or so years of almost exclusively fixed gear
> riding,
> > > coasting feels, well, decadent, somehow.
> >
> > > And, I just ordered VO's discounted 45 mm alum fenders, a
> > > stem-clamp-bolt-mount decaleur for the Ostrich and a VO non-Pletscher
> 2-leg
> > > stand. Ordinarily I frown on kickstands, but the SH has a kickstand
> plate
> > > that, metaphysically, demands a stand to bolt to it. The Greenfield is
> worth
> > > f-all when you have loaded rear panniers.
> >
> > > And now I am scheming to rig up a dynolight. The Nashbar front rack
> > > prevents me, mercifully, from using the ancient Sankya bottle, so I am
> > > waiting to snag a good deal on a DN72.
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, doug peterson 
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Patrick:
> >
> > >> Is this the second or third week with the new bike?  We all knew you
> > >> wouldn't leave things alone!  I agree the 11-32 8 speed is no good for
> > >> touring.  At least you decided to keep the triple!  I'm not qualified
> > >> to get into a theological discussion with you but I'd keep the 13.  A
> > >> bit of tailwind, a slight downgrade.  It can be handy, and will look
> > >> better than another spacer :).
> >
> > >> dougP
> >
> > >> On Mar 6, 10:25 am, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> > >> > Today I'm taking the Sam Hill to the LBS to have the Deore rear
> 8/9/10
> > >> sp
> > >> > freehub body exchanged for a (scavenged; thanks Ryan) 7 sp one. And,
> if
> > >> I
> > >> > can find a way to do so, I'll toss the present 13 outer and have a
> > >> > 15-17-19-21-26-32 6 speed, with an extra spacer or two at the big
> end.
> > >> For
> > >> > why? One, to put the 19 right in line with the outer 46, for a 68"
> > >> > non-touring cruising gear (Jack Browns). I will keep the 36 since
> the
> > >> > remaining 67" -- 32" range will probably be nice on long uphills
> with a
> > >> > touring load. And there remains the 26 inner when I am tempted to
> > >> despair
> > >> > and give up. But for about town riding, the 46/19 X 28" wheel gives
> me
> > >> the
> > >> > ideal, the classic, nay the ultima ratio and ne plus ultra of
> > >> all-rounder
> > >> > gears and, if I am feeling effete, I can get a full 85" down to 40"
> on
> > >> the
> > >> > outer. Gad, the excess!
> >
> > >> > The other reason is that my mind still boggles at three (3!!!) rings
> and
> > >> six
> > >> > (6!!!) cogs: what shall I do with this excess? I dislike, for
> > >> theological
> > >> > reasons, having unused cogs on my cassette, and anything north of 15
> is
> > >> > pretty useless to me. If I keep the 13, it will simply be as an
> annoying
> > >> but
> > >> > necessary spacer for the 15.
> >
> > >> > The original 11-32 8 speed is just, how to put it, crazy. 46X11 =
> 117".
> > >> Even
> > >> > Eddy didn't have such a gear! The 46X13 is an overkill 99". Fausto
> would
> > >> > have sneered. The 15 brings things down to a merely athletic level.
> >
> > >> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dustin Sharp 
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > Yup, I pretty much ride mine as a 1x9 until the hills come. I'm
> > >> running
> > >> > > 44-30 and 12-27. I do spin out on bigger hills and occasionally
> wish
> > >> for
> > >> > > something a bit easier for extreme grades. Maybe I should give
> 44-28 a
> > >> shot
> > >> > > with one of SRAM's 11-28 cassettes.
> >
> > >> > > The other thing that makes this setup work well is having a big
> ring
> > >> that
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > positioned to let you use almost all of your gears. For me, 135
> rear
> > >> > > spacing
> > >> > > and using the inner two rings of a Sugino XD triple with a 113 bb
> > >> makes for
> > >> > > a great chainline.
> >
> > >> > > Dustin
> >
> > >> > > > IMO a workable wide-range double uses the small ring only as a
> bail-
> > >> > > > out for the biggest climbs, and the big ring for everything
> else.
> > >> > > > Something like 44/24 x 12-xx would work pretty well for 

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:

> nd yes the navy makes nuclear shields for aircraft carriers out of the
> stuff,
>
>
Sorry for the mispelling. I meant, of course, "nucular."

Patrick "no g-d emoticons in *this* family" Moore

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

Sure, there were examples. I got a warning from LLBean years after I bought
a rebranded Cannondate sport tourer from them warning me of cracking, and  I
personally know of 3 good quality steel frames or forks breaking, either
suddenly or gradually. But there wasn't the volume of talk about it as there
seems to be with carbon fiber, and that is my point. I am not arguing
necessary causality, just a greater volume of hearsay association, which is
evidence of a sort for practical decision makeing, obviously.

Again, "widespread." Now perhaps this volume is due to other causes than
rate of breakage, but again, one is permitted logically to worry that it is
not.

And, to put another red herring to sleep: yes, of course, you can make a cf
anything stronger than any steel frame out there, and yes the navy makes
nuclear shields for aircraft carriers out of the stuff, but that, as someone
wisely pointed out, is not the issue; what is the issue is the reported, and
again I say reported, breakage of many, if indeed not all, of the brands and
makes cf frames and bits and pieces on the market -- "many" relative to
similar breakage of steel and aluminum.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Tim McNamara  wrote:

>
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
>
>  One thing is undeniable: there was no such widespread scuttlebutt about
>> steel, titanium or aluminum forks and frames breaking; for whatever reason,
>> the volume rather signifcantly increased only when carbon fiber became
>> common in the bike industry.
>>
>
> Well, there was the Lambert/Viscount "fork of death" which was a cast
> aluminum one piece fork with a steel steerer tube pressed into the fork
> "crown."  These were known to separate and eject the rider to the pavement
> with alacrity.  I worked in a shop that sold Viscounts (and from where I
> bought mine, which I rode for 8 years until the BB spindle snapped, dumping
> me onto the road).  And there are a lot of other broken bike buts out there-
> including some whole galleries of the things on the interwebs.  Somre here:
>
> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/
>
>
>  On a lighter note: it is also reassuring that one can now become a trained
>> and certified Rivendellian in just five years:
>>
>> Indeed, there was a time when it might take decades for someone to
>> transform from a new cyclist to a Rivendell-riding fuddy-duddy, but now the
>> process only takes about five years.
>>
>
> I seemed to have turned into one of those before Rivendell came along.
>  Back in the BOB days when I saw my first Gazette, I thought "geez, I
> recognize this kind of stuff.  It's what I use!"  I raced from 1992-2000 and
> used modern stuff but my heart was never really in it.  As soon as I stopped
> racing it was back to friction downtube shifters and fattish tires.  Except
> for aero levers and clipless pedals- two things I do like better.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[cm]

I think it is pretty common sense for the builder of a certain thing
to explain why they built it the way they did and not the way someone
else did. So if you make steel bikes because you think they are the
best, it has to be true that you think something else is not the best.
And on that spectrum, there has to be a yang to your ying-- ie carbon
fiber to grant's steel. Disagree all you want, have your own ying--
but isnt the bike industries turn away from steel to other materials
saying the same thing about steel that G is saying about CF? Read the
mags and they routinely say things like "every cyclist should aspire
to CF."

