[RBW] Re: Puzzled by 2 Rivendell recommendations

[iamkeith]

Jeesh - I still got the rack names wrong.

This is the one I believe had issues.  M-12 (I think this is the one that 
had problems)
[image: Nitto-M12-Front-Rack-870-024-11-4]
This is the one that looks like it might be a replacement NF-22

[image: Large, zoomable image of Nitto NF-22 Front Rack 870-444. 1 of 1]
This is the Riv Campee.  32-F  ( I don't think this one had problems)
[image: Large image of Nitto Rack Front Campee 32F Riv Mini. 1 of 7]

This is the M-18. Don't know if it had problems, but the diving board 
didn't allow it to carry much, which is why Mark designed his namesake rack:

[image: Nitto M-18 Bicycle Front Rack DB Japan - Picture 1 of 1]


This is the Mark's rack (M-1)
https://www.rivbike.com/products/nitto-marks-rack-m1-20108?srsltid=AfmBOoppX-H_u9HjigIIF_a-Wt1C5IalFtEmeRiFKz8KsdKv7D0g5Eqe


I already don't know what the hell I was talking about when I typed R-25.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 6:01:42 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> For the record, both of these have been discussed ad-nauseam in Rivendell  
> posts.  Whether it was Grant or Will or somebody else, I can't recall and 
> don't want to spend time looking.  
>
> The reasons, I'm less sure about recalling because they didn't affect me 
> as much.  I believe they ar as follows:
>
> 1.  Unlike the Quickbeam (and Simple One), the bottom bracket on the 
> Roaduno is lower like a typical Rivendell bike.  So pedaling around corners 
> with a fixed gear is more treacherous.
>
> 2.  Nitto had some issues a few years back, with idiots putting too much 
> weight on their front racks, and breaking them - leading to a risk of 
> locking the front wheel.  I seem to recall the R-25 or M-18 had more issues 
> than the  32-F (Campee rack originally designed aroung a Riv standard).  It 
> might even ave been around the time that Riv introduced the Mark's rak.  I 
> think perhaps Nitto even contemplated discontinuing them, but Riv convinced 
> them to keep doing it if they were very diligent about specifying weight 
> limits and recommending the safety strap, so Nitto keeps making them.  With 
> very conservative limits.
>
> On a related note:  While composing this and trying to recall the model 
> numbers of the various racks, I discovered a Nitto NF-22 that I haven't 
> seen before .  I wonder if that is an update to the R-25 rack that had 
> issues, and eliminates a stress riser at the crown thruy- bolt by curving 
> the strut.
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 4:08:41 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> I learn more about Riv from Bike Snob than from their website, tho' that 
> would easily be fixed if Grant posted more often.
>
> Weiss has devoted a large part of several recent posts to his new Roaduno. 
> He mentioned these suggestions, from Rivendell, today.
>
> First, "don't use your Roaduno as a fixed gear:"
> [image: image.png]
> Second, in the catalogue description of the Mark's Rack:
>
> ALWAYS use this rack with a tether between the tall tongue-loop and the 
> handlebar. It's a strong little rack, but people do dumb things, and the 
> tether is a safety measure. Make the tether out of cord or any adjustable 
> strap.
>
> I'm puzzled: first, why not use the Roaduno as a fixed gear or with a flip 
> flop hub?
>
> Second, I guess this is just extreme legal self-protection against truly 
> clueless idiots, but do you many users of the Mark's Rack use a strap? It 
> seems to me that a well-designed and well-built rack used with common-sense 
> caution should not need such a makeshift backup.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>
>

-- 
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/c0a946c9-fcef-47cc-9336-76f63edadd35n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Puzzled by 2 Rivendell recommendations

[iamkeith]

For the record, both of these have been discussed ad-nauseam in Rivendell  
posts.  Whether it was Grant or Will or somebody else, I can't recall and 
don't want to spend time looking.  

The reasons, I'm less sure about recalling because they didn't affect me as 
much.  I believe they ar as follows:

1.  Unlike the Quickbeam (and Simple One), the bottom bracket on the 
Roaduno is lower like a typical Rivendell bike.  So pedaling around corners 
with a fixed gear is more treacherous.

2.  Nitto had some issues a few years back, with idiots putting too much 
weight on their front racks, and breaking them - leading to a risk of 
locking the front wheel.  I seem to recall the R-25 or M-18 had more issues 
than the  32-F (Campee rack originally designed aroung a Riv standard).  It 
might even ave been around the time that Riv introduced the Mark's rak.  I 
think perhaps Nitto even contemplated discontinuing them, but Riv convinced 
them to keep doing it if they were very diligent about specifying weight 
limits and recommending the safety strap, so Nitto keeps making them.  With 
very conservative limits.

On a related note:  While composing this and trying to recall the model 
numbers of the various racks, I discovered a Nitto NF-22 that I haven't 
seen before .  I wonder if that is an update to the R-25 rack that had 
issues, and eliminates a stress riser at the crown thruy- bolt by curving 
the strut.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 4:08:41 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

I learn more about Riv from Bike Snob than from their website, tho' that 
would easily be fixed if Grant posted more often.

Weiss has devoted a large part of several recent posts to his new Roaduno. 
He mentioned these suggestions, from Rivendell, today.

First, "don't use your Roaduno as a fixed gear:"
[image: image.png]
Second, in the catalogue description of the Mark's Rack:

ALWAYS use this rack with a tether between the tall tongue-loop and the 
handlebar. It's a strong little rack, but people do dumb things, and the 
tether is a safety measure. Make the tether out of cord or any adjustable 
strap.

I'm puzzled: first, why not use the Roaduno as a fixed gear or with a flip 
flop hub?

Second, I guess this is just extreme legal self-protection against truly 
clueless idiots, but do you many users of the Mark's Rack use a strap? It 
seems to me that a well-designed and well-built rack used with common-sense 
caution should not need such a makeshift backup.



-- 

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

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/1c101e23-cf4e-428d-9202-7e126cd7c8d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: No love for the Albastache?

[iamkeith]

So you didn't try a longer stem?!   Sounds like you had it figured out but 
didn't follow through on your hunch.  I have forever been baffled by the 
traditionally-spouted wisdom that, when swapping from drop bars to 
moustache/albastache bars, you need a shorter stem.  I discovered long ago 
that longer and stretched out is the key to making them work.  That's what 
gives you the option of an aero position, equivalent to being in the drops 
but more comfortable.  That's me though.  Glad the drops are feeling good.

On Friday, September 6, 2024 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-6 Will M wrote:

> Revivin' an ol' thread!
>
> Thanks to all who contributed to this thread because it was about the only 
> "review" 2-3 years ago when I was considering the Albastache.
>
> Some new reviews out:  On the "love" vs. "no love" question, did you see 
> that Zack Gallardo recently posted a video review with urban/fixie street 
> riding in Taichung, Taiwan using his Alba bars sans levers?  Good review of 
> the Alba's pros/cons from the perspective of a strong/young cyclist (listen 
> to "I could definitely do a century on these bars, but..." at time 5:00):  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GhnUxfTakA
>
> Also recently: Russ/PathLessPedaled found the Alba worked better for him 
> after he swapped out the aero levers for VO mtn brake levers:  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1sVCUMy6rI.  I think I'd do this for my 
> next commuter/city build. 
>
> In my case, I tried the Albastache for the last 2 years on my expedition 
> touring bike 
> .
>  
>  For the prior 25 years, the bike had drop bars (tops same height as 
> saddle).  At first, I liked the Alba's upright position, but then it 
> started feeling "too upright" (half the hand hand positions were simply too 
> far back).  On a 63cm touring frame with 59cm top tube, the Albas made we 
> want a longer top tube (like the modern Rivs) OR more seatpost setback OR 
> more than 80mm reach in the Tallux stem.  Mostly, I missed my drop 
> handlebars, for instance, in all-day headwinds in flat eastern-shore 
> Maryland, or, say, when you want to PULL HARD on the brake hoods for 
> hammering/sprinting/climbing (I never did figure out how to pull hard on 
> these bars).  
>
> I put 48cm Noodles on the bike last month 
>  
> and... a... that's better.  Just me of course.
>
> No numbness or anything like that.  In fact, I like the upright riding 
> position and will use them on my next city/commuter build.With Russ's 
> mtn brake lever trick.
>
> Cheers,
> Will M
>
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-4 Berkeleyan wrote:
>
>> One more... prompted by Will's email comment today of "properly set up 
>> Albastache bars" for long road rides. I keep wondering about best brake 
>> placement on these bars. In your opinion, does that mean brake levers are 
>> approximately tangent to the same plane, as in Will's picture of the bike 
>> they're sending to Philly bike expo? Or do your brakes fall further inside 
>> (closer to stem) or outside?
>>
>> - Andrew, Berkeley
>>
>

-- 
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/ce64e615-844e-4a10-ad94-b2b97fb17d28n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Wool in summer

[iamkeith]

Wool is great all summer for me... on those very-rare occasions thst I 
actually "kit up."  Arid, high 80s to 100.  One big warning:  Avoid riding 
through sheep country when you're hot and wearing wool.  (I'd say "sweaty," 
but that's misleading because quality wool will make you sweat less than 
anything synthetic will.  Or at least it'll evaporate better.)  The flys 
will eat you alive.  This sounds like a joke, but it's not.  We do have 
lots of sheep in Wyoming, and I learned the hard way.


