[RBW] Saddle Bag Rack Trade?

[Adam]

Hey all, 

I have a nitto r-10 in very good condition that I’m looking to replace with a 
Mark’s rack to support a sackville medium on my Hunqapillar. Is anyone 
interested in purchasing the R-10 or better yet, interested in a trade? If not 
a trade anyone have a Mark’s rack they’re looking to part with? I’m not sure 
how one mounts the Mark’s rack as a saddle bag support so if anyone has some 
pro tips I’m all ears. 

Lastly, I’m also curious about this Carradice rack but think it’s likely more 
ideal for a smaller bag. Has anyone given it a try? 

https://www.carradice.co.uk/products/saddle-fixing-systems/carradice-classic-saddlebag-rack
 

Thanks all!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/afaabb30-3a63-4656-abbc-cfc03e035edao%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Suggestions on my aspiring Riv-style build?

[Joe Bernard]

I would start with the bar you're going to use, then match it to the toptube 
length it will work with. The Expedition is nominally a dropbar bike and you 
show one with Moustache Bar, which is a similar reach situation and should 
work. But of you're going for more of a "3-speed bar" situation like Albatross 
or Billie then that bike might get too cramped. 

If the XO-2 is longer saddle-to-bars that's better for sweptback. Another 
benefit on that one is the parts will be more modern and will fit the new bars 
well with maybe longer cables. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e5a1dfc0-af4f-40a2-aa49-b3e8e6ad52bbo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[ted]

I think the GBW is the stoutest rough stuff loaded camping bike RBW makes, 
and no double top tubes there.
So clearly RBW doesn't think twin top tubes or diagatubes or rainbow tubes 
are the only way to make a large frame with the strength / stiffness they 
want in a touring bike.
For some of the frames they choose to go the extra tube route to get the 
strength / stiffness they want for that model in that size (I presume).
To my eye the MIT Atlantis is a complete redesign, longer chain stays, more 
tt slope, who knows what all else is altered from the original.
I wouldn't be surprised if the existence of the extra tube influenced the 
choice of tubing specs.
It may be overly simplistic to assume that all things are equal except for 
the addition of a whole nother tube.
It seems possible that the presence (or absence) of an extra tube on a 
particular model and size of RBW frame tells less about its mechanical 
properties than some of us tend to think.

If I were in the market for a frame for the uses RBW recommends the 
Atlantis for, and was tall enough to ride one with a rainbow tube, I 
wouldn't be second guessing Grant about that tube being an appropriate 
design choice unless I disliked the way it looks. YMMV of course.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 3:29:15 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> And yet, the original Atlantis was also meant for loaded touring, 
> performed splendidly in that role, and lacked the second top tube in all 
> sizes.
>
>
> On 8/4/20 11:01 AM, Vincent Tamer wrote:
>
> The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded touring. 
> The second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are presumably 
> heavier. That along with a heavy touring load makes the extra tube a good 
> idea.
>
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally; 
>> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is 
>> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by 
>> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by 
>> the added tube. 
>>
>> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the 
>> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just 
>> right.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>>
>>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true, 
>>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be 
>>> negligible. 
>>>
>>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the 
>>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me 
>>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others 
>>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those 
>>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the 
>>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes 
>>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the 
>>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame 
>>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely, 
>>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes, 
>>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative 
>>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes. 
>>>
>>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling 
>>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's 
>>> anecdotal. 
>>>
>>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding 
>>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be 
>>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's 
>>> totally off base from an engineering point of view. 
>>>
>>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I 
>>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue. 
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and 
 carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best 
 level top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 
 56 
 c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made 
 from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes. 

 I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is 
 also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork + 
 steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm 
 175.

 And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried 
 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight 
 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed 
 7 

[RBW] Saddle Bag Rack Trade?

[Adam]

Hey all,

I have a nitto r-10 in very good condition that I’m looking to replace with a 
Mark’s rack to support a sackville medium on my Hunqapillar. Is anyone 
interested in purchasing the R-10 or better making a trade? If not a trade 
anyone have a marks rack their looking to part with? I’m not sure how one 
mounts the marks rack as a saddle bag support so if anyone has some pro tips 
I’m all ears. 

Lastly, I’m also curious about this Carradice rack but think it’s likely more 
ideal for a smaller bag. Has anyone given it a try?

https://www.carradice.co.uk/products/saddle-fixing-systems/carradice-classic-saddlebag-rack

Thanks all!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f114aadc-64c1-4aa8-bbff-582227da1f9do%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: Bikes on eBay, CraigsLIst, and Other Sites

[Matthew Williams]

58 Bombadil, touring build
$2200
Anacortes, WA

https://skagit.craigslist.org/bik/d/anacortes-bombadil-touring-bike-by/7171717594.html

[image: 00t0t_aCE8UAmqLIw_0CI0pR_600x450.jpg]

On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 4:11:41 PM UTC-7 Matthew Williams wrote:

> This thread is for Rivendells you've found on eBay, CraigsList, and sites 
> beyond: bikes in which you think someone here might be interested. This 
> thread isn't for posting ads to your own ad, it's just so people who are 
> searching or interested have a place to look, like, "Hey, check this out!" 
> Here are a few, from today's searches:
>
> 61cm Roadini
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/283940882590
>
> 58cm Quickbeam
>
> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/d/pinole-rivendell-quickbeam-58/7154380920.html
>
> 52cm Clementine
>
> https://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/bik/d/richardson-rivendell-clementine/7130894748.html
>
> 65cm Redwood
>
> https://bellingham.craigslist.org/bik/d/bellingham-rivendell-redwood/7153843392.html
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bf7e1920-5622-4a2e-9876-81908e1bf745n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] WTB: 63cm Roadeo

[MCT]

Scott,
I sent you a PM. Let me know if you didn’t get it. 

Matt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e7dc07e7-f175-4c83-80eb-e3c40b749717o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Rambouillet brochure: Free for shipping

[Evan E.]

Hi David,

Yes, please! PayPal for postage OK?

(I hope this message to you is a private message. I have a new iPad and 
don’t yet know how to use it.)

Evan Elliot
San Francisco, CA

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3b3650f5-67f0-4754-abef-d3b16f27f9ffn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

[Dave Redmon]

Looks like you have accomplished what I want to do--install electric assist on 
a Cheviot with room for a battery down low over the bottom bracket. Right now I 
have a front hub motor and 36 volt battery installed on a 52cm Clem L.  Nice 
rig but I had to place the battery on a rear rack and that's not as stable as 
I'd like. Anyone with a Cheviot wanting to trade for a Clem L?

Dave in Kansas

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/57c20b41-fc40-46ca-9d21-1a70810c3b99o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Suggestions on my aspiring Riv-style build?

[Drw]

I haven’t owned an xo-2, but I did have a 1983 expedition. Tire clearance was 
tighter than I was happy with. I think I could barely fit 38s, no fender room, 
and very close at the chainstays. 

I’d definitely choose the XO over the expedition for anything mixed terrainy.

All that said, both are nice bikes that I’m sure would be suitable. Also you 
might think about flipping a few Of these nicer pedigree vintage bikes to make 
a riv happen. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/adb3255f-d278-4bda-8fd9-d87d4b537261o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Hot Waxing Chains

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

John

Don't know what the OEMs use ot how the apply it, but agree it's last for 
about 500M.  

Does TriFlow attract dirt???

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:56:10 PM UTC-4, Whatcha Oughtter wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what’s on chains when they are new out of the box? It 
> always seems sticky but doesn’t seem to attract too much dirt, is really 
> smooth and quiet and lasts a long time. After the factory lube is gone I 
> use tri-flow with pretty good results. I used motorcycle chain lube for a 
> while that sprayed on thin and penetrated into the nooks and crannies but 
> dried out thick like a grease. It attracted all kinds of grit and wore out 
> a chain in very short order. -John
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a9e95549-6438-4645-8119-21e7f8cbfb0eo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Ryan M.]

I had a Roadeo, I believe it was a 53, and never thought it was a flexy 
bike...More like stiff in a good way. I thought it was a really good fast road 
bike. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d5302873-f66b-4ffd-8e6c-02973322b62do%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] What role does your Joe A. fill?

[Ryan M.]

I built my Appaloosa, size 51 and grilver in color, as a single speed with a 
Paul Melvin and Choco moose bars originally. Rode it for a few months like that 
but went to a rear XT 10 speed set up I pulled off my Trek Fuel EX but with the 
Silver double crankset and a set of regular bullmoose bars.  It’s been like 
that since But I have switched up bags and racks depending on my mood. 