That said,the first thing I did when i bought my steel Lemond in '03
was replace the CF fork. Just not worth it to me-- so I am already
entrenched

Cheers!
cm

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Another Fork Question

[Phil Bickford]

Michael -

I found an old steel Schwinn fork on e-bay. It was probably for a
a 27" wheel and had a flat crown to replace a sloping crown, which
worked
for me because I was looking to gain clearance for Jack Browns.

I just tried it with a 650B wheel and a Tektro 556 - no dice. The
build
height on the fork is 382mm.  A 375 would probably work.  Good luck!

Phil B



On Mar 7, 10:40 am, MichaelH  wrote:
> I too need/want a new fork, but not because I currently ride with a
> CF.
>
> But before I go there... I just want to add that I used to ride with
> tt pumps and found I would regularly bounce them loose.  I added
> velcro pump holders and never had another problem.  If I return to
> full size pumps I would definitely use a velcro holder.
>
> But on to the main event.  I am still thinking about converting my
> 1984 Trek 620 to 650B.  But even with that conversion, it would be
> helpful to have a fork with a wider crown and maybe a bit more rake.
> Are there any aftermarket options or am I limited to a custom?
>
> Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Phil Brown]

On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
>
> > I know many here will disagree with me, but I'm tired of Grant's
> > constant carbon bashing. What he doesn't mention is that carbon frames
> > can be repaired. Craig Calfee repairs carbon fiber frames and does a
> > fantastic job.
>
> Unfortunately many carbon repairs fall into the scenario of shutting
> the barn doors after the horse is gone.  Since the first inkling of a
> carbon failure is often catastrophic, your frame or fork might be
> repairable but you may be preoccupied with recovering from your
> injuries when your steerer tube snapped or the head tube parted
> company with the rest of the frame.
>
> E.g.,http://www.bustedcarbon.com/
>
> Steel just does not fail in this manner unless you ignore obvious
> warning signs for a very long time. You could run over a steel bike
> wiith a cement mixer and it would fare better than many of the items
> on that blog have fared in pretty normal accidents.  Grant's pointing
> out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as desperate, it
> strikes me as concerned about people's safety.

Well, I don't mean to play devil's advocate-actually, I do, Tim, but
when was the last time any of us actually did a pre-ride inspection
similar to a pre-flight walk around a pilot of a light aircraft does?
Have we checked for cracks, damage or other indicator of ill health in
our bikes? I haven't recently and I'll bet many of us are as
delinquent.
Phil Brown

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Phil Brown]

On Mar 5, 10:32 am, newenglandbike  wrote:
> naturally,  however i think rivendell's lugs/crowns are exclusively
> their own


I think that Grant would send a crown directly to an established
builder. I know this policy has tightened up but I still think he'd do
it.
Phil Brown

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Another Fork Question

[MichaelH]

I too need/want a new fork, but not because I currently ride with a
CF.

But before I go there... I just want to add that I used to ride with
tt pumps and found I would regularly bounce them loose.  I added
velcro pump holders and never had another problem.  If I return to
full size pumps I would definitely use a velcro holder.

But on to the main event.  I am still thinking about converting my
1984 Trek 620 to 650B.  But even with that conversion, it would be
helpful to have a fork with a wider crown and maybe a bit more rake.
Are there any aftermarket options or am I limited to a custom?

Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[R Gonet]

I just looked at Grant's "carbon bashing" piece on the RBW website and
appended to the end of the original post is a letter from a mechanical
engineer who claims to have great familiarity with carbon materials,
and it is well written and sensible:

"Letter from Joe Thomas.

I read your thoughts on the RBW site and thought I'd chime in. I'll
preface this by stating that while I'm not a material scientist, I do
have a mechanical engineering degree and I've worked in system safety
and reliability on the space station and space shuttle programs for
the last 22 years.

That said, carbon fiber is a wonderful material *IF* it's laid up in a
manner appropriate for its intended use.No one would argue that it's
very strong but the key is the stiffness

.It can be made to be incomparably stiff, as in a Formula 1 race car
chassis, or fantastically flexible, as in a Shakespeare Ugly Stik
fishing rod.

What it can't be, though, is resilient. Either it works or it doesn't;
there's no in-between. Damage it and it's done.

Ever seen an off-road vehicle or race car with a carbon roll cage? No,
and you won't because it doesn't give. When it fails, it fails
completely. Now, I can see that it's a great RACE bike material, if
you're a high level professional competitor who doesn't have to ride
the same bike for more than a season or two but for the recreational
rider who can't afford to plop down several K every few years (and who
isn't a delusional racer wannabe), it makes little sense.

This effect is magnified for anyone who tours. If you suffer even a
mild structural failure with a carbon bike, your tour is over. There's
no fixing that. In contrast, the local welder in Quinter, Kansas, can
shore up your steel bike well enough to let you finish the ride.
Aluminum and titanium are also fixable but in decreasing degree due to
the more specialized skill required. Carbon has its place in the bike
world, no doubt, but it's far from the be-all, end-all of materials.
--Joe Thomas"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Grant Goes Hollywood!

[Robert F. Harrison]

That would have been nice, especially since I'm at LAX Radisson at the
moment (with a bicycle in my suitcase). When I visited Riv last year I
didn't get to meet Grant so it would have been a hoot to meet him a year
later (especially now that I own a Riv) almost exactly a year later. :-)

Aloha!