On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 6:16:19 PM UTC-6 Jeffrey Arita wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Yes, my wife and I wear wool garments during the summer (as well as other 
> seasons) especially while bicycle touring.  Wool uppers would be 
> (relatively) lightweight t-shirts (Smartwool-brand).  Can go a week before 
> taking a day off to do laundry (while on the road).  I recall there have 
> been numerous times where the dried salt on the front and back were clearly 
> evident before dropping into the clothes washer.  Continuing with this 
> trend, both my wife and I have worn wool *underwear *[with Fjallravn 
> shorts] for bicycle touring for the same exact reasons (non-microbial and 
> do not need to wash very often and low-stink value).  Wool underwear is 
> underestimated because we've avoided saddle sores, especially on the front 
> end of tours.  
>
> For brevets, lightweight wool jerseys.  Randonneurs USA (RUSA) offered 
> lightweight wool jerseys which we've found to be very good even on 'hot' 
> days (anticipated 90 degrees and maybe 40% humidity).  Excellent for 
> temperature moderation and heartily welcomed when the sun goes down and 
> cycling well into the colder night time temperatures.  A nylon wind vest 
> helps the wool maintain comfortable temps.  Wool arm warmers are then 
> donned as well.
>
> We rarely wear synthetic material clothing anymore.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff & Lori
> Claremont, CA
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 4:21:42 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to hear if any of y'all wear wool tops in summer, and if so, 
>> what "summer" is in your neck of the woods: 90* humidity with 90*F temps? 
>> 110 F AZ with 5%?
>>
>> I'd spent more than enough emotional energy fretting about suitable hot 
>> weather riding tops: rayon, cotton, synthetics with their inevitable stink.*
>>
>> I'd owned a couple of Rivendell summer weight Wooly Warm ss jerseys, 
>> quite light-gauge merino knit, but sold them after they kept sagging lower 
>> and lower and gathering snags and moth holes.
>>
>> But  in late Spring this year I ordered a supremely excellent ss medium 
>> weight jersey from Wabi Woolens. The material is rather thick compared to 
>> the WWs, and I had to order an XL to get something from the rather 
>> tight-fitting line to fit trimly but not cling-ingly and allow a bit of 
>> airflow, but doggone if that jersey hasn't been very, very comfortable even 
>> at 98*F in 10% humidity and even at 92F and high for our area 50% humidity.
>>
>> So much was I struck by this that I fished out an Italian ss wool jersey 
>> I'd bought 2nd hand years ago and until now left for that in-between season 
>> between hot and cold. I rode in it yesterday at 90-92 and 23% and it was 
>> comfortable as in, "I didn't even think about it." I'd extrapolate and say 
>> that this older jersey, as well as the new WW, will be fine in any hot 
>> weather conditions I experience here, say -- worst case -- 95* and 50% 
>> humidity.
>>
>> So, what is all y'all's experience, thoughts, judgments about wool in 
>> warm weather?
>>
>> * Synthetics, knit or woven, just stink after 1 ride, even just 1 hour. 
>> But I found a partial antidote: immediately upon return, in the garage, 
>> remove plastic jersey and swish around in 1 gallon of cold water from the 
>> garage utility sink, then hang to drip dry. Sure enough, when it's dried, 
>> the stink is gone and the jersey is good for another ride -- I can keep 
>> this up for at least 5-7 hours of riding.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>
>

-- 
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/9b2091c0-f081-4b7a-bf3f-6329ad140d1dn%40googlegrou

Re: [RBW] Re: Looking for a 59cm Clem

[iamkeith]

FWIW,  I think we discussed and resolved the question of whether the Clem H 
geometry changed along with the Clem L before being dropped, a couple or 
few years back.  This isn't gospel, but the consensus was that it didn't.  
Here's an archived geometry table from, from when both were available, and 
they were different.  The H didn't last much longer after this.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry

Thoughts for Patrick, while I'm at it:  I have the first 59 Clem H.  Do I 
wish it had a longer top tube and slacker head tube?  You bet!  I wished 
this from the moment I got it.  Would I give up my H for an L?  Not unless 
I had to, at my size and weight. The diamond frame is noodley enough.  If I 
didn't have the H would I get an L?  Absolutely.  I never want to be 
without this bike again.  (I gave it away when I was waiting on a Susie, 
but got it back.)  In other words, I don't think you'll regret it or go 
wrong, no matter which one you find. 

Also, to satisfy your single-speed/IGH penchant, maybe look into the EBB 
that Velo Orange offers?  The Clem unfortunately has a 68mm bb shell, but 
there are still options to make an x-type crank work.  An idea for your hip 
pocket if you ever feel it's needed.

https://velo-orange.com/products/eccentric-bottom-bracket-bsa?srsltid=AfmBOorYXqngBK0Qlnq_HdKzQiRn3J59wqUXQQBFiOFcHlwZ38F3HO9Z



On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 9:35:52 PM UTC-6 David B wrote:

> My 2014 (?, is that the first year) Clem has a 64cm top tube, same as the 
> 60cm Appaloosa I was considering.
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 4:05:05 PM UTC-5 Tom L. wrote:
>
>> I have a 2017 Clem-H in 59 and the top tube is 25.5" center to center 
>> which is 1" longer than my 2022 Atlantis in 59. 
>>
>> On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 10:33:56 AM UTC-7 David B wrote:
>>
>>> To chime in as a long time 59cm Clem (H) rider: I have the first run 
>>> version which has a shorter top tube than the current L versions. The H 
>>> might possibly have gotten a longer top tube at some point before it was 
>>> discontinued. I've hemmed/hawed over the years about 'upgrading' to an 
>>> Atlantis or Appa, and after digging in to geometry charts, it appears my 
>>> Clem is nearly identical geometrically to the Appa in a similar size, so 
>>> I'm sticking with what I have. This is all to say if anyone if looking at 
>>> the used market for an H (not mine, not for sale), it'd be worth it to get 
>>> an actual measurement of the top tube.
>>> David (been a long while since I've participated on this list)
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 8:46:40 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Thanks, Garth. I hadn't followed the model's genesis.

 Can any owner and rider say how the H compares in handling and overall 
 "fit and feel" to the L?

 Does anyone know where to find the geom specs for the H?

 Thanks.

 On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:27 AM Garth  wrote:

> Patrick, the first Clems were made in 2 styles, the normal top tube 
> (H)is and the low tube (L)adies, originally called Clementine., an 
> awesome 
> name. The story I read alleges "someone" took offense to the frame 
> name/designation, so apparently Grant gave in to the insanity and changed 
> it. Well I'm so offended by anyone who had a thing against the name 
> designations Clementine and Ladies. (tongue in cheek). No what ? (( 
> laughing )).   Those frames are a bit shorter in the front end than the 
> current model design that began in 2019 or so.  What you may pay for any 
> of 
> them has everything to do with whatever satisfies the seller. Could be 
> nothing, $20, $2000. (( shrugs and a smile )).  
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 12:52:23 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> What is the difference between the Clem L and the Clem H? Are there 
>> any other Clem models besides the L and H? If so, pray, what? And how 
>> are 
>> they different from the L and H?
>>
>> Last question: Are any of these models likely to be cheaper on the 
>> used market than others?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 10:25 AM Tristen Moss  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At this point I’m pretty dead set on a 59 Clem L. 
>>
>>  
>>
>>> On Monday, September 2, 2024 at 3:41:59 PM UTC-7 Tom wrote:
>>>
 Very welcome.  Have you considered a used H model in a 59? 
>>>
>>> -- 
>
 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/1601af4d-fe0d-421b-b7ff-9168982497bfn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

[RBW] Re: Gus Boots a-go-go

[iamkeith]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 7:43:00 AM UTC-6 Nick Shoemaker wrote:

I'm not a Gus'r yet, but definitely a big fan of big tires on trail Rivs! 
I've maxed my Clem out with 2.6" Mezcals, which are fantastic even with 
tubes. Curious if any of you other Hillibikers have made the switch from 
tubes to tubeless and how noticeable the difference was? Also, anyone 
running anything wider than a 2.6 on their Gus/Susie - what's the absolute 
max that will fit?



I have 2.8s, mounted on 42 external/33 internal rims, on my Susie.  I built 
the wheels while I was waiting for the frame (first-run) to arrive, so 
didn't try anything more "normal" first, but now sort of regret it.  I 
almost always want "more" tire, but this is one of the first times that 
I've ever had a bike that accommodates fatter tires than I need.  KInd of 
nice for a change.  I sort of experienced the same thing with my 
All-Rounder, where I realized that 1.95s are better than 2.3s or 2.1s - 
but, truthfully, I was pushing clearances with the larger tires in that 
case.  In the case of the Susie, the 2.8s fit the frame just fine.   It's 
just that it doesn't handle well.   Too much pneumatic self-steer, and the 
center of gravity feels way too high - not like a Rivendell at all.  
(Although the newer, lugged version is a bit lower, so maybe better with a 
bigger tire?)

My plan is to get some 2.6 tires.  I've been looking at the Maxis Ikon, 
mostly because it will fill a gap or offer some variety to my other bikes 
that have either knobbier or slicker treads.  I'm hoping I don't have to go 
even smaller, because my rims are so wide that narrower tires might end up 
with a wierd profile.   The only reason I haven't done it yet is because i 
have those expensive TPU tubes, which aren't reported to do well if you 
switch to a smaller volume tire.  (I guess they stretch, and don't have 
elastic memory.)  And I REALLY like the tubes.

-- 
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/6c2368bd-af16-4116-aa3e-4ac0cc2c26een%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: [650B] 650b on 26" frame - promax p-1 brakes

[iamkeith]

...I meant to say that it won't materially affect your "steering" 
geometry.  If the overall diameter doesn't change, the trail calculation 
doesn't change.  Additionally, there's a "pneumatic" trail   effect, where 
a fatter tire feels like it has more trail.  So a slightly taller tire with 
less volume might feel exactly the same.

But it will most definitely impact you "handling."  The smaller wheels have 
a lower gyroscopic center of gravity, and more stable handling as a result. 
They also have less inertia, and are easier to accelerate.  (The flip side 
is that they don't carry speed/momentum as well, but that's not such an 
issue on paved surfaces as it is on rocky trails.)

Keep in mind that this all assumes that you are using high-quality, 
lightweight, supple tires and tubes, filled with weightless air.  in such 
case, the rim is the heavy part of the wheel.  If you were comparing heavy 
tubes and tires on a 26" setup to lightweight tubes and tires on a 650b 
setup, then it's not really a fair comparison.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 9:49:05 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> If you want my opinion, I can't imagine why in the world you'd want to do 
> this.  I have 26" bikes, 650b bikes and 700c bikes, but I rarely ride 
> anything but the 26" bikes.  They are just better in every possible way...  
> except perhaps aesthetics... to some people, but not me.   (I'm speaking of 
> road bikes, not mountain bikes, where the bigger wheels actually do have an 
> advantage.)  I agree that it won't materially affect your handling.  In 
> most cases, what it will do is simply limit the size of the tire you can 
> fit, so that you basically have the same overall diameter wheel but have to 
> deal with harsher-riding, more-inflated tires as a result.  And your 
> braking power will be reduced, because you have less leverage at the brake 
> arm.  (At least for cantis.)If by some chance you CAN fit a taller 
> overall wheel, you'll have a higher bottom bracket and higher center of 
> gravity and reduced stand-over clearance - all of which are negatives to my 
> way of thinking - but especially on a loaded touring bike.  You have fewer 
> tire choices in 650b than 26".  If you have 135mm rear end spacing and QR 
> dropouts, high-end 26" wheels are relatively easy to find on the second 
> hand market (or in bike coops/shops, if you're on tour) because they 
> dominated the mountain bike market for so long.  Finding good, im-brake 
> 650b rims/wheels is already a challenge.
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-6 ber...@bernardduhon.com 
> wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> For sure when I did a 700 C X 25mm to 650b 38/42 mm I noticed no 
>> difference
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Yours sincerely, 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Bernard F. Duhon
>>
>> *From:* Will Boericke  
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:32 PM
>> *To:* Bernard Duhon 
>> *Cc:* 650b <65...@googlegroups.com>; rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [650B] 650b on 26" frame - promax p-1 brakes
>>
>>  
>>
>> I am skeptical of the wheel-size-dramatcially-affects-geometry argument.  
>> I can only argue from analogy - my gravel bike wears 700x42 normally, but I 
>> am equally happy on 650x48.  Crank strike is more of an issue, but I just 
>> watch out for that and use crank boots.  BB is definitely lower, but I 
>> honestly don't really notice.  I notice no difference in handling, other 
>> than maybe slightly snappier steering.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Will
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:04 AM Bernard Duhon  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> I have a 26 inch Waterford built touring bike (similar to a Riv Atlantis 
>> before they went all in on the long chain stays)
>>
>>  
>>
>> 650b will fit and the  XTR v brakes will work. Richard Schwinn mentioned 
>> that it would alter the steering and mildly recommended against it.  The 
>> bike wa