I have basically been riding it exclusively for the past...well, since the 
pandemic started. It’s taken over as my main gravel bike, main bike I ride from 
the house so I can make an attempt at keeping some level of fitness up, and 
I’ve even stuck it onto the indoor trainer a few times. I find the bike super 
versatile and it has such a nice ride. The only thing I really don’t want to do 
with it is ride the local mountain bike trails...they are just too tight, 
twisty, and rooty for it. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f9caa719-6d80-4895-801c-b972d088f7b4o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Bones]

When I pick up my 2TT Sam or Joe (which is frequent, going up and down 
stairs), I don’t have to worry about knocking my frame pump off. Also, it’s 
easier to work on them in my repair stand, as I can clamp on to the lower 
tube without interfering with the rear brake line.

Bones

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2aa5d5be-3ead-429a-8dae-72a4cbc20db1o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Patrick Moore]

Perhaps you are right. My first (1995) road custom was built for 26" wheels
and used the All Rounder as a general model (but road tubing, lugs, crown,
and 73" head), and I know that had a level tt. My later ones IIRC have tts
sloping up by 3*.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:08 PM Eric Daume  wrote:

> Mostly level... weren’t the top tubes sloped ~1.5 degrees even then?
>
> Eric
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, Patrick Moore  wrote:
>
>> IIRC, all those early-year road bikes had level top tubes and were
>> designed for 700C wheels, except for a few custom oddities like my 26"
>> wheel customs. Certainly this one pre-dates the 650B resurgence.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Lyman Labry  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> Nice looking frame. Besides the size of wheels question, is the top tube
>>> level horizontally?  Presuming a road bike frame.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave S  wrote:
>>>
 What size wheels/tires does this take?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com
 .

>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAO8j99CWvqB48nYZOS%3Dt_kdPtSNaztKMuYmnW3f25SQh2h4vOg%40mail.gmail.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtGat81Qb-OiZaZT3yvMQ6TMJ0_Amxnd-bV5WXKaS%3DozQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAHFNW5CGzRh1nd0W6%2BuSMD0PZsLbUkisgjtW-C0SctW5-MNg3w%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfguryAv6%2Bo4GmtJT1qtpTJZLjhR5Frgo7Mw8E0VHmqxe8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Michael Williams]

Whoa.  The order of flexiness from most to least really surprised me.  It’s 
hard to imagine a double tuber 62cm Joe being more flexy than a Roadeo and hard 
to imagine both Clem’s being flexier than the Roadeo.   

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 7:05 PM, R Olson  wrote:
> 
> I'm 260 lbs and own a double TT Appa 58cm, 61 cm Roadeo, 64cm Clem L and 59cm 
> Clem L (the clem's are for other family members, but I've ridden them).  
> Here's the order from most flexy to least:
> 
> 1) 64 cm Clem L
> 2) 59 cm Clem L
> 3) Roadeo
> 4) Appa
> 
> No surprise there, but the difference between 2 and 3 is substantial, and the 
> diff between 3 and 4 isn't very much at all.  Have also owned a 62 cm double 
> TT Appa (1st Gen), which was flexier than the Roadeo.  Not sure if the Roadeo 
> is made from the stiffer air-hardened steel variety.  FWIW, the Roadeo feels 
> good, doesn't feel wobbly or like it's going to break or anything. 
> 
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:52:48 AM UTC-6, S wrote:
>> Mostly, it’s interesting to me that in going from an 18” (46cm) mountain 
>> bike frame to a 60cm frame there is apparently no need to make any design 
>> changes for the sake of rigidity. Or that, in this area, tubing gauge is 
>> much more important. I suppose I have been way overestimating how much bike 
>> frames flex. Does this mean smaller frames tend to be overbuilt? Does it 
>> have any implications for “planing”? I don’t know.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/172f698e-3224-4c84-88eb-0cd48cf938a8o%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3D425FAE-7D5F-4825-93B8-ECCCBE4A6A15%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Robert Tilley]

  That is my understanding. My 2000 custom Joe Starck build has a 2 degree slope if I remember right.Robert TilleySan Diego, CA Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device   From: ericda...@gmail.comSent: August 5, 2020 4:08 PMTo: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comReply-to: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98  Mostly level... weren’t the top tubes sloped ~1.5 degrees even then?EricOn Wednesday, August 5, 2020, Patrick Moore  wrote:IIRC, all those early-year road bikes had level top tubes and were designed for 700C wheels, except for a few custom oddities like my 26" wheel customs. Certainly this one pre-dates the 650B resurgence.On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Lyman Labry  wrote:HiNice looking frame. Besides the size of wheels question, is the top tube level horizontally?  Presuming a road bike frame. ThanksOn Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave S  wrote:What size wheels/tires does this take?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAO8j99CWvqB48nYZOS%3Dt_kdPtSNaztKMuYmnW3f25SQh2h4vOg%40mail.gmail.com.
-- ---Patrick MooreAlburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtGat81Qb-OiZaZT3yvMQ6TMJ0_Amxnd-bV5WXKaS%3DozQ%40mail.gmail.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAHFNW5CGzRh1nd0W6%2BuSMD0PZsLbUkisgjtW-C0SctW5-MNg3w%40mail.gmail.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ff5fp8sjvmg62m79q4nhjh8l.1596678391489%40gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: What role does your Joe A. fill?

[Tom Horton]

I love my joe 62 though it's just a smidge on the small side for me. Trying 
to find the right bar/stem configuration to take it from a very good tourer 
to a perfect one. Albatross bars will be my next move in this quest. I find 
compass 55mm antelope hills, no fenders, suit it well. it truly is as close 
to an all arounder as a bike can get, I think.


On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 11:49:03 AM UTC-4, Josh Chambers wrote:
>
> Hello All, 
> First time poster here. I‘ve been riding a Joe A. just since spring and 
> it’s taking over many roles in my bike arsenal and I wanted to see how 
> others are using their’s.  I’ve got a gravel bike, an All City Cosmic 
> Stallion that I mostly ride for fast rides and exercise, but the Rivendell 
> has mostly overtaken that role.  I’ve got a surly bridge club that has 2.4” 
> tires on it, but I’m finding that for slowly riding around or bickepacking 
> through forest service roads and mild single track Joe is up to the task. 
>  The only bike it’s not replacing is my commuter, and that’s only because I 
> like having a cheaper commuter that I don’t have to worry about locking up 
> for a whole day.   
>
> Curious to see if anyone on here is using a Joe A. to do various types of 
> riding. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d959cbb1-041b-4042-acf3-a08b9571f3e4o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Path Less Pedaled will review a Riv!

[Bill Schairer]

Lots of ads to endure!

Bill S 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d088f94b-c0e2-4249-8672-110ed4ff563bo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Path Less Pedaled will review a Riv!

[Brett Callahan]

I enjoyed the first ride video. Not surprised that Russ seems to be 
enjoying the bike, as so much of his aesthetic and riding style seems to be 
Grant inspired. I also got a kick out of the joking about disc brakes. 

Interesting that the bike came equipped with Ultradynamico tires. I for one 
really like the Rivendell/Crust/Poppi cross pollination that has been going 
on lately. 

Re: the comments in this thread about the perceived overuse of the term 
supple, it's never bothered me. It seems to me that Russ uses the term with 
tongue firmly in cheek, and I think it's a good way of describing the non 
race type of comfortable riding he enjoys, as is his other catch phrase: 
"party pace." It's as good a term as any, I think. He's also sort of 
branded the term, making "Supple" patches and other gear. Maybe it divides 
people into pro and con camps with no middle ground, like the Crust Bike 
marketing copy seems to. 

Anyway, good pub for Rivendell excites me. Hopefully this will generate 
more interest in Rivendell among an audience that isn't as familiar with 
the brand!

Brett in PDX. 

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 3:44:35 PM UTC-7, Jingy wrote:
>
> He just posted a 1st ride video
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRUo74yqz6w
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/be132ea4-5156-4b4e-8c99-49d79e4be8dao%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: What role does your Joe A. fill?

[Bones]

Yep, sounds like my Joe. It does everything well. I built mine initially to 
attach my young children to, and for that task it was brilliant. Now that they 
are a bit bigger I have attached an Xtracycle to it, and it is still brilliant, 
but I may move that to a different bike because I miss the way it was. I have a 
Wabi single speed I use as my work commuter, but it is also a nice bike so I 
bring it indoors at work.

P.S. Keep an eye on your oxygen saturation there bro, running on the low side. 

Bones

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2114c53b-816c-4278-953f-3d2eb302f68eo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Eric Daume]

Mostly level... weren’t the top tubes sloped ~1.5 degrees even then?