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Aaron Thomas wrote:

> It's too bad Grant's trip is so impromptu. We here in SoCal could have
> organized a ride!
>
> Aaron
>
> On Mar 7, 4:21 am, Marty  wrote:
> > Good for him - good for them! The Smile Train video worked like magic,
> > and he's off to Tinsel Town for a command performance. Update on
> > Peeking Through the Knothole. Can't wait to see the final cut!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Robert Harrison
rfharri...@gmail.com
statrix.statrix.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[MichaelH]

I believe the Davinci, a very nice triple, is listed at a modest 158
Q, and the design allows for a very short bb, which makes it easy to
move between a dbl & triple.  BTW, they are made by White right here
in the US, or at least in Ca.  Not cheap, but less than TA.
Michael

On Mar 6, 4:33 pm, cyclotourist  wrote:
> Let us all know 'bout that triple if you find it.  The only one I know that
> narrow (in 110bcd/square taper) is the late-great TA Zephyr.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> > Avast, heretic! This be week two (to be precise: this is the 8th day of
> > receipt) and I've put 85 miles on it -- not a lot, but work has been busy.
>
> > I hope to swap out the egregiously wide 160 mm Sugino for a more modestly
> > endowed 150 or so (one hopes) Q'd 110 triple. As for the 13, I'd rather
> > coast. Hell, after five or so years of almost exclusively fixed gear riding,
> > coasting feels, well, decadent, somehow.
>
> > And, I just ordered VO's discounted 45 mm alum fenders, a
> > stem-clamp-bolt-mount decaleur for the Ostrich and a VO non-Pletscher 2-leg
> > stand. Ordinarily I frown on kickstands, but the SH has a kickstand plate
> > that, metaphysically, demands a stand to bolt to it. The Greenfield is worth
> > f-all when you have loaded rear panniers.
>
> > And now I am scheming to rig up a dynolight. The Nashbar front rack
> > prevents me, mercifully, from using the ancient Sankya bottle, so I am
> > waiting to snag a good deal on a DN72.
>
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, doug peterson  wrote:
>
> >> Patrick:
>
> >> Is this the second or third week with the new bike?  We all knew you
> >> wouldn't leave things alone!  I agree the 11-32 8 speed is no good for
> >> touring.  At least you decided to keep the triple!  I'm not qualified
> >> to get into a theological discussion with you but I'd keep the 13.  A
> >> bit of tailwind, a slight downgrade.  It can be handy, and will look
> >> better than another spacer :).
>
> >> dougP
>
> >> On Mar 6, 10:25 am, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> >> > Today I'm taking the Sam Hill to the LBS to have the Deore rear 8/9/10
> >> sp
> >> > freehub body exchanged for a (scavenged; thanks Ryan) 7 sp one. And, if
> >> I
> >> > can find a way to do so, I'll toss the present 13 outer and have a
> >> > 15-17-19-21-26-32 6 speed, with an extra spacer or two at the big end.
> >> For
> >> > why? One, to put the 19 right in line with the outer 46, for a 68"
> >> > non-touring cruising gear (Jack Browns). I will keep the 36 since the
> >> > remaining 67" -- 32" range will probably be nice on long uphills with a
> >> > touring load. And there remains the 26 inner when I am tempted to
> >> despair
> >> > and give up. But for about town riding, the 46/19 X 28" wheel gives me
> >> the
> >> > ideal, the classic, nay the ultima ratio and ne plus ultra of
> >> all-rounder
> >> > gears and, if I am feeling effete, I can get a full 85" down to 40" on
> >> the
> >> > outer. Gad, the excess!
>
> >> > The other reason is that my mind still boggles at three (3!!!) rings and
> >> six
> >> > (6!!!) cogs: what shall I do with this excess? I dislike, for
> >> theological
> >> > reasons, having unused cogs on my cassette, and anything north of 15 is
> >> > pretty useless to me. If I keep the 13, it will simply be as an annoying
> >> but
> >> > necessary spacer for the 15.
>
> >> > The original 11-32 8 speed is just, how to put it, crazy. 46X11 = 117".
> >> Even
> >> > Eddy didn't have such a gear! The 46X13 is an overkill 99". Fausto would
> >> > have sneered. The 15 brings things down to a merely athletic level.
>
> >> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dustin Sharp 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > Yup, I pretty much ride mine as a 1x9 until the hills come. I'm
> >> running
> >> > > 44-30 and 12-27. I do spin out on bigger hills and occasionally wish
> >> for
> >> > > something a bit easier for extreme grades. Maybe I should give 44-28 a
> >> shot
> >> > > with one of SRAM's 11-28 cassettes.
>
> >> > > The other thing that makes this setup work well is having a big ring
> >> that
> >> > > is
> >> > > positioned to let you use almost all of your gears. For me, 135 rear
> >> > > spacing
> >> > > and using the inner two rings of a Sugino XD triple with a 113 bb
> >> makes for
> >> > > a great chainline.
>
> >> > > Dustin
>
> >> > > > IMO a workable wide-range double uses the small ring only as a bail-
> >> > > > out for the biggest climbs, and the big ring for everything else.
> >> > > > Something like 44/24 x 12-xx would work pretty well for me.
>
> >> > > > Bill
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups
> >> > > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> >> > > To post to this group, send email to
> >> rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> > >  e...@googlegroups.com>
> >> 
> >> > > .
> >> > > For more options, visit this grou

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[R Gonet]

Very good point.  It up to each of us to evaluate the risk versus the
reward and make a decision for ourselves.  If, in fact, carbon is less
forgiving than steel, which I believe, then I thank GP for making me
aware of this information.  Don't shoot the messenger of bad news.

On Mar 7, 12:13 pm, Horace  wrote:
> I don't think anybody suggests that EVERY carbon frame or fork will fail in
> the next XX years. In fact, probably a TINY fraction of a percent MIGHT.
>
> I also don't think that EVERY Toyota on the road is going to accelerate
> unexpectedly and uncontrollably within the next XX years either.
>
> The point is that if the consequences are severe enough, then it's not much
> fun playing the numbers game.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: sending my carbon fork to the dump

[rcnute]

No, you have to have a sword fight with it first!

Ryan

On Mar 7, 6:51 am, LF  wrote:
> OK. I'm convinced by Grant's 3/6 "carbon bashing" in "Rivendell
> News."  The carbon fork in my used parts bin is going to the dump,
> where it belongs.  Thanks Grant.
> Best,
> Larry

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Grant Goes Hollywood!

[Aaron Thomas]

It's too bad Grant's trip is so impromptu. We here in SoCal could have
organized a ride!

Aaron

On Mar 7, 4:21 am, Marty  wrote:
> Good for him - good for them! The Smile Train video worked like magic,
> and he's off to Tinsel Town for a command performance. Update on
> Peeking Through the Knothole. Can't wait to see the final cut!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Riv-Related Brevet

[Eric Norris]

The weather turned beautiful for yesterday's Davis Bike Club 200K Brevet.  Rode 
my Rivendell Road to a finishing time of 8:03.