[RBW] Re: [650B] 650b on 26" frame - promax p-1 brakes

[iamkeith]

If you want my opinion, I can't imagine why in the world you'd want to do 
this.  I have 26" bikes, 650b bikes and 700c bikes, but I rarely ride 
anything but the 26" bikes.  They are just better in every possible way...  
except perhaps aesthetics... to some people, but not me.   (I'm speaking of 
road bikes, not mountain bikes, where the bigger wheels actually do have an 
advantage.)  I agree that it won't materially affect your handling.  In 
most cases, what it will do is simply limit the size of the tire you can 
fit, so that you basically have the same overall diameter wheel but have to 
deal with harsher-riding, more-inflated tires as a result.  And your 
braking power will be reduced, because you have less leverage at the brake 
arm.  (At least for cantis.)If by some chance you CAN fit a taller 
overall wheel, you'll have a higher bottom bracket and higher center of 
gravity and reduced stand-over clearance - all of which are negatives to my 
way of thinking - but especially on a loaded touring bike.  You have fewer 
tire choices in 650b than 26".  If you have 135mm rear end spacing and QR 
dropouts, high-end 26" wheels are relatively easy to find on the second 
hand market (or in bike coops/shops, if you're on tour) because they 
dominated the mountain bike market for so long.  Finding good, im-brake 
650b rims/wheels is already a challenge.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 12:17:26 PM UTC-6 ber...@bernardduhon.com 
wrote:

>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> For sure when I did a 700 C X 25mm to 650b 38/42 mm I noticed no difference
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Yours sincerely, 
>
>  
>
>
> Bernard F. Duhon
>
> *From:* Will Boericke  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:32 PM
> *To:* Bernard Duhon 
> *Cc:* 650b <65...@googlegroups.com>; rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [650B] 650b on 26" frame - promax p-1 brakes
>
>  
>
> I am skeptical of the wheel-size-dramatcially-affects-geometry argument.  
> I can only argue from analogy - my gravel bike wears 700x42 normally, but I 
> am equally happy on 650x48.  Crank strike is more of an issue, but I just 
> watch out for that and use crank boots.  BB is definitely lower, but I 
> honestly don't really notice.  I notice no difference in handling, other 
> than maybe slightly snappier steering.
>
>  
>
> Will
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:04 AM Bernard Duhon  
> wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I have a 26 inch Waterford built touring bike (similar to a Riv Atlantis 
> before they went all in on the long chain stays)
>
>  
>
> 650b will fit and the  XTR v brakes will work. Richard Schwinn mentioned 
> that it would alter the steering and mildly recommended against it.  The 
> bike was designed for a 26 X 1.6 inch tire.  I have a chart that shows the 
> difference in will circumference is just a few millimeters. 640mm V 670mm.  
> However we know that just a few millimeters change of frame geometry is a 
> big deal.
>
>  
>
> Other than availability of tires/fendors (can’t fit larger than actual 26 
> X 47 mm tire)  
>
>  
>
> what advantage do you see on either the handling/speed/bump roll over of 
> the changeup from's 26 to 650 B
>
>  
>
> thank you,  ye of more experience than I.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Yours sincerely, 
>
>  
>
>
> Bernard F. Duhon
>
>  
>
> *From:* 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Will 
> Boericke
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2024 7:44 PM
> *To:* 650b <65...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [650B] 650b on 26" frame - promax p-1 brakes
>
>  
>
> I built a 650b on 26 Trek 850 frame with the Chinese version 
> 
>  
> (maybe the same thing?).  They worked really well.  Granted, I sold the 
> bike pretty quickly.
>
>  
>
> Will near Boston
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-4 rudy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm using on a 1990-ish (non-U-brake era) Diamond Back Ascent basket 
> bike. I haven't shredded with it, but they stop my schlubby self and cargo 
> with aplomb. I imagine that it will be even better when I get around to 
> Kool Stops
>
>  
>
> RF
>
> On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 6:59:56 AM UTC-5 josh.zi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes I have used them for this purpose on '89 Trek 950.  
>
> Originally, had Tektro cantis (CR720s) which looked great but they worked 
> only ok due to where I could get the pads to align on the rim.  Swapped in 
> these Pro-Max v brakes (108mm, silver version) and the braking dramatically 
> improved as they offered better range to get pads in better position, plus 
> v brake leverage/power.
>
> These are a great option.  Highly recommend.
>
> Josh Z
>
>  
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 4:40 AM chintan jadwani  
> wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried the promax p-1 v-brake

[RBW] Re: Do you ride with fenders?

[iamkeith]

Most of my road-ish bikes have permantly-mounted fenders, and  some of my 
mountain-ish bikes do too.  Where I live and ride, in the WY/MT/ID/UT area, 
I can really only ride about 6 mos a year at best (except for fat bikes) 
and it's pretty arid during those months.  However I only ride for fun, 
when I get a chance, on weekends and evenings mostly.  Those opportunities 
inevitably coincide with the few times it DOES  rain - often unexpectedly 
in the middle of a ride.  So fenders are the thing that keeps e from 
becoming a fair-weather pansy.  Plus  they protect the bike investment.

All that said, I'd be inclined to take some cheap clip-on fenders if I was 
traveling.  Fenders - even goof, plastic SKS type - tend to get beat up and 
warped when packing them. 
On Sunday, August 25, 2024 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6 RichS wrote:

> Joining the fender parade. Years ago I was influenced by Jan Heine's 
> endorsement of fenders plus the French and British tradition of using them.
> Currently using Berthoud's but have been pleased with VO and SKS models. 
> If I get tired of the smooth Berthoud's I have some Honjo fluted gems 
> waiting to be put into use. 
>
> Honestly though, I have seen some bikes sans fenders that appeal to me 
> looking just right with their clean, bare bones, wispy appearance.
> Jock's Paramount perhaps?
>
> Best,
> Rich in ATL 
>
> On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 10:40:37 PM UTC-4 Nick A. wrote:
>
>> I have 4 bicycles, and the only one with fenders is my "around town" 
>> basket bike. My Atlantis is fender-free. 
>>
>> On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 7:24:02 PM UTC-4 LeRoy wrote:
>>
>>> I ride with all the fenders, all the time, on all my bike (singular). 
>>> Unlike many on this forum, it's easier for me to say and do that since I 
>>> only have one bike - a Clem 59H. And, in the interests of accuracy in 
>>> counting, I'm not including my 1970s road bike because it simply decorates 
>>> a wall as "hanging art" in the garage.
>>> That being said, I have considered removing the fenders from 
>>> time-to-time. But it's really simpler to keep them in place. They don't 
>>> weigh much in the context of a fully dressed Clem. Pragmatically speaking 
>>> rain, mud or dust are frequent enough encounters that the fenders provide 
>>> their protection, both for me and those riding behind me. And they look 
>>> good.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 6:17:33 PM UTC-4 Pam Bikes wrote:
>>>
 I've ridden w/fenders daily for the past 13 years and love them.  
 Install the rear fender, put the front one over the rear in the box.  If 
 you have a Sheldon's fender nut it makes the front installation that much 
 easier.  

 On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 4:58:57 PM UTC-4 nlerner wrote:

> A friend and I rode the EST from Rochester to Albany just a couple of 
> weeks ago. We were both sporting fenders, and I was glad to have them 
> because (1) it poured down rain for about an hour or so on one of our 
> days 
> and (2) fenders kept the dust/dirt kicked up on the unpaved sections off 
> of 
> my legs and body. For a very flat course, the fender weight penalty 
> didn’t 
> really matter.
>
> Neal Lerner
> Brookline MA
>
> On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 2:25:49 PM UTC-4 aeroperf wrote:
>
>> The Erie Canal Bike Trail is a nice ride.
>> But put the fenders in the box.  Not just for when it rains - there’s 
>> a reason they’re called “mudguards”.
>>
>>

-- 
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/e02241ce-f31e-4c05-b6b6-9216b2ae3b2cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTT - Choco bars for Albastache bars

[iamkeith]

I should clarify that my moustache handlebars have a 25.4 clamp area, not 
26.0 like Riv was selling before they started carrying the Albastache bar 
only.  So same as the Choco and Albastache.

On Sunday, August 25, 2024 at 11:26:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

>
> I could trade some traditional nitto moustache bars if you don't find any 
> albastache bars. Maybe even throw in some $.
> On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 11:36:19 PM UTC-6 Nathan Mattia wrote:
>
>> I’ll trade you my albatross for your chocos!,
>>
>> On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 3:41:06 PM UTC-5 Gary L wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all, I have a great condition Choco bar that does not work so great 
>>> for me. Does anyone have an Albastache bar that they'd like to trade for 
>>> the Choco bar?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gary
>>> Asheville, 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/cd43b5d9-389a-405a-98a7-e993f86e8ab0n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTT - Choco bars for Albastache bars

[iamkeith]

I could trade some traditional nitto moustache bars if you don't find any 
albastache bars. Maybe even throw in some $.
On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 11:36:19 PM UTC-6 Nathan Mattia wrote:

> I’ll trade you my albatross for your chocos!,
>
> On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 3:41:06 PM UTC-5 Gary L wrote:
>
>> Hi all, I have a great condition Choco bar that does not work so great 
>> for me. Does anyone have an Albastache bar that they'd like to trade for 
>> the Choco bar?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gary
>> Asheville, 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/fc0bf55d-2c55-4001-8754-19a25a0309bdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Ro-Deux-No build notes New Bike Day

[iamkeith]

The Bendix repo project was done (or at least completed) by SOMA under the 
"Eagle" name.  I've never been able to search for or find anything on 
SOMA's websites.  Maybe others can.  There appear to be parts available, 
but I can't find listings for the complete hub, whether discontinued or 
otherwise.