Eric

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, Patrick Moore  wrote:

> IIRC, all those early-year road bikes had level top tubes and were
> designed for 700C wheels, except for a few custom oddities like my 26"
> wheel customs. Certainly this one pre-dates the 650B resurgence.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Lyman Labry  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> Nice looking frame. Besides the size of wheels question, is the top tube
>> level horizontally?  Presuming a road bike frame.
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave S  wrote:
>>
>>> What size wheels/tires does this take?
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-
>>> 002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAO8j99CWvqB48nYZOS%3Dt_
>> kdPtSNaztKMuYmnW3f25SQh2h4vOg%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtGat81Qb-OiZaZT3yvMQ6TMJ0_Amxnd-
> bV5WXKaS%3DozQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAHFNW5CGzRh1nd0W6%2BuSMD0PZsLbUkisgjtW-C0SctW5-MNg3w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Patrick Moore]

IIRC, all those early-year road bikes had level top tubes and were designed
for 700C wheels, except for a few custom oddities like my 26" wheel
customs. Certainly this one pre-dates the 650B resurgence.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Lyman Labry  wrote:

> Hi
> Nice looking frame. Besides the size of wheels question, is the top tube
> level horizontally?  Presuming a road bike frame.
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave S  wrote:
>
>> What size wheels/tires does this take?
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAO8j99CWvqB48nYZOS%3Dt_kdPtSNaztKMuYmnW3f25SQh2h4vOg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtGat81Qb-OiZaZT3yvMQ6TMJ0_Amxnd-bV5WXKaS%3DozQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Path Less Pedaled will review a Riv!

[Jingy]

He just posted a 1st ride video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRUo74yqz6w

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4ea58cb3-2690-483e-97ed-94497aed1051o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Found the Timbuktu I wanted; thanks all. [WTT: Carridice Camper Longflap VG condition, for good quality shoulder/courier bag of similar quality and condition]

[Patrick Moore]

Trade made. Thanks all for the interest.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:10 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> The Camper LF is 23 litres and can carry -- my standard volume test load
> -- a 12-pak of cans + a gal of milk, with a bit of room left over. I would
> like to trade for a similarly sized courier bag.
>
> I just looked on the Timbuktu site and they don't organize their bags by
> volume; a Google, or rather a Duckduck Go search doesn't bring up "biggest
> courier bag" for Timbuktu or anyone else. But I know that Timbuktu made
> such a beast at one time; the one I've seen may even be more capacious than
> the Camper LF. And, long ago, I had a cheaper courier bag that easily held
> as much as the CLF.
>
> And am I right in thinking that Timbuktu has over the last 30 or 40 years
> "gone corporate" with its product line now being office and lifestyle
> oriented instead of "carry a heckofalotof stuff-oriented? No matter, as
> long as the bag is large, decently made, and -- important -- doesn't have a
> lot of frills and furbelows, particularly inside, so that you can just
> stuff big things inside without careful navigation.
>
> Again, something to hold a 6-pack of cans and a gallon of milk. (Ale and
> whole, of course.) the 23 litre benchmark is less important than this other
> more concrete gauge of volume.
>
> Reason? For very occasional shopping use when I ride a bike without
> attachable luggage.
>
> Thanks, Patrick
>
> --
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgt-4vVobL0rFj2JQQEHqu1D8zpA36_1L_HzmFndNQKqFg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Patrick Moore]

Right on. And again: Not loaded touring, but the best rear load carrier
I've owned out of dozens of bikes was that light-framed, standard-gauge, *tout
531* 1973 Motobecane racing bike, size 58 c-c -- and no double tt, either
(tho' it did have French or Swiss -- forget -- bb threading -- right hand
on drive side).

And, I've watched the Atlantis since it's inception, and it has not been
sold solely as a loaded touring bike by any means; ditto for the Sam Hill.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:29 PM Steve Palincsar  wrote:

> And yet, the original Atlantis was also meant for loaded touring,
> performed splendidly in that role, and lacked the second top tube in all
> sizes.
>
>
> On 8/4/20 11:01 AM, Vincent Tamer wrote:
>
> The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded touring.
> The second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are presumably
> heavier. That along with a heavy touring load makes the extra tube a good
> idea.
>
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally;
>> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is
>> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by
>> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by
>> the added tube.
>>
>> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the
>> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just
>> right.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>>
>>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true,
>>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be
>>> negligible.
>>>
>>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the
>>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me
>>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others
>>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those
>>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the
>>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes
>>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the
>>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame
>>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely,
>>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes,
>>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative
>>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes.
>>>
>>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling
>>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's
>>> anecdotal.
>>>
>>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding
>>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be
>>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's
>>> totally off base from an engineering point of view.
>>>
>>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I
>>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue.
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and
 carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best
 level top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56
 c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made
 from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.

 I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is
 also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork +
 steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm
 175.

 And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried
 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight
 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed
 7 lb for frame + fork and Ultegra headset. This frame was a 58 c-c, IIRC.

 For anyone under say 250 lb who does not carry camping loads, a second
 top tube is ornamental, not structural. Amen.

 Back when I lived in India and Pakistan and Kenya, you'd often see
 heavy duty models of the stereotypical rod brake roadster wtih a second top
 tube (and with heavy aftermarket fork braces), but these were bikes cheaply
 made from cheap, weak tubing that carried 100 lb loads of firewood or 200
 lb loads of charcoal in gunny sacks, or a family of 4; even so, most Indian
 and Pakistani made r b roadsters have single top tubes.

 Upshot: they look cool, but their benefit is purely aesthetic.

 On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:19 PM S  wrote:

> Yes, the extra tube strengthens the frame. Otherwise 

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Steve Palincsar]

And yet, the original Atlantis was also meant for loaded touring, 
performed splendidly in that role, and lacked the second top tube in all 
sizes.



On 8/4/20 11:01 AM, Vincent Tamer wrote:
The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded 
touring. The second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are 
presumably heavier. That along with a heavy touring load makes the 
extra tube a good idea.


On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

You are right that a second top tube will do something
structurally; there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own
case. But my point is that for anything but a very large frame, or
for a frame to be ridden by someone exceptionally heavy, there's
no **practical** purposes served by the added tube.

Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO
than the other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of
straight and curved just right.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:

As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is
technically true, because of physics, but I can believe the
real world effect might be negligible.

In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob
about the supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame.
Some forum members -- me included -- insisted the frame was a
dog, no question, while others disagreed. As it turned out,
those in the former camp had the 56 and those in the latter
camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the frame
"opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger
sizes -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that
accounted for the difference. To me, this seems plausible. And
if it's plausible that a frame could improve in this way, then
it also seems plausible that, conversely, some frames could
open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes, thus
necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative
stiffness as in the smaller sizes.

Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger
cycling friends who seem to break more frames than I ever
have. But then, that's anecdotal.

I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing
before deciding to add the second tube to some bikes. Could
just be for looks, or could be a belt and suspenders kind of
thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's totally off base from
an engineering point of view.

Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames
than I have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then
I can't argue.

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over
200 lb and carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c
frame extensively -- my best level top tube size is 60 c-c
-- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56 c-cceable
than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was
made from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.

I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being
refurbished; this is also standard gauge, and it is
/very/ light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork + steel Campy
headset; I /do not/ expect to need a second top tube. I'm 175.

And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and
securely carried 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made
from standard gauge, lightweight 531 and was noticeably
lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed 7 lb
for frame + fork and Ultegra headset. This frame was a 58
c-c, IIRC.

For anyone under say 250 lb who does not carry camping
loads, a second top tube is ornamental, not structural. Amen.

Back when I lived in India and Pakistan and Kenya, you'd
often see heavy duty models of the stereotypical rod brake
roadster wtih a second top tube (and with heavy
aftermarket fork braces), but these were bikes cheaply
made from cheap, weak tubing that carried 100 lb loads of
firewood or 200 lb loads of charcoal in gunny sacks, or a
family of 4; even so, most Indian and Pakistani made r b
roadsters have single top tubes.

Upshot: they look cool, but their benefit is purely aesthetic.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:19 PM S  wrote:

Yes, the extra tube strengthens the frame. Otherwise
you would be left with a wobblier triangle and have to
use thicker tubes and there goes at least some of your
weight savings. I think it's a good solution and looks
   

Re: [RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Lyman Labry]

Hi
Nice looking frame. Besides the size of wheels question, is the top tube
level horizontally?  Presuming a road bike frame.
Thanks

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Dave S  wrote:

> What size wheels/tires does this take?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAO8j99CWvqB48nYZOS%3Dt_kdPtSNaztKMuYmnW3f25SQh2h4vOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: What role does your Joe A. fill?

[Tim Bantham]

I love my Joe A. For me this is the bike I would take on a week long tour, 
it's also great for S240, grocery getting and rides with my wife on the 
bike path. The bike is a home run and I absolutely love mine. It's set up 
pretty traditional for a Riv. Triple silver cranks, Billie Bars, fenders 
etc. 