Photos here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/35176...@n03/sets/72157623448016999/ 

--Eric
campyonly...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Horace]

I don't think anybody suggests that EVERY carbon frame or fork will fail in
the next XX years. In fact, probably a TINY fraction of a percent MIGHT.

I also don't think that EVERY Toyota on the road is going to accelerate
unexpectedly and uncontrollably within the next XX years either.

The point is that if the consequences are severe enough, then it's not much
fun playing the numbers game.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[bfd]

On Mar 7, 8:12 am, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:
> I just read Grant's reply to the "carbon bashing bashing" thread and I was
> heartened to learn that (1) he "bashes" -- the quotation marks to indicate
> that this word is used very provisionally -- carbon out of a sense of duty
> and (2) almost even more so, that he has little interest in pushing the
> nostalgia angle. I see no evidence at all that he is dissing a competitor
> for his own commercial advantage; that sort of interpretation involves a
> hermaneutic that is IMO close to paranoid. ("*2.* (Psychiatry)
> *Informal*exhibiting undue suspicion ...)
>
> Now Grant may be wrong; perhaps indeed the high end carbon frames and forks
> out there are superlatively durable; maybe Grant ought to state his
> willingness to consider Calfee's exempt from his warnings. I don't know. But
> if I had his inside information -- I have no reason to believe that he is
> lying about it -- I'd damn well say the same things as he.
>
> One thing is undeniable: there was no such widespread scuttlebutt about
> steel, titanium or aluminum forks and frames breaking; for whatever reason,
> the volume rather signifcantly increased only when carbon fiber became
> common in the bike industry.
>
Thanks Patrick. I just read Grant's response on his website and what
puzzles me is he seems to be mixing the failure of carbon FORKS with
carbon FRAMES. I agree with him that a broken fork, whether carbon or
any other material, can cause serious injury and even death. I stated
above that I was NOT talking about carbon forks, handlebars, seatpost
or any other bike part. I was only talking about carbon FRAMES and his
constant statements that they're not repairable.

However, it seems that a man of his insight, connections and knowledge
would be able to distinguish between a FORK and a FRAME. Carbon frames
build by good builders like Calfee, Crumpton, Parlee and Serotta, to
name a few, don't seem to break just "riding along."  May be they do
and since he's an industry "insider" he may see it. But you would
think with the internet and all, that we be hearing about it. For some
reason we don't. Carbon forks, handlebars, seatpost and other bike
parts, are a different issue.

Maybe the best solution for those interested is to match a steel fork
with a carbon frame? I don't know, it seems that people who are
paranoid about carbon are just not going to ride it at all. Good Luck!


> On a lighter note: it is also reassuring that one can now become a trained
> and certified Rivendellian in just five years:
>
> ***Indeed, there was a time when it might take decades for someone to
> transform from a new cyclist to a Rivendell-riding fuddy-duddy, but now the
> process only takes about five years.*
>
> Youknowwho
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Grant Goes Hollywood!

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Mike wrote:


I'm stoked they won. Good for them. I went for a root canal this week
and right at the end the tooth "fractured" and so will now have to be
extracted. I was pretty bummed. I wasn't even angry just bummed. I
came home feeling a bit sorry for myself and then read a Riv post
about Smile Train and made a donation. Sure I get the Riv credit but
the fact is I just don't have dental/oral problems like the kids
served by Smile Train and that got me out of my head.

I really should have known something was up when the endodontist
leaned over me to get to work and said "Is it safe?"



Ah, the joys of dentistry.  Unfortunately I found out belatedly that  
you can brush your teeth too much and too enthusiastically, causing  
gum recession and all kinds of problems- and also that you should  
have your wisdom teeth extracted before you're about 40, if they  
should come out.  Oh well, six extractions, four crowns and one as- 
yet incomplete implant later I *still* don't have the issues that the  
kids helped by Smile Train have had.


This stuff is extensive (and expensive).  My wife's family has a  
young man born with a cleft palate.  He's had about six surgeries  
over that time, repairing the lip, palate, building a ridge to  
support his teeth, etc. plus braces and normal dental work.  He just  
turned 18 and had his last major surgery, which was to detach his  
upper jaw and move it forward 6 mm and to shorten his lower jaw by 2  
mm to correct his underbite.  They also repaired an incidental  
deviated septum while they were at it.  This is the first person I  
have known with a cleft palate during the procedure; I've got friends  
with cleft palates but met them as adult when they were already  
through all this stuff.  The amount of work that needs to be done is  
just astonishing.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[CycloFiend]

It does worry me a bit that we're starting to discuss carbon fiber on this
list. But, it has been specifically related to Riv/Grant topics, so I am
wont to say it's outside the fence. But, it's leaning against it, eh?

It seems to me that the overarching issue is that carbon is filtering down
to more applications from a wider variety of manufacturers.  If I chose to
ride carbon again, Calfee would be at the top of the list, to be sure. But,
that train has left my station, and when I go into a mass market bike shop
and see the variety of bike company labels on bikes they didn't make, and so
many of those frames (or rear triangle subassemblies) are carbon, it gives
me pause. That's the issue - the wholesale adoption as carbon as the new,
sexy frame material.

I'll save my specific anecdotes, but as the manufacturing of CF has become
more widespread (i.e. not just Craig Calfee and his assistants laying up the
sheets, or the OCLV clean-room tech's at Trek) there are more variables
introduced. My belief is that even when your welder is overworked, po'd or
hung over, it's tough to screw up a steel connection.  If it does, I'd bank
on the material properties of steel to cover the shortfall in manufacture.

I would hesitate to attribute any ill will or "marketing" to Grant's
comments. When you spend time around him, or read through what he's written
and stated, it's clear what he believes in terms of materials for bicycle
frames. 

For me, it the failure mode of CF _is_ the issue.  I don't care if it lasts
one ride, one season or 33 1/3 years, when it goes, it goes.

- Jim

And, yes, I _do_ wish someone would make a nice, light set of steel
cranks... 


-- 
Jim Edgar
cyclofi...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

The Gallery needs your photos! Send 'em in - Here's how:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"She edged in to get a better look at the bike, how it was made, the
intricacy of its brakes and shifters pulling her straight in. Beauty."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:

One thing is undeniable: there was no such widespread scuttlebutt  
about steel, titanium or aluminum forks and frames breaking; for  
whatever reason, the volume rather signifcantly increased only when  
carbon fiber became common in the bike industry.