On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 4:56:52 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

> SA and someone else make or used recently to make 2 sp kickbacks without 
> the coaster brakes which should work fine with derailleurs/tensioners. 
> Quick Google just now shows only the SA SC2; a few years ago SA or/and 
> someone else made a non-coaster-brake 2 sp kickback hub but I can't find 
> any. Does anyone know the summer 2024 offerings?
>
> I've thought of getting one, only I'd want one with H = direct but the 
> only recent ones I've heard of were Bendix repros to be made in India and 
> those seem to have evaporated. Again, does anyone know?
>
> I'd use one with a pushbike.
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> "and (just noticed)  3 x 6  in the Flickr pages?"
>>
>> My RoadUno is 2x7.  It's the stock 38/26 in front, and 12-28 in back  
>>
>> "I'm probably going to use a 2spd kick back hub (yes, they are heavy) 
>> with a 3 ring set up."
>>
>> How will that work?  If you run a 3-ring setup with a front derailleur 
>> you'll need a tensioner of some kind.  If you run a 2 speed kickback hub 
>> you'll need to NOT run a tensioner of any kind.  
>> Will it be a 2-speed kickback setup with no tensioner, and you can 
>> manually move the wheel to accommodate one of the three rings?  If you do 
>> that, then you need new rear brake setup for each wheel position.  Will it 
>> be front brake only?  
>>
>> Have fun with it, whatever you do.
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 3:16:11 PM UTC-7 mvie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I've got an Ana Purple RoadUno showing up tomorrow, Friday.  (first bike 
>>> purchase from Rivendell...) 
>>> I'm temporarily on weight lifting restrictions (thanks, cataract!), so 
>>> I've recruited my son to lend me a hand. Maybe I lend him a beer or 
>>> something...
>>>
>>> As far as going fixed, I saw that the RoadUno page (one of them, can't 
>>> recall which) recommends against doing so, as the bottom bracket drop is 
>>> relatively low (80mm drop?) . 
>>>
>>> Thanks for the early build pics and tips. -- and (just noticed)  3 x 6  
>>> in the Flickr pages?   I'm probably going to use a 2spd kick back hub (yes, 
>>> they are heavy) with a 3 ring set up. 
>>> Cheers. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keith 
>>>>
>>>> What exactly are you after?  Are you looking to build a Roaduno fixed 
>>>> with zero brakes and need to know max fenderless tire size you can run on 
>>>> your fixie?  Are you plotting a cantilever conversion on a Roaduno?  Do 
>>>> you 
>>>> have a particular tire size that you must have, or is it just you need to 
>>>> know the absolute largest tire that will fit without fenders.  Have you 
>>>> asked Rivendell to do these measurements for you?  If you are in market to 
>>>> buy a frame and since they have lots of frames, maybe that's their job?
>>>>
>>>> I will be taking some Garage Door photos for Will, so he can put my 
>>>> build in the Riv email newsletter.  At that time, I'll try to capture what 
>>>> you may be after.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Lindsay
>>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Beautiful, Bill.  I suspect you'll be responsible for a number of new 
>>>>> Roaduno sales in the near future, as people see your bike.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you have time, would you mind sharing some close-up pictures of 
>>>>> tire clearances at the chain stays, seat stay brake bridge bridge and 
>>>>> fork 
>>>>> crown areas?   You build too quickly.  What I've really been dying to 
>>>>> know 
>>>>> is how big of a tire can be fit WITHOUT caliper brakes installed.  (I've 
>>>>> been half-heartedly toying with a couple of alternative brake ideas since 
>>>>> the Ro

[RBW] Re: Ro-Deux-No build notes New Bike Day

[iamkeith]

Yea, I think I'm SOL.  Although the new appaloosa is said to take 2.5 - but 
that might include longer fork legs in the equation.

Just for the sake of converation completeness - or anybody else who might 
want to experiment  - here are the clamp-on brake bosses I mentioned:

https://www.porkchopbmx.com/non-returnable-evolution-v-brake-bicycle-46158395.html


On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> OK, interesting build concept.  I can state with certainty that a 2.5" 
> tire won't fit in there.  It's definitely a Rivendell version of a Road 
> Bike, and definitely not a sand bike.  It's an Appaloosa fork crown, so I 
> imagine if you surveyed Appaloosa owners "what's the absolutely biggest 
> tire without fenders" that would get you a few data points.  
>
> BL in EC
> On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 11:48:04 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 9:50:21 AM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> Keith 
>>
>> What exactly are you after?  Are you looking to build a Roaduno fixed 
>> with zero brakes and need to know max fenderless tire size you can run on 
>> your fixie?  Are you plotting a cantilever conversion on a Roaduno?  Do you 
>> have a particular tire size that you must have, or is it just you need to 
>> know the absolute largest tire that will fit without fenders.  Have you 
>> asked Rivendell to do these measurements for you? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill, 
>>
>> Short answer is that I was toying with the idea of an IGH drivetrain and 
>> drum brakes front and rear.  Not really using the frame the way it's 
>> intended - with torque arms attaching to a chainstay and fork leg, so not 
>> sure its appropriate to ask Riv to comment on.  I might be willing to 
>> assume the risk myself if it gets that far, though.  Target tire size for 
>> me is around 2.3 - 2.5 inches, in a slick or semi-slick "balloon" tread.
>>
>> Longer answer is that I was initially excited about the Roaduno project 
>> when it was going to be like a Clem.   My family has a condo in Florida 
>> that I occasionally spend time at.  I don't really like it there, but would 
>> enjoy it much more if I kept a bike on hand so that I'm free to explore, 
>> and less dependent on the schedules of others.  Past rental experiences 
>> have been frustrating.  (It blows my mind how many crappy bikes exist.)  A 
>> 3-speed sturmey archer hub would be all the gearing I'd ever need in 
>> flatlands, and would be ideal from a maintenance standpoint, with all the 
>> sand and humidity and salt air.  But I absolutely would require a big 
>> baloon-like tire for floatation in the sand and boggy areas, and on 
>> poorly-maintained pavement.   Most of the streets are a death trap for 
>> cyclists (no shoulders, rednecks, elderly drivers, drunk college kids, 
>> overcrowded traffic), but there are rails-to-trails and informal wooded 
>> trails leading everywhere.   It occurred to me that, if I could fit the 
>> tire I want, drum brakes might be a pretty good idea for the same 
>> maintenance reasons.  Basically, an alternative to the awful beach cruisers 
>> and "fitness" bikes that are so prevalent down there.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/ec07dd8f-cc49-4559-b03d-672746314914n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ro-Deux-No build notes New Bike Day

[iamkeith]

Oops.  I responded to your first message before seeing your followup.  
Thanks for the pics!

Coincidentally, I did find some clamp-on brake bosses for cantilever brakes 
at one point (like modern moots-mounts), so you weren't far off.  I can't 
seem to find them again at the moment, though.



On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> On Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 9:50:21 AM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> Keith 
>
> What exactly are you after?  Are you looking to build a Roaduno fixed with 
> zero brakes and need to know max fenderless tire size you can run on your 
> fixie?  Are you plotting a cantilever conversion on a Roaduno?  Do you have 
> a particular tire size that you must have, or is it just you need to know 
> the absolute largest tire that will fit without fenders.  Have you asked 
> Rivendell to do these measurements for you? 
>
>
>
> Bill, 
>
> Short answer is that I was toying with the idea of an IGH drivetrain and 
> drum brakes front and rear.  Not really using the frame the way it's 
> intended - with torque arms attaching to a chainstay and fork leg, so not 
> sure its appropriate to ask Riv to comment on.  I might be willing to 
> assume the risk myself if it gets that far, though.  Target tire size for 
> me is around 2.3 - 2.5 inches, in a slick or semi-slick "balloon" tread.
>
> Longer answer is that I was initially excited about the Roaduno project 
> when it was going to be like a Clem.   My family has a condo in Florida 
> that I occasionally spend time at.  I don't really like it there, but would 
> enjoy it much more if I kept a bike on hand so that I'm free to explore, 
> and less dependent on the schedules of others.  Past rental experiences 
> have been frustrating.  (It blows my mind how many crappy bikes exist.)  A 
> 3-speed sturmey archer hub would be all the gearing I'd ever need in 
> flatlands, and would be ideal from a maintenance standpoint, with all the 
> sand and humidity and salt air.  But I absolutely would require a big 
> baloon-like tire for floatation in the sand and boggy areas, and on 
> poorly-maintained pavement.   Most of the streets are a death trap for 
> cyclists (no shoulders, rednecks, elderly drivers, drunk college kids, 
> overcrowded traffic), but there are rails-to-trails and informal wooded 
> trails leading everywhere.   It occurred to me that, if I could fit the 
> tire I want, drum brakes might be a pretty good idea for the same 
> maintenance reasons.  Basically, an alternative to the awful beach cruisers 
> and "fitness" bikes that are so prevalent down there.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/33fbd817-35bf-4229-9ad5-5680da4a00a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ro-Deux-No build notes New Bike Day

[iamkeith]

On Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 9:50:21 AM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:

Keith 

What exactly are you after?  Are you looking to build a Roaduno fixed with 
zero brakes and need to know max fenderless tire size you can run on your 
fixie?  Are you plotting a cantilever conversion on a Roaduno?  Do you have 
a particular tire size that you must have, or is it just you need to know 
the absolute largest tire that will fit without fenders.  Have you asked 
Rivendell to do these measurements for you? 



Bill, 

Short answer is that I was toying with the idea of an IGH drivetrain and 
drum brakes front and rear.  Not really using the frame the way it's 
intended - with torque arms attaching to a chainstay and fork leg, so not 
sure its appropriate to ask Riv to comment on.  I might be willing to 
assume the risk myself if it gets that far, though.  Target tire size for 
me is around 2.3 - 2.5 inches, in a slick or semi-slick "balloon" tread.

Longer answer is that I was initially excited about the Roaduno project 
when it was going to be like a Clem.   My family has a condo in Florida 
that I occasionally spend time at.  I don't really like it there, but would 
enjoy it much more if I kept a bike on hand so that I'm free to explore, 
and less dependent on the schedules of others.  Past rental experiences 
have been frustrating.  (It blows my mind how many crappy bikes exist.)  A 
3-speed sturmey archer hub would be all the gearing I'd ever need in 
flatlands, and would be ideal from a maintenance standpoint, with all the 
sand and humidity and salt air.  But I absolutely would require a big 
baloon-like tire for floatation in the sand and boggy areas, and on 
poorly-maintained pavement.   Most of the streets are a death trap for 
cyclists (no shoulders, rednecks, elderly drivers, drunk college kids, 
overcrowded traffic), but there are rails-to-trails and informal wooded 
trails leading everywhere.   It occurred to me that, if I could fit the 
tire I want, drum brakes might be a pretty good idea for the same 
maintenance reasons.  Basically, an alternative to the awful beach cruisers 
and "fitness" bikes that are so prevalent down there.