Tim

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:56:10 PM UTC-4 rah...@g.clemson.edu wrote:

> I don't have a Joe A. (or a Riv at all unfortunately), but I was wondering 
> what the bars you have on there are. I like the way you have that set up.
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 10:49:03 AM UTC-5 getjosh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hello All, 
>> First time poster here. I‘ve been riding a Joe A. just since spring and 
>> it’s taking over many roles in my bike arsenal and I wanted to see how 
>> others are using their’s. I’ve got a gravel bike, an All City Cosmic 
>> Stallion that I mostly ride for fast rides and exercise, but the Rivendell 
>> has mostly overtaken that role. I’ve got a surly bridge club that has 2.4” 
>> tires on it, but I’m finding that for slowly riding around or bickepacking 
>> through forest service roads and mild single track Joe is up to the task. 
>> The only bike it’s not replacing is my commuter, and that’s only because I 
>> like having a cheaper commuter that I don’t have to worry about locking up 
>> for a whole day. 
>>
>> Curious to see if anyone on here is using a Joe A. to do various types of 
>> riding. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ce81b957-4ec2-480d-aaf1-4887ed3b285dn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[Dave S]

What size wheels/tires does this take?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f757405c-9864-42ba-8ae9-002b5e54e3eao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Weird handlebar idea

[Josh Brown]

Koga Denham?

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:19 PM Rob Kristoff  wrote:

> but not the riv/nitto noodle? do you want it wider? Maybe the crust towel
> rack?
>
> RK
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b780a394-2e86-4493-b5b8-3966695c849fo%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAJua_7C%3Dg9kmgVvmmRQDvF66oSsPyaK7NQuVYMTdjjpP%3DSap8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: for sale Romulus 59 frame, 46" Noodle 177 from original owner.

[Irv Hoffman]

Romulus frame is sold


On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-4, Irv Hoffman wrote:
>
> This spring received new Appaloosa frame and moved all components from my 
> Romulus. The Romulus is a 59 cm frame with brake posts, bought new the year 
> they were available. It came with a 46 cm Noodle bar that was never used. I 
> want to sell the Romulus frame and the noodle bar.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f44e9658-278a-4c23-addb-7c5776adb219o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] WTB 26.2mm seatpost

[Raymond Henderson]

Hi All,

My Bridgestone XO-2 takes a 26.2mm seatpost. The stock Kalloy one is giving 
me trouble so I'm hoping to upgrade but all I can really find in this size 
are Campy and Cinelli posts. If anyone has something a little cheaper, 
maybe Shimano or Nitto, I would be interested.

Thanks,
Ray

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0f81204f-9330-499c-adc2-54b918e704adn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Suggestions on my aspiring Riv-style build?

[Raymond Henderson]

Hello All,

First time poster, but I've been lurking for a few weeks now and really 
enjoy seeing the community you have here and all of your beautiful bikes. 

I was hoping to gauge some opinions or get some suggestions from some of 
you on a Riv-style build that I am hoping to put together soon. 
Unfortunately, I'm not currently in a financial position to own a real 
Rivendell, but because I have such an affinity for the style of bikes and 
philosophy behind them, I'm planning on building something that can play 
the role until the day comes that I can have the real deal. 

Presently, I am choosing between two bikes that are listed for sale in my 
area: one is a 1983 Specialized Expedition and the other is a 1992 
Bridgestone XO-2. 

In one corner, we have one of the most well-renowned, production touring 
bikes ever made, and in the other, a brainchild of the man himself. 
Ultimately, I don't feel like I could go wrong with either, but I wanted to 
present this to you fine people to see if you have any thoughts or have 
experience with either or both of these bikes.

Because I already have a road bike that I would be more inclined to take 
for longer, faster rides, the purpose of this bike would mainly be for 
commuting and more leisurely rides around town with my partner. It would be 
outfitted with racks, fenders, and a dynamo set up. Also, regardless of 
whether I decide to go with the Expedition or not, I am planning on using 
some kind of upright or swept-back bars. Basically this: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35377964@N06/3337138600/in/album-72157614731857771/

Given that both bikes are my size and both cost around the same price, my 
pro/con list looks something like this: for the Expedition, it was not 
designed to ridden as more of a hybrid and so might not handle the way I 
would like with up-right bars. The XO-2 was, but it doesn't have some of 
the feature that I like in the Expedition (internal wiring for the dynamo, 
loong chainstays, mid-fork eyelets for the front rack, and of course a 
lugged frame without a unicrown fork--looks matter!). For the XO-2, I like 
the wider tires even if they are 26'. It might mean going a little slower, 
but this bike isn't being built for speed, and the added comfort of the 
larger tires would be nice. And then of course, it was actually designed by 
Grant Petersen to do the kind of riding that I'm describing. If my goal is 
to create a faux Rivendell, compromising with a prototypical version makes 
a lot of sense, but I would hate to be the person who sacrifices overall 
quality for the sake of some kind of cult appeal (even if I have bought in 
to a certain degree already).

I'm open to any thoughts that you all might have and would love to hear 
about experiences with one or both of these bicycles.

Thanks,
Ray


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fb82e795-0fc4-4e0c-86ab-23d0251ce547n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: ISO: Albatross Bars

[Joseph Tousignant]

Hi, I bought 2 of these a few years ago (heat treated Aluminum), and only 
mounted them for a day or two. They didn't work for me on the frames I 
wanted to use them on (one is a 1980's Trek 720), because the frame was a 
good fit for me with a flat upright MTB style bar mounted.  When I mounted 
the Albatross bar it came back too far for my preference. Had I had a size 
or two larger frame (or one with a longish top tube),...I could have used 
it.

   Anyway, it bears just the light marks of mounting brake levers,which 
yours would likely cover anyway. I would sell for $85 "shipped",...with 
with anticipated shipping of about $15 the bars are basically $70 bucks. :-)

If you can't find one locally,...email at your convenience.

Cheers,
Joseph Tousignant
 

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 8:16:35 PM UTC-4 christian poppell wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Albatross bars are out of stock at Rivendell. I was hoping to use them 
> on a HHH build. Is there anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area with some up 
> for grabs? I prefer the aluminum but am open to the steel version as well. 
> I have some h'bars for trade, Nitto B115, Nitto promenade (the U shaped 
> one), and some Nitto Randoneeur bars. 
>
> Thanks!
> Christian
> Berkeley, CA
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b3df9d1f-d813-49da-ada7-93daa135cfffn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] WTB: Silver Crankset

[Kevin L]

I'm looking for a Silver brand crankset in 173 or 178. Arms and spider 
would be perfect, but complete would be very welcome as well. Riv has been 
out of these for seemingly forever.

Thanks!


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4234d8ce-bc5e-46cf-ae47-192ff5b92a73o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: What role does your Joe A. fill?

[Raymond Henderson]

I don't have a Joe A. (or a Riv at all unfortunately), but I was wondering 
what the bars you have on there are. I like the way you have that set up.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 10:49:03 AM UTC-5 getjosh...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hello All,
> First time poster here. I‘ve been riding a Joe A. just since spring and 
> it’s taking over many roles in my bike arsenal and I wanted to see how 
> others are using their’s. I’ve got a gravel bike, an All City Cosmic 
> Stallion that I mostly ride for fast rides and exercise, but the Rivendell 
> has mostly overtaken that role. I’ve got a surly bridge club that has 2.4” 
> tires on it, but I’m finding that for slowly riding around or bickepacking 
> through forest service roads and mild single track Joe is up to the task. 
> The only bike it’s not replacing is my commuter, and that’s only because I 
> like having a cheaper commuter that I don’t have to worry about locking up 
> for a whole day. 
>
> Curious to see if anyone on here is using a Joe A. to do various types of 
> riding. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/dc05c1cd-0f9d-414c-9cc5-aaa32bff82e7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] FS 62 cm Custom Riv f/f by Joe Starck - ’98

[ctbiker]

I really wanted to build this up and experience what I’m sure is a 
wonderful ride but I’ve just got too many projects in the queue. Bought 
from Art in 2012

Pics at 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fosses/albums/72157714856151207/with/50044245932/

My quick measurements:

Seat tube  62 cm center-center or 64  cm center-top

Top tube  58 cm

Seat post diameter  27.2  mm

chainstay length   44  cm

As pictured except no seatpost

$900 which includes CONUS s/h

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2d474328-b871-4d50-b5c0-07b43ab7b65bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Hot Waxing Chains

[Whatcha Oughtter]

Does anyone know what’s on chains when they are new out of the box? It 
always seems sticky but doesn’t seem to attract too much dirt, is really 
smooth and quiet and lasts a long time. After the factory lube is gone I 
use tri-flow with pretty good results. I used motorcycle chain lube for a 
while that sprayed on thin and penetrated into the nooks and crannies but 
dried out thick like a grease. It attracted all kinds of grit and wore out 
a chain in very short order. -John