Well, there was the Lambert/Viscount "fork of death" which was a cast  
aluminum one piece fork with a steel steerer tube pressed into the  
fork "crown."  These were known to separate and eject the rider to  
the pavement with alacrity.  I worked in a shop that sold Viscounts  
(and from where I bought mine, which I rode for 8 years until the BB  
spindle snapped, dumping me onto the road).  And there are a lot of  
other broken bike buts out there- including some whole galleries of  
the things on the interwebs.  Somre here:


http://pardo.net/bike/pic/

On a lighter note: it is also reassuring that one can now become a  
trained and certified Rivendellian in just five years:


Indeed, there was a time when it might take decades for someone to  
transform from a new cyclist to a Rivendell-riding fuddy-duddy, but  
now the process only takes about five years.


I seemed to have turned into one of those before Rivendell came  
along.  Back in the BOB days when I saw my first Gazette, I thought  
"geez, I recognize this kind of stuff.  It's what I use!"  I raced  
from 1992-2000 and used modern stuff but my heart was never really in  
it.  As soon as I stopped racing it was back to friction downtube  
shifters and fattish tires.  Except for aero levers and clipless  
pedals- two things I do like better.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

One fact to take into account is that, I think, foot slippage and pump
slippage resulting in serious injury, like catastrophic failure of steel
bike parts, have not been so common as to generate the kind of buzz that
snapping carbon fiber parts have. Take this for what it's worth, but the
mere volume of anecdotal evidence has, in practical matters, its own logical
rights (see Aristotle's *Rhetoric*). In plain language, a lot of examples
carry more logical, ie reasonable weight (in *praxis*, not in *theoria*)
than just a few. (That is why I don't quiver with anxiety whenever I ride a
steel steerer, despite my one snap-mishap with that Orbit fork.)

And, again, at least according to the apparently scholarly secondary
statistical compilations I've read, cycling is not as dangerous as walking.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bill M.  wrote:

> Many years ago when I lived in Davis, a local rider knocked his top-
> tube mounted pump loose while riding along.  It jammed into the front
> wheel, sending him over the bars.  He died on the spot.  I knocked TT
> mounted pumps loose a couple of times myself while reaching for a
> bottle or a shifter.  I no longer will use a TT pump mount, I don't
> think it's the safest place for a pump.  It looks like the Roadeo has
> a pump peg on the head tube.  Accident waiting to happen?
>
> Also back in those years, my (then) sister-in-law was riding a bike
> without toe clips.  She stood to get started from a stop sign, her
> foot slipped forward off of teh pedal and went through the front wheel
> (between the spokes), wedging behind the fork.  She was thrown forward
> and went down hard enough that a traffic cop that saw her fall called
> an ambulance.  In the ER her belly was so tender they took a fluid
> sample and found internal bleeding.  She was immediately taken to the
> ER, where they opened her up and had to sew up a tear in her liver
> caused by her hitting the stem.  I don't ride without foot retention,
> having had a few near accidents myself due to a foot coming off of a
> pedal at an inopportune time.  I commute with toe clips, and ride
> Speedplay x's or Frogs the rest of the time.  Grant actively promotes
> riding without retention, I feel it's *much* safer to use at least a
> toe clip.
>
> When I went looking for a new club-sport bike a year ago, I couldn't
> afford a new custom, and the Roadeo was not yet announced.  I looked
> at a fair number of steel frames on CL and ebay, but none were close
> enough to giving my the fit I wanted (bars up close to saddle height
> with a shortish top tube).  I thought maybe it would be fun to try a
> Ti frame, and a few have been made that might have fit, but in every
> case the fork was carbon.  What I wound up finding was a lightly-used
> Calfee at a very good price.  The sizing was perfect (2 cm head tube
> extension, 56 x 56, 73 deg parallel).  I can't find any history of
> Calfee's frames failing randomly, nor have I found reports of
> incidents related to the Easton fork.  So far, I have had no problems
> with the bike and find it both fast and comfortable (even though the
> fork limits me to 25 mm tires).
>
> I only use the Calfee for sporting, unloaded bike club rides on paved
> roads.  I have other bikes (Riv Road, Kogswell P/R, Miyata 1000) for
> other riding.  Do I feel unsafe on this bike?  No, not really.  I do
> baby it when I'm not riding it, and keep a close eye on it, but the
> frame is conservatively designed and has a long track record.  The
> fork is the most likely failure point, and my plan is to inspect it
> regularly, and perhaps to replace it after a few season's use.  Should
> I buy a new fork, one likely candidate would be a Wound-Up, which is
> available with a steel steerer.  I could replace the fork twice over
> and still have spent less than a new Roadeo frame would cost.
>
> There are many potential risks in cycling.  I think that the risks
> involved with sharing the road with automobiles, with descending steep
> hills at high speeds, with riding close in a paceline, and with riding
> lightweight tires that can flat at speed outweigh those from riding a
> *well-designed* composite bike.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Mar 6, 10:13 am, James Warren  wrote:
> > I agree with Tim. I like some of the carbon frames out there, but if I
> ever bought one, I'm pretty sure that I would upgrade the fork to steel. I
> know there could still be a catastrophic failure in the frame, but I would
> buy a conservative design, and it seems that you minimize risk with a steel
> steer tube and fork as opposed to a carbon steer tube and fork.
> >
> > A lot of the things on bustedcarbon.com are from crashes. Are there many
> cases of carbon frames from reputable bike-makers where the head-tube "just"
> detached from the top and downtubes without there being an external impact?
> >
> > I think Rivendell's steel forks are a good thing. There is nothing
> negative or manipulative in Rivendell's "anti-carbon" s

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

I should add to my thoughts that I myself have experienced sudden failure on
a steel steerer tube, and this on a new frameset (NOS -- 531c Orbit tandem
-- bad material for a neophyte tandem couple, all question of overheating
aside!; fortunately no serious injury). But again, there was no such volume
of catastrophic failure scuttlebutt about steel or the other non-carbon
materials.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:12 AM, PATRICK MOORE  wrote:

> I just read Grant's reply to the "carbon bashing bashing" thread and I was
> heartened to learn that (1) he "bashes" -- the quotation marks to indicate
> that this word is used very provisionally -- carbon out of a sense of duty
> and (2) almost even more so, that he has little interest in pushing the
> nostalgia angle. I see no evidence at all that he is dissing a competitor
> for his own commercial advantage; that sort of interpretation involves a
> hermaneutic that is IMO close to paranoid. ("*2.* (Psychiatry) 
> *Informal*exhibiting undue suspicion ...)
>
> Now Grant may be wrong; perhaps indeed the high end carbon frames and forks
> out there are superlatively durable; maybe Grant ought to state his
> willingness to consider Calfee's exempt from his warnings. I don't know. But
> if I had his inside information -- I have no reason to believe that he is
> lying about it -- I'd damn well say the same things as he.
>
> One thing is undeniable: there was no such widespread scuttlebutt about
> steel, titanium or aluminum forks and frames breaking; for whatever reason,
> the volume rather signifcantly increased only when carbon fiber became
> common in the bike industry.
>
> On a lighter note: it is also reassuring that one can now become a trained
> and certified Rivendellian in just five years:
>
> ***Indeed, there was a time when it might take decades for someone to
> transform from a new cyclist to a Rivendell-riding fuddy-duddy, but now the
> process only takes about five years.*
>
> Youknowwho
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:19 AM, bfd  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
>> > On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
>> >
>> >Grant's pointing  out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as
>> desperate, it
>> > strikes me as concerned about people's safety.
>>
>> OK, maybe I wasn't clear, I was only talking about carbon FRAMES; not
>> carbon forks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars or any other carbon
>> parts. Maybe I'm not Grant and "connected" or "in" so I don't see or
>> hear that much about carbon failing. Maybe I only see my little group
>> and nobody has ever had a carbon FRAME failed. Yes, its anecdotal and
>> really doesn't prove anything. BUT, then you have Grant making his
>> doom and gloom comments about carbon frame failing and unrepairable is
>> incorrect.
>>
>> For example, on page 1 of his 2010 bike catalog, he states "Carbon is
>> light, for instant mass appeal. It is theoretically strong, but if the
>> reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
>> break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
>> nobody who knows carbon rides old carbon." Really, I'm riding a 13
>> year old Calfee with a kestrel carbon fork (yes, steel steerer tube)
>> that I bought USED in 1997 that supposedly had 2500 miles on it. It
>> now has over 25K miles on it and interesting, no sudden failure. Craig
>> Calfee has riders on his bikes that are 20 years old with over 100k
>> miles (100,000 MILES) with no problem. Stating that all carbon bike
>> are subject to sudden failures is incorrect.
>>
>> Further in the same catalog on page 16 he compares his roadeo bike to
>> a mcrb (modern carbon road bike) and states "The MCRB should be
>> retired in four years, and may force your retirement sooner." Really?
>> a mcrb should be retired in four years? On what basis? Paranoia? Or
>> just another way to discredit carbon because it outsells his bikes 100
>> to 1?
>>
>> If he's only referring to a carbon fork, then he ought to say so and
>> be specific. But, generalizing that carbon frames are unrepairable is
>> wrong.
>>
>> Note, besides a Calfee, I also have a STEEL cross bike. I enjoy both
>> bikes and expect them to last at least another 20 years. Good Luck!
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact
> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
> (505) 227-0523
>
>
>
>


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

I just read Grant's reply to the "carbon bashing bashing" thread and I was
heartened to learn that (1) he "bashes" -- the quotation marks to indicate
that this word is used very provisionally -- carbon out of a sense of duty
and (2) almost even more so, that he has little interest in pushing the
nostalgia angle. I see no evidence at all that he is dissing a competitor
for his own commercial advantage; that sort of interpretation involves a
hermaneutic that is IMO close to paranoid. ("*2.* (Psychiatry)
*Informal*exhibiting undue suspicion ...)

Now Grant may be wrong; perhaps indeed the high end carbon frames and forks
out there are superlatively durable; maybe Grant ought to state his
willingness to consider Calfee's exempt from his warnings. I don't know. But
if I had his inside information -- I have no reason to believe that he is
lying about it -- I'd damn well say the same things as he.

One thing is undeniable: there was no such widespread scuttlebutt about
steel, titanium or aluminum forks and frames breaking; for whatever reason,
the volume rather signifcantly increased only when carbon fiber became
common in the bike industry.

On a lighter note: it is also reassuring that one can now become a trained
and certified Rivendellian in just five years:

***Indeed, there was a time when it might take decades for someone to
transform from a new cyclist to a Rivendell-riding fuddy-duddy, but now the
process only takes about five years.*

Youknowwho

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:19 AM, bfd  wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
> >
> >Grant's pointing  out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as
> desperate, it
> > strikes me as concerned about people's safety.
>
> OK, maybe I wasn't clear, I was only talking about carbon FRAMES; not
> carbon forks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars or any other carbon
> parts. Maybe I'm not Grant and "connected" or "in" so I don't see or
> hear that much about carbon failing. Maybe I only see my little group
> and nobody has ever had a carbon FRAME failed. Yes, its anecdotal and
> really doesn't prove anything. BUT, then you have Grant making his
> doom and gloom comments about carbon frame failing and unrepairable is
> incorrect.
>
> For example, on page 1 of his 2010 bike catalog, he states "Carbon is
> light, for instant mass appeal. It is theoretically strong, but if the
> reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
> break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
> nobody who knows carbon rides old carbon." Really, I'm riding a 13
> year old Calfee with a kestrel carbon fork (yes, steel steerer tube)
> that I bought USED in 1997 that supposedly had 2500 miles on it. It
> now has over 25K miles on it and interesting, no sudden failure. Craig
> Calfee has riders on his bikes that are 20 years old with over 100k
> miles (100,000 MILES) with no problem. Stating that all carbon bike
> are subject to sudden failures is incorrect.
>
> Further in the same catalog on page 16 he compares his roadeo bike to
> a mcrb (modern carbon road bike) and states "The MCRB should be
> retired in four years, and may force your retirement sooner." Really?
> a mcrb should be retired in four years? On what basis? Paranoia? Or
> just another way to discredit carbon because it outsells his bikes 100
> to 1?
>
> If he's only referring to a carbon fork, then he ought to say so and
> be specific. But, generalizing that carbon frames are unrepairable is
> wrong.
>
> Note, besides a Calfee, I also have a STEEL cross bike. I enjoy both
> bikes and expect them to last at least another 20 years. Good Luck!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[Bill M.]

Many years ago when I lived in Davis, a local rider knocked his top-
tube mounted pump loose while riding along.  It jammed into the front
wheel, sending him over the bars.  He died on the spot.  I knocked TT
mounted pumps loose a couple of times myself while reaching for a
bottle or a shifter.  I no longer will use a TT pump mount, I don't
think it's the safest place for a pump.  It looks like the Roadeo has
a pump peg on the head tube.  Accident waiting to happen?