-- 
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/5dd9a560-649f-4ed8-8daf-68ac0542f3b7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Quickbeam improvement ideas

[iamkeith]

(I wasn't clear, but my QB is the same 60cm size as my other Riv bikes.)

On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> Well, a longer stem normally only adds stability because it puts your 
> weight further forward.  If you use a bar where the grip area is further 
> back than you were before  -  despite having a longer stem - it's not going 
> to do what you want.  
>
> I have been wrestling with how to set up my quickbeam for decades.  I 
> don't want to get rid of it, because it has some sort of magic ride quality 
> that not even my other Rivendells have.  I just want it set up in a way 
> that I'll be inclined to use it more.   Like you, I "barely" clear the top 
> tube.  I wouldn't even consider another size though. That clearance issue 
> is mostly because of a higher bottom bracket - to accommodate somebody who 
> wantes to ride fixed gear - not the rest of the frame size.   Compared to 
> my 60 Ram, my 60 AR and my 60 Saluki - all from the same general era - it 
> is still ideally sized other than that. It does have a longer top tube than 
> the ohterwise-similar-geometry Ram, and I think that's where some of the 
> magic comes from.  It's closer to the AR and Saluki in that dimension.
>
> I do think the frame works best with a bit of forward lean, rather than 
> upright, posture.   I'm kind of over drop bars though, so I'm considering 
> Chocos or a "three-speed" type bar.  Both of those are similar to 
> moustache/albastache bars, except for having the brakes on the rear part of 
> the bar.   If those fail, then a moustache is always my default choice, and 
> probably perfectly suited to the bike.  If you haven't given them a fair 
> try - experimenting with differnet stems - I'd suggest that first.   The 
> only hesitation in my own case is that I already have them on so many bikes 
> and want some variety.
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 12:43:51 PM UTC-6 ajanj...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> So as I mentioned, I am considering a Roaduno, but since I’d love not to 
>> spend the $$$ on a new frame, I’m considering just fixing some of the 
>> issues I am having with my Quickbeam instead. Right now it is set up with a 
>> short Dirt Drop and albatross bars. 
>>
>> Aside from the gnarly aesthetics of the well-loved frame, my main issues 
>> with it are:
>>
>> 1. A slightly too-big frame. It’s a 56, and my PBH is 83cm. The standover 
>> is close, but I do just clear the top bar with my feet on the ground. Worse 
>> is that I think the top bar is a little long, so I’m constantly sliding 
>> forward in the seat to reach the bars (the seat, a B68, is as far forward 
>> on the post as possible). 
>>
>> 2. Squirrely steering.
>>
>> What do people think about the idea of replacing the Albatross bars with 
>> Boscos and the Dirt Drop with a 110mm Faceplater, with the idea being that 
>> it would bring the bars both up and back to keep me in the seat, and the 
>> longer stem would provide more steering stability? I figure I can always 
>> trim the bars down if they come back too far.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ––
>> *Andrew Janjigian*
>> website: www.wordloaf.org
>> newsletter: newsletter.wordloaf.org
>> book: bread baker’s pocket companion 
>> <https://shop.andrewjanjigian.com/product/the-bread-baker-s-pocket-companion>
>> twitter/instagram: *wordloaf*
>> elsewhere: https://linktr.ee/wordloaf <https://linktr.ee/wordloaff>
>> ajanj...@wordloaf.org
>> [he/him/his]
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/33c12666-9732-421e-9dcb-c2b975f09e76n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Quickbeam improvement ideas

[iamkeith]

Well, a longer stem normally only adds stability because it puts your 
weight further forward.  If you use a bar where the grip area is further 
back than you were before  -  despite having a longer stem - it's not going 
to do what you want.  

I have been wrestling with how to set up my quickbeam for decades.  I don't 
want to get rid of it, because it has some sort of magic ride quality that 
not even my other Rivendells have.  I just want it set up in a way that 
I'll be inclined to use it more.   Like you, I "barely" clear the top 
tube.  I wouldn't even consider another size though. That clearance issue 
is mostly because of a higher bottom bracket - to accommodate somebody who 
wantes to ride fixed gear - not the rest of the frame size.   Compared to 
my 60 Ram, my 60 AR and my 60 Saluki - all from the same general era - it 
is still ideally sized other than that. It does have a longer top tube than 
the ohterwise-similar-geometry Ram, and I think that's where some of the 
magic comes from.  It's closer to the AR and Saluki in that dimension.

I do think the frame works best with a bit of forward lean, rather than 
upright, posture.   I'm kind of over drop bars though, so I'm considering 
Chocos or a "three-speed" type bar.  Both of those are similar to 
moustache/albastache bars, except for having the brakes on the rear part of 
the bar.   If those fail, then a moustache is always my default choice, and 
probably perfectly suited to the bike.  If you haven't given them a fair 
try - experimenting with differnet stems - I'd suggest that first.   The 
only hesitation in my own case is that I already have them on so many bikes 
and want some variety.
On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 12:43:51 PM UTC-6 ajanj...@gmail.com wrote:

> So as I mentioned, I am considering a Roaduno, but since I’d love not to 
> spend the $$$ on a new frame, I’m considering just fixing some of the 
> issues I am having with my Quickbeam instead. Right now it is set up with a 
> short Dirt Drop and albatross bars. 
>
> Aside from the gnarly aesthetics of the well-loved frame, my main issues 
> with it are:
>
> 1. A slightly too-big frame. It’s a 56, and my PBH is 83cm. The standover 
> is close, but I do just clear the top bar with my feet on the ground. Worse 
> is that I think the top bar is a little long, so I’m constantly sliding 
> forward in the seat to reach the bars (the seat, a B68, is as far forward 
> on the post as possible). 
>
> 2. Squirrely steering.
>
> What do people think about the idea of replacing the Albatross bars with 
> Boscos and the Dirt Drop with a 110mm Faceplater, with the idea being that 
> it would bring the bars both up and back to keep me in the seat, and the 
> longer stem would provide more steering stability? I figure I can always 
> trim the bars down if they come back too far.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ––
> *Andrew Janjigian*
> website: www.wordloaf.org
> newsletter: newsletter.wordloaf.org
> book: bread baker’s pocket companion 
> 
> twitter/instagram: *wordloaf*
> elsewhere: https://linktr.ee/wordloaf 
> ajanj...@wordloaf.org
> [he/him/his]
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/c4f56dc7-0a79-4b12-932b-10fc11288ddbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Ro-Deux-No build notes New Bike Day

[iamkeith]

Beautiful, Bill.  I suspect you'll be responsible for a number of new 
Roaduno sales in the near future, as people see your bike.

When you have time, would you mind sharing some close-up pictures of tire 
clearances at the chain stays, seat stay brake bridge bridge and fork crown 
areas?   You build too quickly.  What I've really been dying to know is how 
big of a tire can be fit WITHOUT caliper brakes installed.  (I've been 
half-heartedly toying with a couple of alternative brake ideas since the 
Roaduno project shifted from a canti-clem to a caliper-homer format.)  I 
dont expect you to disassmle or try different tires but, for anyone else 
reading this and getting ready to start their own build, I'd appreciate any 
insights if it's convenient.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 9:32:35 AM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Good initial instruction, good tools, and lots of practice.  That's my 
> formula for developing that confidence and mechanics' instinct.  I think 
> most procedures really sink in after you fail one or more times, but 
> failing at this operation on a new frame would be a bummer.  If you are 
> nervous, have a pro do it.  If you want the practice, find a pro that will 
> oversee you doing it.  
>
> BL in EC
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 8:12:56 AM UTC-7 Michael Connors wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill. I am nervous about running a tap in the RD hanger.  How do you 
>> make sure that you are in the existing thread and not cutting a new one?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thread chasing was necessary on the RD hanger, but it was aligned 
>> perfectly.  Most but not all of the H2O bolt and fender bolt bosses were 
>> already chased.  It was all straightforward prep for a mechanic.  There was 
>> no BB cable guide included, but I had those on-hand.  I installed a Shimano 
>> CX70 front der and a White Industries DOS ENO 16/19 freewheel.  I installed 
>> a Suntour Sprint down tube shifter on the shifter boss, with my own custom 
>> machined stop that causes it to sit proud of the down tube in the 
>> small-ring position.  
>>
>> With the faceplater stem pretty much slammed, and the saddle at my 
>> height, I'm happy at the silhouette of the bike.  I'm eager to get a chain 
>> on it and start riding it.  
>>
>> Have a look:  
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/albums/72177720319657823
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, 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/a553ac14-420b-4647-a7e1-2d632bf9e7d0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Wet paint options in the Upper Midwest

[iamkeith]

Maybe check with Yellow Jersey in Madison.

On Friday, August 16, 2024 at 6:26:47 PM UTC-6 Danny wrote:

> Hey Kevin,
>
> I don’t have any personal experience, but Adam at NYF Paint is very highly 
> recommended around my neck of the woods. He would be my first choice if I 
> had a frame needing paint.
>
> https://www.nyfpaint.com/
>
> Danny
> Madison, WI
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 6:51 PM Kevin  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm located in the Twin Cities and considering a repaint of a well-worn 
>> Redwood. I've found a couple of places to look at but I'm wondering if 
>> anybody here has hands on experience getting a wet paint job in and around 
>> Minnesota and Wisconsin.
>>
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/50de5554-6f08-482b-af3c-1b7127007d97n%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/e7ed8e66-32cd-4d36-9759-a0da18b8f60dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 2024 Appaloosa Thread

[iamkeith]

Since the pre-sale starts tomorrow, I'd imagine that anyone with intentions 
already knows this, but the geometry chart WAS finally updated a couple of 
days ago, to show the new, slacker Appaloosa numbers:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/RBW_Bicycle_Geometries_-_August_2024.pdf?v=1723665985

On Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 5:59:29 PM UTC-6 kiziria...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Dan, I love the way the Platypus rides, but I've come to prefer the 
> function of a full front triangle. I've gotten used to having a custom half 
> frame bag with two bottles (+ third!) on my other bikes. I'd like to have 
> the same with my Riv. For some reason I don't like the ana purple on the 
> Appaloosa as much as I do on my Platypus though! Sergio green seems too 
> boring to me. Those lime-olive Appa's would be the winner for me. I 
> definitely don't care enough to pull the trigger on this batch, but if 
> someone reading this happens to want to trade a 55 Platy for a 54 Appa 
> shoot me a DM. 
>
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 9:49:36 AM UTC-7 ethan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Same! When did they stop making them with double top tubes? Do you know 
>> if future Atlantis frames will have a double top tube? They look quite nice 
>> and sturdy, especially on the larger bikes.
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2024, at 11:12 AM, Josh C  wrote:
>>
>> I personally wish they’d bring back the double top tube. I like the look 
>> of the green one tho, looked killer on the Platy. 
>>
>> On Monday, August 12, 2024 at 4:43:28 AM UTC-4 Dan wrote:
>>
>>> It's beautiful. Looks comfy and capable and just the right balance of 
>>> black and silver!
>>>
>>> On the topic of Appaloosas, and entering the realm of pure speculation:
>>> With a slacker head tube angle (using the Atlantis lugs?) and wider tyre 
>>> clearance, the Appaloosa sounds very similar indeed to the previous 
>>> Atlantis.
>>> I wonder if that leaves room for the next Atlantis to shift to something 
>>> different?
>>>
>>> On Sunday 11 August 2024 at 11:31:48 UTC+9:30 trevor@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [image: IMG_8546.jpg]
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, August 10, 2024 at 7:52:50 PM UTC-6 Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not derailing at all! Well done on resisting temptation. I agree with 
>>>>> you that the Hog's Back meets a very similar use case to the Joe: an 
>>>>> all-round, all-road tourer that can do anything and go anywhere, if 
>>>>> slowly. 
>>>>> I was eyeing off a Hog's Back before I picked up the Joe! Would you mind 
>>>>> sharing photos of your bike - I'd love to see it!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 11 August 2024 at 04:27:12 UTC+9:30 trevor@gmail.com 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was vey tempted to get a green one but having thought 
>>>>>> extensively about it, I think I will keep my Bassi Hog's Back and ride 
>>>>>> that. Aside from the very long rear end, the reach is pretty similar and 
>>>>>> its been hard for me to justify selling a whole bike for less than the 
>>>>>> cost 
>>>>>> of a frame, especially when I have been quite happy with my Bassi. I 
>>>>>> don't 
>>>>>> mean to derail this conversation at all, but I'm happy with myself for 
>>>>>> resisting such a big temptation. One day Rivendell will take my money, 
>>>>>> just 
>>>>>> not this round.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 10, 2024 at 7:24:58 AM UTC-6 Dan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some great sleuthing and info here!
>>>>>> I’ll add in another one that I’m pretty sure I’m not imagining: the 
>>>>>> chain stays look a tad shorter. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday 10 August 2024 at 22:21:06 UTC+9:30 Dorothy C wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed they got down tube shifter bosses with the upcoming ones. 
>>>>>> Kind of surprising on a sturdy bike. 
>>>>>> Here is a picture of my 2016 model sky blue 46cm, a 26” wheel bike, 
>>>>>> my first Riv bike purchase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 10, 2024 at 4:16:17 AM UTC-7 drew.jo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>&g

[RBW] Re: Was wondering where to share this...

[iamkeith]

That's pretty damn funny, but clearly made by someone who's never owned a 
Riv.  $8k would buy the bike, the MUSA accessories, AND a month long 
vacation to the Bay area, pick it up in person and ride the local trails.


On Saturday, August 10, 2024 at 7:57:06 PM UTC-6 Dan wrote:

> If we are sharing Rivendell-adjacent memes...
>
> [image: Screenshot 2024-08-11 at 11.25.32 AM.jpg]
>
> On Sunday 11 August 2024 at 03:34:14 UTC+9:30 chintan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> (via path less pedaled)
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/ea1c3066-362c-406f-967d-50a1c018621fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: 2024 Appaloosa Thread

[iamkeith]

Watching thread, and curious about the same thing - especially since they 
felt it necessary to get new prototypes. 

The geometry chart still shows it having a slightly steeper headtube and 
shorter top tube than the equivalent Atlantis, which suprises me every time 
I've ever looked for this info.  (You kind of have to extrapolate, because 
the respective sizes alternate.)  Will's email said they will be updating 
the website eventually/soon.

I've asked this before, but can anyone describe how the various versions 
have evolved over time?  I know the fork legs got stiffer after the first 
batch, and the double top tube was dropped from the larger sizes, but I'm 
particularly interested in geometry and tire clearance improvements. 

I have more bikes than I need - especially Rivendells - but still always 
daydream about that n+1.  The Appaloosa is the model that has the least 
overlap to the bikes I already have and -  unlike any Atlantis ever - comes 
in a size that would fit me.  If it got longer and slacker, it would be 
even better.  

-- 
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/7a1b2256-1033-401c-9b9f-a7923ba9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Feedback / rack issue

[iamkeith]

Awesome
  Definitely use JB Weld or something equivalent to attach it, for 
structural strength.  The rest is just cosmetic.  Good luck.
On Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 9:31:35 AM UTC-6 fmri...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is perfect - I have scraps from my strut cut.
>
> Franco Rinaldi 
> c:  646.403.0661 <(646)%20403-0661> 
>
> -Pardon any typos, Siri typed this message-
>
> On Aug 1, 2024, at 11:17 AM, iamkeith  wrote:
>
> Here's a one-minute mock-up of what a scrap of aluminum strut and 
> handlebar tape might look like.  Even a good hardwood dowel would probably 
> work, or a stainless bolt/screw with the head cut off.  As noted, twine 
> would look nice.  I've seen people wrap twine on the rack just for looks, 
> or as a means to secure a basket.  The cosmetics could wait until after 
> your trip tnough. 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 6:47:37 AM UTC-6 fmri...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> It cut paste as you pointed out. What started out as a clean cut became a 
>> torn off shard by the end of the process. Was super bummed
>>
>> Franco Rinaldi 
>> c:  646.403.0661 <(646)%20403-0661> 
>>
>> -Pardon any typos, Siri typed this message-
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2024, at 5:33 AM, iamkeith  wrote:
>>
>> I couldn't see clearly.  Did you cut past the tab material and into the 
>> the bottom part of the hollow tube that forms the actual rack?!  If so and 
>> if it were me,  I'd graft ("sister") an additional piece of tubing (or bar 
>> or rod or scrap of aluminum nitto strut) next to it using jb weld or 
>> something, and then wrap the whole front section in twine for cosmetics.  
>> It may be fine as is but, if you did cut the bottom of the tube, it has 
>> zero remaining strength in bending resistance. 
>>
>>
>> If you left part of the tab on it and are just worried about sharp edges, 
>> I'd still think wrapping it in twine is a good option.
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 11:52:42 PM UTC-6 fmri...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ciao folks .. picked up a used Mark rack (appears to be a previous 
>>> iteration with the front tab for lighting). Spoke to someone at riv and 
>>> they suggested grinding it off as it comes too close to the tire (I run a 
>>> 2.1) and newer design of the rack has that tab omitted. A friend was 
>>> grinding it off with a circle grinder and what began as a clean cut became 
>>> a bit chunky upon completion (see video). How safe or unsafe is this rack 
>>> now? I’m running a basket and using it for sleeping bag and tent. I have 
>>> the rack strapped to my handle bars as well. Most of the weight is on the 
>>> back of the rack and this front bar does not appear to be much in terms of 
>>> load supporting anyway. Figured this was a good place to ask. Not ideal but 
>>> have a trip planned for Friday and in a bind! Vid attached. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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/e0607809-d6f6-46eb-953e-5498d4372606n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e0607809-d6f6-46eb-953e-5498d4372606n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> -- 
> 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/6d0cbfb0-2af6-4076-834f-1f8b579f3ffdn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6d0cbfb0-2af6-4076-834f-1f8b579f3ffdn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> <20240801_091108.jpg>
>
>

-- 
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/5cd2fb08-f00e-4763-9907-e91a9b0b4c57n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Feedback / rack issue

[iamkeith]

I couldn't see clearly.  Did you cut past the tab material and into the the 
bottom part of the hollow tube that forms the actual rack?!  If so and if 
it were me,  I'd graft ("sister") an additional piece of tubing (or bar or 
rod or scrap of aluminum nitto strut) next to it using jb weld or 
something, and then wrap the whole front section in twine for cosmetics.  
It may be fine as is but, if you did cut the bottom of the tube, it has 
zero remaining strength in bending resistance. 

If you left part of the tab on it and are just worried about sharp edges, 
I'd still think wrapping it in twine is a good option.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 11:52:42 PM UTC-6 fmri...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ciao folks .. picked up a used Mark rack (appears to be a previous 
> iteration with the front tab for lighting). Spoke to someone at riv and 
> they suggested grinding it off as it comes too close to the tire (I run a 
> 2.1) and newer design of the rack has that tab omitted. A friend was 
> grinding it off with a circle grinder and what began as a clean cut became 
> a bit chunky upon completion (see video). How safe or unsafe is this rack 
> now? I’m running a basket and using it for sleeping bag and tent. I have 
> the rack strapped to my handle bars as well. Most of the weight is on the 
> back of the rack and this front bar does not appear to be much in terms of 
> load supporting anyway. Figured this was a good place to ask. Not ideal but 
> have a trip planned for Friday and in a bind! Vid attached.
>
>

-- 
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/e0607809-d6f6-46eb-953e-5498d4372606n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: Clem Smith Jr. "H" 52cm

[iamkeith]

I think you should decide what price you're willing to sell it for, and 
stay firm and true to yourself.  I have the same bike, in 59.  I got rid of 
it once, regretted it terribly, and was lucky to get it back.

There are multiple ways you can build this and your Atlantis differrntly, 
to feel distinct and complimentary to each other.  They're not going to 
build the H / full triangle versions again.

I do wonder if the value is limited somewhat in the 52, because the wheel 
size is the same as millions of vintage mountain bikes.  The long, low, 
comfortable geometry is what makes it stand out and would be what to 
highlight - either in a build or in the sales market.  Also, remember that 
the Clem was conceived specifically to be less expensive than a high-end 
version of a used, rigid, vintage mtb which were getting ludicrous prices 
in the used market.