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:02:08 AM UTC-7, ☆ Paul ☆ wrote:
>
> Hi Corwin
>
> I'm going to try to find a link to that. Or just write Paul, he's pretty 
> responsive. :)
>
> Never using lube would be the holy grail for me. I hate the gunk.
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 1:08:06 AM UTC-4 Corwin wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul -
>>
>> If you want to find out about riding a chain with no lube - look to Paul 
>> Price of Paul Components. He is notorious for riding his bikes without 
>> maintaining them to see how long it takes parts to fail.
>>
>> Namaste,
>>
>>
>> Corwin
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 1:17:08 PM UTC-7, ☆ Paul ☆ wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone ever tried cleaning their chain and NEVER applying lube at 
>>> ALL?
>>>
>>> This may be an absolutely idiotic question, but there are all kinds of 
>>> posts all over the web about people who think lube is a scam, but I can't 
>>> find anyone that has actually tested the theory with a top-quality chain.
>>>
>>> I've ridden belt drive bikes exclusively for the last 12 years, until I 
>>> bought an Atlantis recently and my life changed. The one nice thing about 
>>> belts is you just hose off the bike now and then.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 3:33:00 PM UTC-4 Deacon Patrick wrote:
>>>
 Put on NFS for the first time today. 12 drops on my lng 1x9 Gus's 
 chain, in high gear (small cog), back spun 12 times, no wipe. It shifted 
 wonderfully smooth. I'll see how long it goes before asking for more and 
 how it handles mud and frozen slop; however, so far I'm impressed.

 With abandon,
 Patrick

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/03cdf789-ff7e-40b6-88b9-786088ca53cfo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] WTB: 57 Roadini

[Timothy Hurley]

Obvious long shot, but if anyone is looking to sell at 57 Roadini, let me know. 


Thanks,
T.J.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/eac5e3a8-e2db-4aff-8ea3-0f1cad65e837o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Vincent Tamer]

The whole point of the Atlantis is that it is meant for loaded touring. The 
second tube goes on the bikes for taller riders who are presumably heavier. 
That along with a heavy touring load makes the extra tube a good idea.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally; 
> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is 
> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by 
> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by 
> the added tube.
>
> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the 
> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just 
> right.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>
>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true, 
>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be 
>> negligible. 
>>
>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the 
>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me 
>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others 
>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those 
>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the 
>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes 
>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the 
>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame 
>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely, 
>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes, 
>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative 
>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes. 
>>
>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling 
>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's 
>> anecdotal. 
>>
>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding 
>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be 
>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's 
>> totally off base from an engineering point of view. 
>>
>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I 
>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue. 
>>
>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and carry 
>>> heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best level 
>>> top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56 
>>> c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made 
>>> from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.
>>>
>>> I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is 
>>> also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork + 
>>> steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm 
>>> 175.
>>>
>>> And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried 
>>> 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight 
>>> 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed 
>>> 7 lb for frame + fork and Ultegra headset. This frame was a 58 c-c, IIRC.
>>>
>>> For anyone under say 250 lb who does not carry camping loads, a second 
>>> top tube is ornamental, not structural. Amen.
>>>
>>> Back when I lived in India and Pakistan and Kenya, you'd often see heavy 
>>> duty models of the stereotypical rod brake roadster wtih a second top tube 
>>> (and with heavy aftermarket fork braces), but these were bikes cheaply made 
>>> from cheap, weak tubing that carried 100 lb loads of firewood or 200 lb 
>>> loads of charcoal in gunny sacks, or a family of 4; even so, most Indian 
>>> and Pakistani made r b roadsters have single top tubes.
>>>
>>> Upshot: they look cool, but their benefit is purely aesthetic.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:19 PM S  wrote:
>>>
 Yes, the extra tube strengthens the frame. Otherwise you would be left 
 with a wobblier triangle and have to use thicker tubes and there goes at 
 least some of your weight savings. I think it's a good solution and looks 
 cool, so a double win. 

 On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 11:42:08 AM UTC-7 Jason Fuller wrote:

> I can imagine it's useful once you get into the 60cm range, since the 
> average rider weight is going up while the structural triangulation of 
> the 
> frame is going down.  But I can't deny that I love the totally 
> unnecessary 
> extra tube on the Hunq so who am I to judge. 
>
> The "unnecessary tube" I want, and would put on a Riv custom if I ever 
> got one, would be the lift handle from the Rosco's. I keep hoping for it 

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[R Olson]

I'm 260 lbs and own a double TT Appa 58cm, 61 cm Roadeo, 64cm Clem L and 
59cm Clem L (the clem's are for other family members, but I've ridden 
them).  Here's the order from most flexy to least:

1) 64 cm Clem L
2) 59 cm Clem L
3) Roadeo
4) Appa

No surprise there, but the difference between 2 and 3 is substantial, and 
the diff between 3 and 4 isn't very much at all.  Have also owned a 62 cm 
double TT Appa (1st Gen), which was flexier than the Roadeo.  Not sure if 
the Roadeo is made from the stiffer air-hardened steel variety.  FWIW, the 
Roadeo feels good, doesn't feel wobbly or like it's going to break or 
anything. 

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:52:48 AM UTC-6, S wrote:
>
> Mostly, it’s interesting to me that in going from an 18” (46cm) mountain 
> bike frame to a 60cm frame there is apparently no need to make any design 
> changes for the sake of rigidity. Or that, in this area, tubing gauge is 
> much more important. I suppose I have been way overestimating how much bike 
> frames flex. Does this mean smaller frames tend to be overbuilt? Does it 
> have any implications for “planing”? I don’t know. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/172f698e-3224-4c84-88eb-0cd48cf938a8o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Sean Keesler]

I have a 2tt Sam that I am taking out for long staycation tours of my area. 
I didn't notice the extra ounces of the 2nd tube over a 300k last weekend, 
but did appreciate the comments about the bike when I stopped for supplies. 
It added to my day and the overall pleasure of owning and riding the 
bike...the novelty of it was the feature that drew me to it.
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:27:30 AM UTC-4 brendonoid wrote:

>
> Both of my Double TT Rivs have wobbly steel around the seat lug from 
> overheating the tubes during brazing. I would think this alone would undo 
> any strength gains from a second tube but what do I know. With that said my 
> 60cm Sam with double TT holds the same load on racks as the Single TT Homer 
> with much less flex. So yeah it is noticable in that scenario. 
>
> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think? 
> *shrug*
>
> Making my post vaguely on topic. In 2018 when the new Atlanti came out I 
> found the 59 Atlantis extremely handsome but bought one of the remaining 58 
> Appa's instead because after some of Grants Blahgs at the time I thought 
> that the Appaloosa would probably be the last FULLY LUGGED Rivendell ever 
> made. Sometimes I regret my decision. But not really. That Atlantis 
> Headbadge is still one of my favourites.
> On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 07:57:12 UTC+8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Ted, it's not rocket science. The tube looks good (on this bike) but 
>> serves no real, practical need.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM ted  wrote:
>>
>>> The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you 
>>> don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be 
>>> there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be 
>>> justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of 
>>> arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does 
>>> not belong.
>>> "Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a 
>>> tautology and as such is basically meaningless.
>>> Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not 
>>> practical? If yes I disagree.
>>> Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as 
>>> opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but 
>>> insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are 
>>> aesthetic and practical antonyms. 
>>> Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at 
>>> the thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The 
>>> appearance of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they 
>>> look like). YMMV.
>>> Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply 
>>> that the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or 
>>> inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually 
>>> used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike 
>>> in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might 
>>> get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the 
>>> down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube 
>>> "impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with 
>>> lacking a practical reason for being.
>>> qed ish 
>>>
>>> ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his 
>>> 52 bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or 
>>> something like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

 Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need.

 Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, 
 but the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the 
 qualifications already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of 
 chromed steel to a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can 
 wear a 1 lb weight around one's waist; no practical difference, but 
 there's 
 certainly no structural reason for doing so.

 On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted  wrote:

> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics 
> **is** a practical purpose.
> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total 
> bike + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) 
> weight is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to 
> theoretical) detriment.
>
>
 -- 

 ---
 Patrick Moore
 Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

 -- 
>>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to 

[RBW] WTB Quickbeam or Simpleone 60cm

[EverRed]

If anyone has one to sell of knows of one somewhere I would love to hear 
from you.

Many thanks
John
Black Mountain, NC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b65962bd-3a9a-408b-895a-2cc0a2b85887o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] CL outting: Bombadil

[Luke Volkmann]

No relation with seller. I'm not in the market for a Bombadil, but it is 
very temping in my size.. I'm hoping one of you will buy it so I don't have 
to!

https://skagit.craigslist.org/bik/d/anacortes-bombadil-touring-bike-by/7171717594.html

Luke in Seattle

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f09df2b1-b077-42f2-9ff6-b76b8fedb621o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 650b/700c tires, Campagnolo, Albatross, Sugino, Surly (SF Bay)

[CMR]

Hi Alex, PM sent!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2eef9cc2-acf2-439c-be84-7603e2634870o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: Nitto 32f Campee Mini Front Rack (and use with V-Brakes?)