Also back in those years, my (then) sister-in-law was riding a bike
without toe clips.  She stood to get started from a stop sign, her
foot slipped forward off of teh pedal and went through the front wheel
(between the spokes), wedging behind the fork.  She was thrown forward
and went down hard enough that a traffic cop that saw her fall called
an ambulance.  In the ER her belly was so tender they took a fluid
sample and found internal bleeding.  She was immediately taken to the
ER, where they opened her up and had to sew up a tear in her liver
caused by her hitting the stem.  I don't ride without foot retention,
having had a few near accidents myself due to a foot coming off of a
pedal at an inopportune time.  I commute with toe clips, and ride
Speedplay x's or Frogs the rest of the time.  Grant actively promotes
riding without retention, I feel it's *much* safer to use at least a
toe clip.

When I went looking for a new club-sport bike a year ago, I couldn't
afford a new custom, and the Roadeo was not yet announced.  I looked
at a fair number of steel frames on CL and ebay, but none were close
enough to giving my the fit I wanted (bars up close to saddle height
with a shortish top tube).  I thought maybe it would be fun to try a
Ti frame, and a few have been made that might have fit, but in every
case the fork was carbon.  What I wound up finding was a lightly-used
Calfee at a very good price.  The sizing was perfect (2 cm head tube
extension, 56 x 56, 73 deg parallel).  I can't find any history of
Calfee's frames failing randomly, nor have I found reports of
incidents related to the Easton fork.  So far, I have had no problems
with the bike and find it both fast and comfortable (even though the
fork limits me to 25 mm tires).

I only use the Calfee for sporting, unloaded bike club rides on paved
roads.  I have other bikes (Riv Road, Kogswell P/R, Miyata 1000) for
other riding.  Do I feel unsafe on this bike?  No, not really.  I do
baby it when I'm not riding it, and keep a close eye on it, but the
frame is conservatively designed and has a long track record.  The
fork is the most likely failure point, and my plan is to inspect it
regularly, and perhaps to replace it after a few season's use.  Should
I buy a new fork, one likely candidate would be a Wound-Up, which is
available with a steel steerer.  I could replace the fork twice over
and still have spent less than a new Roadeo frame would cost.

There are many potential risks in cycling.  I think that the risks
involved with sharing the road with automobiles, with descending steep
hills at high speeds, with riding close in a paceline, and with riding
lightweight tires that can flat at speed outweigh those from riding a
*well-designed* composite bike.

Just my opinion,

Bill


On Mar 6, 10:13 am, James Warren  wrote:
> I agree with Tim. I like some of the carbon frames out there, but if I ever 
> bought one, I'm pretty sure that I would upgrade the fork to steel. I know 
> there could still be a catastrophic failure in the frame, but I would buy a 
> conservative design, and it seems that you minimize risk with a steel steer 
> tube and fork as opposed to a carbon steer tube and fork.
>
> A lot of the things on bustedcarbon.com are from crashes. Are there many 
> cases of carbon frames from reputable bike-makers where the head-tube "just" 
> detached from the top and downtubes without there being an external impact?
>
> I think Rivendell's steel forks are a good thing. There is nothing negative 
> or manipulative in Rivendell's "anti-carbon" statements. It's based on 
> genuine concerns for safety and longevity. Grant's statements on record are 
> consistent with this, going all the way back to early Readers' Progress 
> Report journals when Grant would talk about safety as a primary concern. And 
> he would often talk about safe frames in general, not just the carbon issue. 
> He's been genuinely devoted to this design philosophy. It's not necessarily a 
> negative thing to bash a material. Materials don't deserve benefit of the 
> doubt, while people often do.
>
> -Jim W.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: Tim McNamara 
> >Sent: Mar 6, 2010 12:41 PM
> >To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> >Subject: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling 
> >crashed       frames
>
> >On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
>
> >> I know many here will disagree with me, but I'm tired of Grant's
> >> constant carbon bashing. What he doesn't mention is that carbon frames
> >>

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[newenglandbike]

I think the crux of the issue is not how long a carbon frame can
last-   of course there are old carbon frames out there, being ridden
today.

I think the point is that EVERYTHING fails eventually under sufficient
stress-  the million dollar question being, when something does fail,
how does it do it?Does it fail catastrophically and all of a
sudden, or does it bend, or creak, or exhibit strange behavior &
warning signs before completely biting the dust?Because if not,
and the thing in question is a head-tube junction or fork blade, and
is bearing your weight down the road, it doesn't matter if it's 1 year
old or 20 years old;   you have a problem.




On Mar 7, 3:19 am, bfd  wrote:
> On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
>
> >Grant's pointing  out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as 
> >desperate, it  
> > strikes me as concerned about people's safety.
>
> OK, maybe I wasn't clear, I was only talking about carbon FRAMES; not
> carbon forks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars or any other carbon
> parts. Maybe I'm not Grant and "connected" or "in" so I don't see or
> hear that much about carbon failing. Maybe I only see my little group
> and nobody has ever had a carbon FRAME failed. Yes, its anecdotal and
> really doesn't prove anything. BUT, then you have Grant making his
> doom and gloom comments about carbon frame failing and unrepairable is
> incorrect.
>
> For example, on page 1 of his 2010 bike catalog, he states "Carbon is
> light, for instant mass appeal. It is theoretically strong, but if the
> reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
> break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
> nobody who knows carbon rides old carbon." Really, I'm riding a 13
> year old Calfee with a kestrel carbon fork (yes, steel steerer tube)
> that I bought USED in 1997 that supposedly had 2500 miles on it. It
> now has over 25K miles on it and interesting, no sudden failure. Craig
> Calfee has riders on his bikes that are 20 years old with over 100k
> miles (100,000 MILES) with no problem. Stating that all carbon bike
> are subject to sudden failures is incorrect.
>
> Further in the same catalog on page 16 he compares his roadeo bike to
> a mcrb (modern carbon road bike) and states "The MCRB should be
> retired in four years, and may force your retirement sooner." Really?
> a mcrb should be retired in four years? On what basis? Paranoia? Or
> just another way to discredit carbon because it outsells his bikes 100
> to 1?
>
> If he's only referring to a carbon fork, then he ought to say so and
> be specific. But, generalizing that carbon frames are unrepairable is
> wrong.
>
> Note, besides a Calfee, I also have a STEEL cross bike. I enjoy both
> bikes and expect them to last at least another 20 years. Good Luck!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:36 AM, cyclotourist  wrote:

> I have a synthetic jersey and it keeps me warm.  Everybody I know uses
> synthetic jersies.  They have never failed, even the zippers!  Why is Grant
> going on and on about wool and disparaging synthetic jersies.  Tom Ritchey
> uses synthetic jersies.  So does Gary Fisher.  They both know a thing or two
> about jersies.
>
> Oh, wrong list, sorry.
>
>
> Now, now 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[cyclotourist]

We all need hobbies!