I do think you should clean it up and re-take pictures if you're going to 
ask a premium price like you are.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 8:50:34 PM UTC-6 ack...@gmail.com wrote:

> Posting this to the group, but also, want to ask for honest opinions about 
> whether or not this price seems fair? It's always tough when you invest $$$ 
> in new parts/service and then realize soon thereafter that it's time to 
> sell. I've been riding and loving my Atlantis more and this bike is 
> starting to feel like it's a bit redundant. Thanks for any input...
>
>
> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/d/san-francisco-rivendell-clem-hsmith-jr/7771324250.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/df18f58f-dc67-4ff5-bf07-2e6a523afe51n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Paul Touring cantilever performance versus Paul Neo Retro

[iamkeith]

I have the same combo on one of my favorite and, at one time, mosy ridden 
bikes.  I always heard and believed the theory that the touring ( or any 
low-profile) model was supposed to be stronger but more binary (on/off), 
while the neo retro (or any wide-profile model) offered more modulation and 
sublety.  Until I locked the neo retro up during a panic stop and went over 
the handlebars one time.  There's a lot of nuance in how you adjust them 
and their staddle wires, but I would never consider the neo retro to not 
have strong enough stopping power




On Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 4:49:11 PM UTC-6 cjus...@gmail.com wrote:

> I run Paul Canti brakes on a number of bikes.
>
> The touring brake model should be more powerful than the Neo-Retro when 
> you account for both the angle of the arms and the yoke angle.  As such, 
> the greater mechanical advantage of the Neo-Retro arm is offset by the 
> lower mechanical advantage of the yoke angle of these setups IIRC.
>
> As such, I use Paul touring brakes F/R for rim brake 29ers and generally 
> run the Neo-Retro F and Touring rear for all other bikes.  Both brakes 
> perform well when setup properly with good compressionless housing.   
>
> No wrong answers and I started with the touring ones in back many years 
> ago for the same reason as you.
>
> -Justus
> Mpls, MN
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 5:07:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> I started out with Neo Retros front and rear, found that the rears 
>> intefered with panniers, and switched to Touring in the rear. 
>>
>> I can't really say that the front is more powerful than the rear; both 
>> have very stiff housing hangers -- rear is brazed on, front is Rene Herse.
>>
>> Others who have used both: can you say whether it's worth keeping the Neo 
>> Retros in front?
>>
>> Tho' I do hear that this f/r combo is not uncommon.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>
>

-- 
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/c7139620-08c2-427e-8447-8eecd294cdbcn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Last Susie fit question (with photos!) & a second Riv Gus?!

[iamkeith]

That's going to be hard to tell without riding.  Based on my own experience 
and preferences, I'd guess you'll want to stretch out a little more.  
Either longer stem or less sweep on the bars.  Completely speculation 
though.

I'm a chronic cockpit tinkerer, and mess with bars and stem on at least two 
of my bikes every year.  I've noticed one un-scientific constant every time 
I get a setup feeling close to ideal:  if I draw an imaginary line between 
my hands (where they grip the bar), and sight through that line while 
riding, the bead from my eyes will almost exactly  intersect the axis of 
the front hub.  I don't know what the connection is or why it always turns 
out this way, but assume it has to do with weighting and stabilizing the 
steering adequately.   It looks to me like you would be sighting behind the 
axle as currently mocked up? 

 Good news is that that that bike doesn't look too small.  In case you were 
still worried you got the wrong size.

Regarding a second:  I'd never try to talk someone out of a second riv.  
But keep in mind that the susie is very different from other rivendell 
models.I think the lowered bb height of yours will help, compared to my 
first run orange one, but bet its still quite different.  My AR, Ram, 
Saluki, QB and Clem - though mostly older models - all have a 
characteristic Riv "feel".  My Susie is completely different.  I'd consider 
getting a different model for variety's sake.
On Friday, June 7, 2024 at 11:54:24 PM UTC-6 johnwc...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ok, just wanted a final opinion. 
>
> Here is the 50cm Susie I took delivery of. I've mocked this up with 26" 
> Cliffhangers (I didn't have 27.5 rim brake set on hand), Ortho bars, 100mm 
> Nitto stem, Brooks saddle. Saddle height is about 64/65cm and my PBH is 
> about 78. 
>
> How does this fit look? Specifically, reach. 
>
> Without properly riding it, my first impression was that it felt ok-ish. 
> Hard to tell without actually going for a ride. Didn't feel too stretched 
> out and not really cramped either. 
>
> To throw another wrench in things, I have an opportunity to pickup a used 
> 54cm Gus frame. Do I need to have a second Riv right now? No! But, we all 
> know how bikes go. If anything, my partner could probably ride either frame 
> so, it wouldn't be a lost cause. 
> Maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to have 2 Rivs!! 
>
> Using the photos of me on the 50cm Susie, do you think a 54cm Gus would be 
> too large? 
>
> Thanks y'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/065f1bdc-7e82-410d-b0c6-8b1983eb3125n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Rambouillet & Romulus. A visual comparison.

[iamkeith]

Cool!

On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 6:05:05 PM UTC-6 notlaw...@gmail.com wrote:

> The 63cm Romulus received a mild rebuild over the winter, and since I had 
> the tripod handy I decided to photograph and visually compare the two. The 
> Rambouillet is slightly smaller at 60cm. Similar builds and fit, the Ram is 
> set up for slightly faster efforts.
> Both are an absolute pleasure to ride. Enjoy.[image: DSC_2126.jpeg]
> [image: DSC_2124.jpeg]
>
>

-- 
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/5da71ae9-e79f-4650-b735-ceeb27e1aab5n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Will the 50cm Susie be too small?

[iamkeith]

I'd second the opinion that you want the medium.  As another with a 
proportionally long torso, Rivendell (or even most other bikes)  rarely 
have a long enough top tube for me.  The beauty of the susie is that you 
can get a longer bike and still have standover clearance.  You might find 
the stack height a bit tall, but you can play with stems to de-emphasize 
that.  It'll probably be the best-fitting bike you've ever owned.

On Monday, May 20, 2024 at 1:23:44 PM UTC-6 Ginz wrote:

> How long are your arms?  For me, that would be the deciding factor as to 
> whether I'd want a longer or shorter top tube.
>
> On Monday, May 13, 2024 at 8:37:05 PM UTC-4 Valerie Yates wrote:
>
>> I am 5'6 with an 83 pbh and not long torso. For me, the medium Susie is 
>> perfect. The bike overall feels big in a very fun way but the dimensions 
>> within the cockpit are quite comfy. In fact, my bosco bars are a little 
>> closer than I'd normally choose but the bike came with them and I'm not 
>> sufficiently motivated to make any changes. In this photo, the top of my 
>> saddle is at 72 and the bottom of its rails are at 64. There is plenty of 
>> room to lower the saddle. On the other side, the dirt drop stem, which you 
>> cannot see, is completely slammed. With a different combination of stem and 
>> bars, you could likely make it work for you. I think it depends on whether 
>> you instinctively prefer a compact feeling frame or a larger one. I've 
>> always liked being on larger-feeling bikes. When in doubt, call Rivendell 
>> and ask their opinion. Good luck!
>>
>> [image: Susie M.jpg]
>>
>> On Monday, May 13, 2024 at 1:34:17 PM UTC-6 johnwc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hey y’all, longtime lurker here. Looking to potentially pick up my first 
>>> Riv and have a few questions about sizing. Maybe someone with similar 
>>> measurements and own a Susie/Gus could chime in. 
>>>
>>> I’m looking at the 50cm in gold color. Riv says:
>>>
>>>
>>>- 50cm  (650B wheels): 74-76cm. Saddle height: 63cm to 65cm
>>>- 53cm (650B wheels):  77-88cm. Saddle height: 66cm to 77cm
>>>
>>> My PBH is: 76.5cm-78cm measured multiple times. I’m 5’6 with a longer 
>>> torso. 
>>>
>>> Saddle height: 64cm (most of my bikes are Riv inspired vtg MTBs with 
>>> upright bars and this feels comfy for me)
>>>
>>> Seems like I'm on the edge between Med / Small. Can the small fit 
>>> without feeling too cramped? FWIW, I rode a Gus test bike years ago at 
>>> Rivelo here in PDX while it was still open. They were fantastic, but 
>>> unfortunately I can't remember if I rode a small or med size frame.  
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/68090fa2-8009-499f-a557-5e1369e3fe5dn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Adventures in (Re) building my Saluki

[iamkeith]

Glad the bike is back working for you, Michael
  You and your stories are one of the main reasons I sought out a Saluki.  
Glad you're being patient and taking the time to do it right, too.  I've 
gotten impatient and forced things, only to regret it later.  There was 
nothing particularly odd or difficult about a Saluki, but it took me 
forever to build too.  Mostly because it's a bike that deserves to as 
perfect as possible, so every part reqired lots of consideration or 
searching.  Hope you enjoy many more miles together.
On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 6:50:41 PM UTC-6 mhec...@gmail.com wrote:

> You may remember my previous post after retrieving my Saluki ( Serial 
> #007) from the powder coating shop in White River Jct Vt.   I thought the 
> rebuild would be simple and straight forward.  What could go wrong?!!
>
> First, I discovered that the threads in the BB shell needed to be 
> re-chased.  This required 25 miles of driving (rt) to the Village Bicycle 
> Shop in Richmond, Vt.  Home again things went well until I tried to. 
> remount the rear fender.  Now realizing that all the eyelits also needed to 
> be re-chased .  Another 25 miles of driving, only to discover  that a 
> family emergency  had lead to an unscheduled closing.  Tried again the next 
> day..  Along the way I recognized that the stem would not tighten down.  I 
> figured out that the wedge shaped nut was disconnected from the long stem 
> bolt, and jammed in the head tube..  This required removing the stem, HB, 
> brakes,  fenders and fork in order drive the now deformed nut out of the 
> head tube.  Had another in my spare parts bin.   OK.  Now with everything 
> (almost) tightened down, I set out on a shakedown  ride. 
>
> What a joy!  I didn't buy any new parts for this rebuild but am still 
> leaning toward a new front rack.  Contrary to GPs opinions I really 
> appreciate hi end Paul's breaks, TA rings, and Campy derailleurs and smooth 
> shifting..  I rode along grooving on the sweet, neutral handling of the 
> Saluki; the easy & comfy rolling of the PariMoto 45 mm tires.  No break 
> squeak from my Pauls Neo Retros.  Then, about 6 miles from home all hell 
> broke loose! 
>
> Actually what broke was one tiny bolt holding the rear deraileur cage 
> together.  That left me  without a pulley or functioning rear derailer. 
>  Fortunately I was uphill from home so could coast  half the way home, 
> where I discovered the remaining half of the deraileur (Campy Centaur) was 
> wedged  between cogs in the cassette.  It turned out I had another Campy 
> Centaur deraileur to use. Yea.
>
> To deliver the coup, either in the process of wedging itself or my effort 
> to free the derairller managed to damage the threads in the dropout and 
> neither derailleur would rethread into the frame..  Another trip to a bike 
> shop.
>
> It turned out that the replacement derailleur also had a broken part, 
> which is probably why it was in a box of random parts.  After some some 
> despair, (and a drink) I found a way to combine the two broken derailleurs 
> into one functioning part!
>
> Tomorrow will try another ride.  It looks good.
>
> Some pics: https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0oGGXqixGEaeNt
>
> I guess we all have days/weeks like this.
> Michael
>

-- 
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/f5c70621-3e14-4ead-81ce-0336f7de6370n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Snake-in-a-bike

[iamkeith]

Beautiful animal.and beautiful bike.