[Applegate]

Jeremy—thanks! That makes sense. I've found the same result using the M-18. 
I would feel better about using the actual braze-on I have on the fork, 
rather than the brake bolts.

Max—Sounds good to me! If it has a front light mount tab, all the better 
still. I'm not in any rush.

On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 19:35:45 UTC-7 maxcr wrote:

> I think I have a spare 32f at home in Cambridge, MA but I’m traveling for 
> the rest of the month. If you’re still looking when I’m back, happy to work 
> something out
> Max

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b47fc752-f0de-45a1-b966-1103c797a564n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 52 Clem L or 45 Clem H

[Justin Kennedy (Brooklyn, NY)]

Kinda insane right?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b65c6cbf-f693-45d5-84b0-1099f83a49ffo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 52 Clem L or 45 Clem H

[Ash]

Seems like overall price/demand has gone up for all bike things.  Which is 
great!

At our LBS I used to be able to walk straight up to the mechanic in the 
backroom and get my work taken care of.  That's before COVID.  Yesterday I 
took my Susie frame to get the headset replaced (to a black one, for 
aesthetics).  Had to wait in the line outside in the sun for 20 mins (this 
is not even a weekend) before someone had a chance to come out and talk to 
me.  The earliest available appointment was one week out.  I'm really happy 
for them.

On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 12:31:26 UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:

> $3500??

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2c415bd3-0120-4f02-9aa3-ee9c30644bfcn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 52 Clem L or 45 Clem H

[Joe Bernard]

$3500??

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8b1ed528-dcc8-4190-9b31-99ae8c7386beo%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 52 Clem L or 45 Clem H

[Justin Kennedy (Brooklyn, NY)]

A complete Clem L 52cm for sale in Brooklyn. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDgo6qGF_JY/?igshid=ci4f2un0nkm6

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2c1c6802-48b3-4b62-8bdb-e12e491c772bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

[Joe Bernard]

No worries, Jeff, it's not your fault. The PM feature here has always been a 
headache, then recently an update killed it altogether. Lame! 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b8e721c2-1125-49df-b248-f9616baf5246o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

[Jon Dukeman,central Colorado]

Jeff
My email.
row.n.2nowh...@gmail.com
Jon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b93498d2-6af6-4f14-af9d-e39939da7febo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Patrick Moore]

As to the structural effects of double top tubes: Sure, any such member
will make a difference to the behavior of the frame; the question is
whether this effect serves any useful purpose for the rider. And besides
the question of whether such effects are necessary, there is also the
question of whether added stiffness makes for too much stiffness. I have
learned over the last couple of months that my 2003 Riv custom was in fact
too stiff for me, or at least, stiff in a way that didn't work for me,
compared to the new, less-stiff or differently-stiff frame.

As to the question of aesthetics, I disagree that beauty is entirely
subjective, leaving out the separate question of personal affinities; if it
were, the term would have no meaning; but we all experience something we
can identify as beauty, whether or not we can define it in words, and we
mean something when we talk about it; we're not just making empty sounds.
But that's another question.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:14 PM Jason Fuller  wrote:

> ...I wouldn't want a tube that's truly unnecessary except for appearance,
> but I don't think such a tube exists - it's always going to have some
> effect on the overall stiffness / response of the frame, and it often comes
> with neat things like additional water bottle cages or options for bags,
> etc.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtxTyFheBJ5dcSp6KBNLejJVV9EeH3Xp4yMAhhkzTM2RQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Jason Fuller]

I have a Soma Grand Randonneur, and I would say that's "wobbly steel" - you 
can visually see the bottom bracket swing from side to side relative to the 
head tube when you're putting even moderate power through the drivetrain. 

Couple notes on the aesthetics of "unnecessary tubes"
- The beauty of a bicycle is a personal blend of its artistic beauty and 
its functional (machine) quality, and we all lean different ways. 
- Beauty is, of course, HIGHLY subjective and a huge number of people think 
that a modern, aero road bike looks better than a clunky ol' Rivendell. I 
know, it pains you to think that's true, but it's definitely true. 

I wouldn't want a tube that's truly unnecessary except for appearance, but 
I don't think such a tube exists - it's always going to have some effect on 
the overall stiffness / response of the frame, and it often comes with neat 
things like additional water bottle cages or options for bags, etc. 

On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 10:58:57 UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> More reflection on this particular aspect of the thread. I will first be 
> more clear about my assertion, which is simply that such double top tubes 
> as we are talking about provide aesthetic and not practically beneficial 
> structural benefits.
>
> I will add that, far from being negligible, aesthetics -- or to use a 
> simpler, more concrete, and more significant word, beauty -- is an 
> essential part of a good life, and this extends to everyday artifacts. Thus 
> I would say, to clarify, that aesthetics -- or looks, or, in a word, beauty 
> -- is important; it just does't add a structural benefit.
>
> Make sense?
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted  wrote:
>
>> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics 
>> **is** a practical purpose.
>> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike 
>> + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight 
>> is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to theoretical) 
>> detriment.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally; 
>>> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is 
>>> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by 
>>> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by 
>>> the added tube.
>>>
>>> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the 
>>> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just 
>>> right.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>>>
 As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true, 
 because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be 
 negligible. 

 In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about 
 the supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members 
 -- 
 me included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others 
 disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those 
 in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the 
 frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes 
 -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the 
 difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a 
 frame 
 could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely, 
 some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger 
 sizes, 
 thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative 
 stiffness as in the smaller sizes. 

 Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling 
 friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's 
 anecdotal. 

 I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before 
 deciding to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or 
 could be a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say 
 it's totally off base from an engineering point of view. 

 Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I 
 have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue. 

 On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and 
> carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best 
> level top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 
> 56 
> c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made 
> from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.
>
> I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is 
> also standard gauge, and it is *very* 

[RBW] WTT: Carridice Camper Longflap VG condition, for good quality shoulder/courier bag of similar quality and condition

[Patrick Moore]

The Camper LF is 23 litres and can carry -- my standard volume test load --
a 12-pak of cans + a gal of milk, with a bit of room left over. I would
like to trade for a similarly sized courier bag.

I just looked on the Timbuktu site and they don't organize their bags by
volume; a Google, or rather a Duckduck Go search doesn't bring up "biggest
courier bag" for Timbuktu or anyone else. But I know that Timbuktu made
such a beast at one time; the one I've seen may even be more capacious than
the Camper LF. And, long ago, I had a cheaper courier bag that easily held
as much as the CLF.

And am I right in thinking that Timbuktu has over the last 30 or 40 years
"gone corporate" with its product line now being office and lifestyle
oriented instead of "carry a heckofalotof stuff-oriented? No matter, as
long as the bag is large, decently made, and -- important -- doesn't have a
lot of frills and furbelows, particularly inside, so that you can just
stuff big things inside without careful navigation.

Again, something to hold a 6-pack of cans and a gallon of milk. (Ale and
whole, of course.) the 23 litre benchmark is less important than this other
more concrete gauge of volume.

Reason? For very occasional shopping use when I ride a bike without
attachable luggage.

Thanks, Patrick

-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgseGu4Z4QGqHQowx52Q7hd3CqBjnSNp1usfxPzMdGGocw%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Paul Netro-Retro Cantilevers & Straddle Cable Height: where is your happy place?

['John Phillips' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Hi Mark,

I found this blog post of Mike Varley's to also be a big help:

https://blackmtncycles.com/get-the-most-out-of-your-canti-brake/

John

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9bb78cf6-4023-4646-8f22-b9db230042e1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Patrick Moore]

More reflection on this particular aspect of the thread. I will first be
more clear about my assertion, which is simply that such double top tubes
as we are talking about provide aesthetic and not practically beneficial
structural benefits.

I will add that, far from being negligible, aesthetics -- or to use a
simpler, more concrete, and more significant word, beauty -- is an
essential part of a good life, and this extends to everyday artifacts. Thus
I would say, to clarify, that aesthetics -- or looks, or, in a word, beauty
-- is important; it just does't add a structural benefit.

Make sense?