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Steve Palincsar  wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:50 -0800, cyclotourist wrote:
> > Wider Q's have been recommend to help me deal w/ IBT, but it's hard to
> > bring myself to doing it after I've worked hard (and spent $$$) to get
> > as narrow as possible!!! :-)
>
>
> Look how hard people have to work at it to get a repetitive stress
> injury...
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

"Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something
wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym."  ~Bill Nye,
scientist guy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[cyclotourist]

I have a synthetic jersey and it keeps me warm.  Everybody I know uses
synthetic jersies.  They have never failed, even the zippers!  Why is Grant
going on and on about wool and disparaging synthetic jersies.  Tom Ritchey
uses synthetic jersies.  So does Gary Fisher.  They both know a thing or two
about jersies.

Oh, wrong list, sorry.



On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:19 AM, bfd  wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
> >
> >Grant's pointing  out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as
> desperate, it
> > strikes me as concerned about people's safety.
>
> OK, maybe I wasn't clear, I was only talking about carbon FRAMES; not
> carbon forks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars or any other carbon
> parts. Maybe I'm not Grant and "connected" or "in" so I don't see or
> hear that much about carbon failing. Maybe I only see my little group
> and nobody has ever had a carbon FRAME failed. Yes, its anecdotal and
> really doesn't prove anything. BUT, then you have Grant making his
> doom and gloom comments about carbon frame failing and unrepairable is
> incorrect.
>
> For example, on page 1 of his 2010 bike catalog, he states "Carbon is
> light, for instant mass appeal. It is theoretically strong, but if the
> reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
> break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
> nobody who knows carbon rides old carbon." Really, I'm riding a 13
> year old Calfee with a kestrel carbon fork (yes, steel steerer tube)
> that I bought USED in 1997 that supposedly had 2500 miles on it. It
> now has over 25K miles on it and interesting, no sudden failure. Craig
> Calfee has riders on his bikes that are 20 years old with over 100k
> miles (100,000 MILES) with no problem. Stating that all carbon bike
> are subject to sudden failures is incorrect.
>
> Further in the same catalog on page 16 he compares his roadeo bike to
> a mcrb (modern carbon road bike) and states "The MCRB should be
> retired in four years, and may force your retirement sooner." Really?
> a mcrb should be retired in four years? On what basis? Paranoia? Or
> just another way to discredit carbon because it outsells his bikes 100
> to 1?
>
> If he's only referring to a carbon fork, then he ought to say so and
> be specific. But, generalizing that carbon frames are unrepairable is
> wrong.
>
> Note, besides a Calfee, I also have a STEEL cross bike. I enjoy both
> bikes and expect them to last at least another 20 years. Good Luck!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

"Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something
wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym."  ~Bill Nye,
scientist guy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] sending my carbon fork to the dump

[LF]

OK. I'm convinced by Grant's 3/6 "carbon bashing" in "Rivendell
News."  The carbon fork in my used parts bin is going to the dump,
where it belongs.  Thanks Grant.
Best,
Larry

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Grant Goes Hollywood!

[Mike]

I'm stoked they won. Good for them. I went for a root canal this week
and right at the end the tooth "fractured" and so will now have to be
extracted. I was pretty bummed. I wasn't even angry just bummed. I
came home feeling a bit sorry for myself and then read a Riv post
about Smile Train and made a donation. Sure I get the Riv credit but
the fact is I just don't have dental/oral problems like the kids
served by Smile Train and that got me out of my head.

I really should have known something was up when the endodontist
leaned over me to get to work and said "Is it safe?"

--mike

On Mar 7, 4:21 am, Marty  wrote:
> Good for him - good for them! The Smile Train video worked like magic,
> and he's off to Tinsel Town for a command performance. Update on
> Peeking Through the Knothole. Can't wait to see the final cut!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Widest wide range double chainring setup? How wide is too wide?

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:50 -0800, cyclotourist wrote:
> Wider Q's have been recommend to help me deal w/ IBT, but it's hard to
> bring myself to doing it after I've worked hard (and spent $$$) to get
> as narrow as possible!!! :-)


Look how hard people have to work at it to get a repetitive stress
injury...



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Grant Goes Hollywood!

[Marty]

Good for him - good for them! The Smile Train video worked like magic,
and he's off to Tinsel Town for a command performance. Update on
Peeking Through the Knothole. Can't wait to see the final cut!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] WTB Little Loafer

[GeorgeS]

Anyone got one that needs a home?  Well used and/or stained is fine so
long as the zippers work and there are no tears.
GeorgeS

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Carboon Bashing- was: Riv resurrecting and selling crashed frames

[bfd]

On Mar 6, 9:41 am, Tim McNamara  wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:22 AM, bfd wrote:
>
>Grant's pointing  out the problems with carbon doesn't strike me as desperate, 
>it  
> strikes me as concerned about people's safety.

OK, maybe I wasn't clear, I was only talking about carbon FRAMES; not
carbon forks, carbon seatpost, carbon handlebars or any other carbon
parts. Maybe I'm not Grant and "connected" or "in" so I don't see or
hear that much about carbon failing. Maybe I only see my little group
and nobody has ever had a carbon FRAME failed. Yes, its anecdotal and
really doesn't prove anything. BUT, then you have Grant making his
doom and gloom comments about carbon frame failing and unrepairable is
incorrect.

For example, on page 1 of his 2010 bike catalog, he states "Carbon is
light, for instant mass appeal. It is theoretically strong, but if the
reality approached the theory, carbon frames and forks would never
break. And yet, failures are common, sudden failures are the norm, and
nobody who knows carbon rides old carbon." Really, I'm riding a 13
year old Calfee with a kestrel carbon fork (yes, steel steerer tube)
that I bought USED in 1997 that supposedly had 2500 miles on it. It
now has over 25K miles on it and interesting, no sudden failure. Craig
Calfee has riders on his bikes that are 20 years old with over 100k
miles (100,000 MILES) with no problem. Stating that all carbon bike
are subject to sudden failures is incorrect.

Further in the same catalog on page 16 he compares his roadeo bike to
a mcrb (modern carbon road bike) and states "The MCRB should be
retired in four years, and may force your retirement sooner." Really?
a mcrb should be retired in four years? On what basis? Paranoia? Or
just another way to discredit carbon because it outsells his bikes 100
to 1?

If he's only referring to a carbon fork, then he ought to say so and
be specific. But, generalizing that carbon frames are unrepairable is
wrong.

Note, besides a Calfee, I also have a STEEL cross bike. I enjoy both
bikes and expect them to last at least another 20 years. Good Luck!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.