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted  wrote:

> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics **is**
> a practical purpose.
> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike +
> rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight
> is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to theoretical)
> detriment.
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:58:58 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> You are right that a second top tube will do something structurally;
>> there's no avoiding that, and I overstated my own case. But my point is
>> that for anything but a very large frame, or for a frame to be ridden by
>> someone exceptionally heavy, there's no **practical** purposes served by
>> the added tube.
>>
>> Still, that Atlantis frame does look very pretty; far nicer IMO than the
>> other models with 2 top tubes; they got the mix of straight and curved just
>> right.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:07 AM S  wrote:
>>
>>> As is my habit, I overstated my case. What I said is technically true,
>>> because of physics, but I can believe the real world effect might be
>>> negligible.
>>>
>>> In the back of my mind was the side discussion on here or iBob about the
>>> supposed deadness of the Surly Cross Check frame. Some forum members -- me
>>> included -- insisted the frame was a dog, no question, while others
>>> disagreed. As it turned out, those in the former camp had the 56 and those
>>> in the latter camp larger sizes. The theory was floated that maybe the
>>> frame "opens up," that is, flexes more, in a good way, in the larger sizes
>>> -- and with generally heavier riders -- and that accounted for the
>>> difference. To me, this seems plausible. And if it's plausible that a frame
>>> could improve in this way, then it also seems plausible that, conversely,
>>> some frames could open up *too much* and become too flexy, in larger sizes,
>>> thus necessitating some modification to maintain the same relative
>>> stiffness as in the smaller sizes.
>>>
>>> Also in the back of my mind was the experience of my larger cycling
>>> friends who seem to break more frames than I ever have. But then, that's
>>> anecdotal.
>>>
>>> I don't know if Grant ran any numbers or did any testing before deciding
>>> to add the second tube to some bikes. Could just be for looks, or could be
>>> a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Or a mix. But I wouldn't say it's
>>> totally off base from an engineering point of view.
>>>
>>> Anyway, you've ridden more 60 (and maybe 60 plus?) size frames than I
>>> have, and if you say you don't feel a difference, then I can't argue.
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 8:27:15 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Not true at all, unless -- perhaps -- you are well over 200 lb and
 carry heavy loads. I owned and rode a 60 c-c frame extensively -- my best
 level top tube size is 60 c-c -- and there was no more flex notiher 6- X 56
 c-cceable than with an 18" mountain bike frame. And this frame was made
 from standard gauge, and not OS, tubes.

 I currently have another 60 X 56 c-c frame being refurbished; this is
 also standard gauge, and it is *very* light: 5.9 lb for frame + fork +
 steel Campy headset; I *do not* expect to need a second top tube. I'm
 175.

 And my best load carrier of all time, that happily and securely carried
 40+ in back (on an 11 oz rack!) was made from standard gauge, lightweight
 531 and was noticeably lighter than my 2003, 58 c-c Riv frame that weighed
 7 lb for frame + fork and Ultegra headset. This frame was a 58 c-c, IIRC.

 For anyone under say 250 lb who does not carry camping loads, a second
 top tube is ornamental, not structural. Amen.

 Back when I lived in India and Pakistan and Kenya, you'd often see
 heavy duty models of the stereotypical rod brake roadster wtih a second top
 tube (and with heavy aftermarket fork braces), but these were bikes cheaply
 made from cheap, weak tubing that carried 100 lb loads of firewood or 200
 lb loads of charcoal in gunny sacks, or a family of 4; even so, most Indian
 and Pakistani made r b roadsters have single top tubes.

 Upshot: they look cool, but their benefit is purely aesthetic.

 On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:19 PM S  wrote:

> Yes, the 

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

['Je Mar' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Thx, Joe, that was a little embarrassing...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7c0ece92-13cf-4599-8d69-7f5c5ebd159eo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[S]

Should read "deflection," not "defection." 

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7 S wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-7 brendonoid wrote:
>
>> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would 
>> think? *shrug*
>
>
> No need to be snarky. I know Riv tests their frames and that they pass the 
> strictest test for mountain frames. My point was, I don't know if, *in 
> the specific case of adding a second top tube*, Grant based his decision 
> on an actual test, or engineering numbers -- that is, did he run some kind 
> of defection test, see that the larger frames were *flexing significantly 
> more than smaller frames* and only then decide to add the second top tube 
> to these larger frames? I doubt it, which isn't to say he made a bad 
> decision, I just have no evidence he added the second tube to solve a 
> *serious, 
> known problem.* That's fine. I think it hurts nothing and looks cool.  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/38c37a0e-9728-43f0-8add-9ddbe51d2015n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

[Joe Bernard]

I use ShipBikes - they use FedEx - which is generally under $100 for a complete 
bike. 

In an attempt to help you guys sort out the PM feature..well..it seems to be 
gone. What I've been doing is posting my email to sell stuff, but it won't come 
through with the @ and . if people are reading the list on the Google Groups 
site. So I do this:
joeremi62 gmail com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/56b6dde2-d48d-43e4-9332-bae878d2d28do%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[S]

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 2:27:30 AM UTC-7 brendonoid wrote:

> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think? 
> *shrug*


No need to be snarky. I know Riv tests their frames and that they pass the 
strictest test for mountain frames. My point was, I don't know if, *in the 
specific case of adding a second top tube*, Grant based his decision on an 
actual test, or engineering numbers -- that is, did he run some kind of 
defection test, see that the larger frames were *flexing significantly more 
than smaller frames* and only then decide to add the second top tube to 
these larger frames? I doubt it, which isn't to say he made a bad decision, 
I just have no evidence he added the second tube to solve a *serious, known 
problem.* That's fine. I think it hurts nothing and looks cool.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9f4c799b-9d7f-4589-bd45-0183a28a33e7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: Sackville HappiSack grid gray, Nitto Big Rack black

[Joe Bernard]

Bag and rack are sold. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/42324417-3aaf-4184-bb31-1fe2bec9027co%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: ISO: Albatross Bars

[christian poppell]

Hi All,

Got this all sorted out. Thank you for the offers!

Christian
Berkeley, CA

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 5:16:35 PM UTC-7, christian poppell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The Albatross bars are out of stock at Rivendell. I was hoping to use them 
> on a HHH build. Is there anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area with some up 
> for grabs? I prefer the aluminum but am open to the steel version as well. 
> I have some h'bars for trade, Nitto B115, Nitto promenade (the U shaped 
> one), and some Nitto Randoneeur bars. 
>
> Thanks!
> Christian
> Berkeley, CA
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9d4348cd-cc09-428b-8b1d-afdb9cae90fco%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

['Jeff Martin' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 Hi Jon,
It's a beautiful bike - and you've set it up pretty much as I would expect to 
do myself (minus Electric).  I'm in Arlington, VA - just outside DC.  
With the headset, bottom bracket and perhaps the seatpost if you would be 
willing to toss it in, I would do $650 plus shipping as you prefer.  I only 
know of bike flights via the Bunch; I think I've generally seen ~$150, is that 
correct or reasonably close?
And, Jon, nobody ever mistook me for a skilled negotiator, so let me be clear: 
I want this deal.  The seatpost request is just that.
What's next?
Best,
Jeff
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 08:31:40 AM EDT, Jon Dukeman 
 wrote:  
 
 Jeff where do you live? Asking$650+ shipping via bike flights.Has a few light 
wear and tear scratchesComes with headset . I think I have a BB. If so you may 
have it.Questions? Pics attachedJon
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 4:14 AM 'Je Mar' via RBW Owners Bunch 
 wrote:

DM attempted; please advise, Jon. 
Thx 
Jeff 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/7XtfwYiL3Mg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/24dfa3fe-2b8d-4d71-86f7-49337281eab3o%40googlegroups.com.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/7XtfwYiL3Mg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAMO8PLhD_wZmSKrtt1Wx5zARc479is81imhAykSU5QRWA8WJ7A%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/183405501.369648.1596644708580%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[Mark Roland]

Please explain what "wobbly steel" is, and how one identifies it?

I would guess that, in frames smaller than, I don't know, 62cm, a second 
top tube will not have much affect on how the bike handles or carries a 
load. Especially since Rivendells use fairly beefy tubing to begin with. 
>From my point of view, I see it as much as an extension of Just Ride as 
anything else. Traditional bicycle design with steel hasn't strayed much 
lately from the basic diamond frame. Why be so darn serious all the time?

In the first bike boom of the late 1800s, there was more variation, 
including double top tubes. I think in addition to being an aesthetic 
choice, and nominally a structural one in the largest frames,  it visually 
signals one of the companies credos: 

*The kind of bikes we don’t do:*

*We don’t “do” racing bikes; not road, not mountain, not gravel. We make 
bikes for daily riders, tourers, commuters, shoppers, trail riders. For 
athletes and get-arounders. Not for racers. Racing has tweaked and refined 
the comfort, safety, and versatility out of bicycles, and on the way, it 
has made the modern bikes into sleek and mean, dark and fat road bikes and 
mechanically overkilled mountain bikes.*


There is no mistaking a bicycle with a double top tube for a racing machine.


On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 5:27:30 AM UTC-4, brendonoid wrote:
>
>
> Both of my Double TT Rivs have wobbly steel around the seat lug from 
> overheating the tubes during brazing. I would think this alone would undo 
> any strength gains from a second tube but what do I know. With that said my 
> 60cm Sam with double TT holds the same load on racks as the Single TT Homer 
> with much less flex. So yeah it is noticable in that scenario. 
>
> Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think? 
> *shrug*
>
> Making my post vaguely on topic. In 2018 when the new Atlanti came out I 
> found the 59 Atlantis extremely handsome but bought one of the remaining 58 
> Appa's instead because after some of Grants Blahgs at the time I thought 
> that the Appaloosa would probably be the last FULLY LUGGED Rivendell ever 
> made. Sometimes I regret my decision. But not really. That Atlantis 
> Headbadge is still one of my favourites.
> On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 07:57:12 UTC+8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Ted, it's not rocket science. The tube looks good (on this bike) but 
>> serves no real, practical need.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM ted  wrote:
>>
>>> The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you 
>>> don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be 
>>> there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be 
>>> justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of 
>>> arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does 
>>> not belong.
>>> "Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a 
>>> tautology and as such is basically meaningless.
>>> Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not 
>>> practical? If yes I disagree.
>>> Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as 
>>> opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but 
>>> insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are 
>>> aesthetic and practical antonyms. 
>>> Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at 
>>> the thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The 
>>> appearance of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they 
>>> look like). YMMV.
>>> Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply 
>>> that the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or 
>>> inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually 
>>> used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike 
>>> in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might 
>>> get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the 
>>> down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube 
>>> "impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with 
>>> lacking a practical reason for being.
>>> qed ish 
>>>
>>> ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his 
>>> 52 bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or 
>>> something like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

 Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need.

 Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, 
 but the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the 
 qualifications already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of 
 chromed steel to a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can 
 wear a 1 lb weight around one's waist; no practical 

[RBW] Re: FS: 650b/700c tires, Campagnolo, Albatross, Sugino, Surly (SF Bay)

[Applegate]

The albatross bars, too!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f0dbcc85-9cd8-4d54-a6a5-00cefba444e7o%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 650b/700c tires, Campagnolo, Albatross, Sugino, Surly (SF Bay)

[Applegate]

Hi Chris. I’d love to buy those GravelKings from you. If you do happen to be 
passing through this part of the East Bay, I live in West Berkeley, three 
minutes from the University Ave exit from the 580. If not, we can certainly 
arrange for pickup elsewhere!

Thanks,
Alex Applegate
(West) Berkeley, CA

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d3a7f352-f6f8-49c0-b540-143ab1398382o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] The Quickbeam Rides Again!

['Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch]

At least the brazing held!

--Eric Norris
campyonly...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 11:34 AM, John G  wrote:
> 
> It me.
> 
> 
> 
> The orange replacement is still going strong.
> 
> John G, Union Bridge, MD
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 12:35:09 AM UTC-4, Eric Norris wrote:
> I recall someone with an early green Quickbeam had a failure where the seat 
> tube enters the bottom bracket shell. Looked like it had rusted from the 
> inside?
> 
> Fingers crossed, no problems with my first-gen QB, which has been everywhere 
> and is still going strong.
> 
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com <>
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/62f2efcd-305d-499c-8780-99a0d039f873o%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9D267885-7311-48C6-A289-6E9E7934D2F8%40me.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[EricP]

Well, I'm definitely heavy enough where the second top tube on my Sam Hillborne 
should make a difference. Does it? I dunno. But after this many years am used 
to it. Always felt it was as much marketing to be different than Surly, All 
City and some other brands. It does ride well and has been my only bike for a 
bit. At least until my Clem shows up. 

My only complaint with this bike is the brakes. If I had known they were going 
to cantilever frames might have waited. Even with good pads set up well, not 
overly happy with the side pulls. But that's my preference, not a slam against 
the design. 


Eric Platt 
St. Paul, MN

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/53cb35b8-c831-4a94-94a7-89cfd94537abo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

[Jon Dukeman]

Got it
Jon

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 4:14 AM 'Je Mar' via RBW Owners Bunch <
rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> DM attempted; please advise, Jon.
> Thx
> Jeff
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/7XtfwYiL3Mg/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/24dfa3fe-2b8d-4d71-86f7-49337281eab3o%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAMO8PLgPDh-B9yhBuM5VpHw51k4jTe4g%3D4Nd%3DOJwr%3Di8zYEfng%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: The Quickbeam Rides Again!

[Wally Estrella]

WOW! WOW! WOW!  Now I feel I should send my orange (was the fastest color) 
64 out just to get painted BRG!  I'm a green lover all the way! 
#BRGisthefastestandmoststunningcolor.   




On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 3:03:41 PM UTC-4 Joe Bernard wrote:

> I wouldn't sweat it, Ryan. Ride it til it breaks, it probably won't break! 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2f332361-9829-410b-bce9-2b89b6681056n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] 60cm Orange Cheviot gathering dust anywhere?

['Je Mar' via RBW Owners Bunch]

DM attempted; please advise, Jon. 
Thx 
Jeff 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/24dfa3fe-2b8d-4d71-86f7-49337281eab3o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Earl Craig's Atlantis on the Blug

[brendonoid]

Both of my Double TT Rivs have wobbly steel around the seat lug from 
overheating the tubes during brazing. I would think this alone would undo 
any strength gains from a second tube but what do I know. With that said my 
60cm Sam with double TT holds the same load on racks as the Single TT Homer 
with much less flex. So yeah it is noticable in that scenario. 

Riv tests its frames and Grant would have the math on this? I would think? 
*shrug*

Making my post vaguely on topic. In 2018 when the new Atlanti came out I 
found the 59 Atlantis extremely handsome but bought one of the remaining 58 
Appa's instead because after some of Grants Blahgs at the time I thought 
that the Appaloosa would probably be the last FULLY LUGGED Rivendell ever 
made. Sometimes I regret my decision. But not really. That Atlantis 
Headbadge is still one of my favourites.
On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 07:57:12 UTC+8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Ted, it's not rocket science. The tube looks good (on this bike) but 
> serves no real, practical need.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM ted  wrote:
>
>> The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you 
>> don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be 
>> there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be 
>> justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of 
>> arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does 
>> not belong.
>> "Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a 
>> tautology and as such is basically meaningless.
>> Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not practical? 
>> If yes I disagree.
>> Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as 
>> opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but 
>> insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are 
>> aesthetic and practical antonyms. 
>> Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at the 
>> thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The appearance 
>> of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they look 
>> like). YMMV.
>> Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply 
>> that the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or 
>> inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually 
>> used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike 
>> in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might 
>> get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the 
>> down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube 
>> "impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with 
>> lacking a practical reason for being.
>> qed ish 
>>
>> ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his 
>> 52 bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or 
>> something like that.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need.
>>>
>>> Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, 
>>> but the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the 
>>> qualifications already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of 
>>> chromed steel to a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can 
>>> wear a 1 lb weight around one's waist; no practical difference, but there's 
>>> certainly no structural reason for doing so.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted  wrote:
>>>
 Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics 
 **is** a practical purpose.
 I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total 
 bike + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) 
 weight is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to 
 theoretical) detriment.


>>> -- 
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>>
>>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f75597ef-dfae-4d8b-8760-5a846447048fo%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message 

[RBW] Re: FS: 650b/700c tires, Campagnolo, Albatross, Sugino, Surly (SF Bay)

[CMR]

Update!:

*650b tires *

-Panaracer Gravelkings, tan wall - 650bx42

-Around 100 miles of riding and a little sticky from running tubeless with 
stans

-$40 for pair (2 tires)

 

*29” tires*

-Vee Rubber 29x1.95, 120 TPI – brand new in package

-Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29x2.4, EVO evolution Snake Skin – used but lots of 
life. I don’t actually remember getting this tire so let’s call it free 
with the Vee Rubber

-$30 for both tires


*Sugino Triple set up*

-Sugino XD2 triple, 175, aftermarket rings

-Shimano UN-55, 68x118, never installed so not sure about fit, probably 
best with a mountain triple derailleur

-VX clipless pedals

-$50

 

*Shimano Cassettes*

-SLX CS-HG81-10, 11-32, 10 speed 

-Ultegra CS-6500, 12-27, 9 speed

-Both in like-new condition with less than 1 mile. I believe Ultegra was 
mounted for a test ride but taken right off, not sure about the SLX, maybe 
never touched.

-$25 each

 

*DT Swiss Rims*

-XR361 – great and light rims. Includes DT Swiss nipples and washers. 
Disc-only.

-One 28 hole, One 32 hole, brand new in packaging

-$90 for the pair

 

*Surly Krampus fork*

-Fits FAT tires

-Great condition, cut with 21cm of steerer with starnut installed

-$90

 

Pics for all here: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/21267164@N02/with/50190228616/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/570c0011-169b-408e-b813-54463ca9d94fo%40googlegroups.com.