On Wednesday, May 8, 2024 at 7:36:41 AM UTC-6 allan@gmail.com wrote:

> Here's a tale from the “Well, I never thought I’d see that” department… 
>
> This afternoon I was out on the Yvez Gomez, exercising the dog, when we 
> encountered a smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis), sunning itself in 
> the middle of the road. I stopped next to the snake to maneuver it to the 
> side but it decided to climb up my back wheel spokes and inspect the 
> interior of the cassette instead. After several failed attempts to nudge it 
> along, it exited the cassette, went forward along the chainstay, and 
> completely entered the fender, going up. 
>
> To extract it from the inside of the fender I slowly rolled the bike 
> backwards until the snake popped out the rear and onto the ground. At this 
> point it had gotten the message well and slithered off into the stone wall. 
>
> For the curious, full photo documentation here:
> https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBpqQB
> 
>
> Allan in Marlboro, Vt
>
>

-- 
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/d4d11326-8fae-4f9e-804b-7b393c676389n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: FS: Droptube Rivendell Custom 54cm

[iamkeith]

First:  I'm surprised to see this, and hope you don't regret it.

Second:  It appears to me that buying motorcycles has become a chore and a 
waiting game itself.  Almost like the industry never recovered from the 
Pandemic supply chain disruptions.  So I'd suggest figuring out what you 
want and getting on a wait list with a dealer, ASAP.

The Honda CT125, for instance, might take a year to get, with very little 
chance of finding a used one.  (I sold a couple of vintage CT110s a couple 
of years ago because I was tired of the maintenance and, at 6'2", they were 
just too small for my son and I.  Great bikes for everything but highways, 
and as close to a Riv-like equivalent as you can get.  I'm still in some 
chat groups though, and have been watching others recieve new ones. )  
Similarly, Ducatis are almost all pre-sold before the season's imports even 
arrive in the states.(I kid myself that I want a Desert Sled now.)

On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 8:41:31 AM UTC-6 Joe Bernard wrote:

> Brian, 
>
> Those bikes were designed around the same time as my frame (Platypus, too) 
> so similarities wouldn't surprise me. A main difference would be less drop 
> in the toptube, I wasn't going for a true mixte. 
>
> Joe Bernard 
>
> On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 7:19:17 AM UTC-7 Brian Turner wrote:
>
>> To me, this bike looks very, very similar to the last production run of 
>> the Roscoe Bubbe, but with fancier lugs and a slightly longer wheelbase. 
>> What if you were to find one of those in your size, sell both the custom 
>> and the Clem, then you’d perhaps have a Riv that combines the elements of 
>> both? 
>>
>> Brian 
>> Lex KY 
>
>

-- 
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/de4c8dbf-14fb-4d40-bae0-c3118d3c5ee1n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: boscomoose - pictures, experiences, comparisons?

[iamkeith]

Thanks, Garth.  Funny - this thread isn't even that old, and I've changed 
several things since posting.  I guess I really am a chronic cockpit 
tinkerer.  Related to the original question, I did move my boscomoose back 
to my Clem, now that I have it back.  Even though I'd still like the stem 
to be longer, they continue to be the best bar on that bike.  [I did have a 
140 ritchey stem (25.4 quill) and aluminum boscos years ago when I first 
built that bike and it fit better, but the stiffness of the moose version 
still makes it the best compromise.]

I moved my tosco to the Susie pictured above with a 130mm faceplater stem.  
Once again, a longer stem would be even better, but this was still a huge 
improvement on that bike relative to the boscomoose.  Wider, less bent 
back, less rise (on a frame that has a super-talll headtube  already.)  
Thumbshifters work better in the normal/outer position  on toscos than 
boscos, but I left them inside and reversed for now.

I put some Ron's Orrtho bars on the bike that previously had toscos.  In 
this case, black/threadless is actually ideal.  But... 31.8 doesnt work 
without a shim.  I might try this anyway.  The best 26.0 stem I was able to 
find was 130mm.  Somewhere, I posted pics showing how similar the ortho ant 
tosco are.

On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 11:58:12 AM UTC-6 Garth wrote:

> Hey Keith I was looking at stems today and was reminded that Zipp makes 
> 140mm and 150mm 31.8 threadless stems +/-6d. Black only, but those can be 
> altered if you really want silver. I'm not into playing with chemicals 
> myself so I'd seek out a auto/moto paint/body shop that has a media blaster 
> for aluminum. 
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:29:27 PM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> About to take Susie out for an evening ride, I just remembered that the 
>> slope of the bars is better than when it's on the Clem   because the 
>> slightly slacker headube angle.  When I had the adjustable kind, I still 
>> liked them a bit more sloped than this though
>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-6 Paul Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> howdy folks
>>>
>>> i've been doing the best digging i can and cannot seem to wrangle very 
>>> many pictures of rivs with boscomoose bars.  have you tried them?  did you 
>>> like them?  i ride big bikes, so i'm not too concerned about knee strike on 
>>> the bar-ends, which i gather can be a drawback for some.  their fixedness 
>>> obviously makes for a riskier purchase than separate stem+bars, so i'd love 
>>> to hear your experience before i take the plunge!
>>>
>>> thanks in advance
>>> paul
>>> takoma park, md.
>>>
>>

-- 
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/f311fa5c-cda6-4636-b5f1-edf5ca75e42an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Question about rear brake cable housing routing with low friction on a Clem

[iamkeith]

Oh - I mis-read your question.  For canti brakes, this (pulley) is 
absolutely superior.  Cleaner AND less friction
   I'll find some more pictures when I get home.  I thought you were asking 
about V brakes

On Sunday, April 7, 2024 at 11:21:02 AM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:

> I missed this thread/question.  I did this on my susie, but mostly to be 
> able to use canti brakes.  I didnt like the big loop of housing in the 
> intended routing configuration, and imagined it would add friction and/or 
> get in the way - whether that's true or not.  I also have 2.8 tires with 
> fenders, and don't think V brakes would have sufficient tire clearance.  
> I'm happy with it.  I think that, for V brakes, you might eliminate some 
> housing length and friction just by similarly  skipping the last 
> tubular-shaped guide.  I think, for V brakes, the pulley adds unneccessary 
> complexity.
>
> On Sunday, April 7, 2024 at 12:01:12 AM UTC-4 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> @Roy -
>>
>> I thank-you for your reality check and viewpoints about a roller guide 
>> application. I will be using the 135 degree noodle as Allan has suggested.
>>
>> Furthermore, I appreciate your comments that my cable should work better 
>> as long as I don’t make the cable loop too tight. In using Teflon lined 
>> housing, stainless cables, and a drop of light oil, I will be good to go.I 
>> will take these into consideration. Back in the 70s', there was cable 
>> housing called "elephant housing".
>>
>> Thank-you.
>> Kim Hetzel. 
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:43 PM Roy Summer  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The roller set up doesn’t really reduce friction as the cable rubs the 
>>> roller and the roller turns as well.  The roller guide often moves and 
>>> causes cable issues if you’re not careful moving the bike or loading a 
>>> rack. The first set up (blue bike) should work better as long as you don’t 
>>> make the cable loop too tight. Use Teflon lined housing, stainless cables, 
>>> and a drop of light oil, and you’ll be good to go.
>>> On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 7:28:13 AM UTC-4 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I currently have the standard cable routing for my rear cantilever 
>>>> brakes. The cable and housing runs up the top low bar onto the seat tube 
>>>> and up and over the seat stay into a cable housing guide off of the seat 
>>>> post binder bolt. See first attached picture.
>>>>
>>>> My question is would there be less friction of having the cable and 
>>>> housing run in the same route as above, except for having it run through a 
>>>> DIA-COMPE 
>>>> center pull cable pulley roller mounted off the the seat binder bolt with 
>>>> a 
>>>> longer seat binder bolt ?  See second attached picture.
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts and feedback ?
>>>>
>>>> Would there be any differences ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank-you,
>>>> Kim Hetzel. 
>>>> [image: Nitto S83 Seat post 2mmm.jpg][image: xjeovlzsunac1.jpg]
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>> 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/0hhoYN6hhl0/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/1f617413-3539-4fbf-8111-7493dff79266n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1f617413-3539-4fbf-8111-7493dff79266n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>

-- 
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/ae032b1f-6ea2-4e1a-a909-568199fd272cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Ron's Ortho... stem question

[iamkeith]

FWIW, from many years of doing so, I'll second the suggestion (not a 
promise or recommendation - disclaimer and all that) that 25.4 stems CAN  
work ok with 26.0 bars.  But the only ones Ive had scuccess with are 
high-end steel stems with a single bolt clamp.  They tend to have thinner 
steel that can bend and conform to the larger diameter bars.  Especially 
the Salsa ones, but also the Ritchey Force ones being discussed here.  I 
don't want to discourage you from trying - and it's a relatively cheap 
experiment - but I'm less certain it'll work with a removable faceplate 
construction.  Less of the material around the clamp circumference is 
un-restrained and free to flex.  It might work BETTER - I just don’t know.  
Tighten slowly and methodically, and watch to make sure that it's the steel 
stem that gets deformed, and not the aluminum handlebar.  I know it's not 
your current plan, but don't pry open a forged aluminum stem to fit a 
bigger bar.  Lastly,  the safe option is still a 31.8 faceplater stem with 
a 26.0 shim.  I get it if you want to try a 26.0 stem first though.  Just 
please let us know how it works out.
On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 4:37:59 PM UTC-6 Chris K wrote:

> Again, thanks much for all the replies and info. I think I'll get the 135 
> Faceplater. The reason for getting the Nitto Riv version instead of one of 
> these awesome Ritchie's is I need the extra height.
>
> FWIW, Ron says a 25.4 clamp works with the 26.0 bar if you pry it open 
> just a touch to fit it in. Bit of a hack I suppose, but I'm gonna give it a 
> shot.
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:27 PM Brian McDermott  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I went from Billies to orthos on my Appaloosa, had to go from a 120 to 
>> 130 for the extra sweep. Finding a suitable 26.0 stem was a challenge, 
>> ended up with a Miyata pantographed stem from eBay.
>> On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-7 Chris K wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all, I've got some Ortho Bars in my cart and looking for stem advice 
>>> from those who use this bar. Obv there are multiple fit and frame factors 
>>> that play into something like this, but curious what people are generally 
>>> going with. Here are the options I'm deciding between:
>>>
>>> - Faceplater 110mm
>>> - Faceplater 135mm
>>> - Tallux 12cm
>>>
>>> Will the 110 Faceplater be too short?
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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/jb9Wk8SvPTU/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/7d92b563-9594-4504-8e0d-77722a7fa31en%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/6ebf3cfb-62ea-4ac6-9f64-71233768a4f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Long Riv cranks are cheap now.

[iamkeith]

Dang  I missed that.  If I bought one, it would end up becoming the 
foundation for some new, as-yet-unimagined, n+1 bike build.  I was finally 
working my way through my parts stash, too

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-6 bmfo...@gmail.com wrote:

> As a fan of long cranks i am tempted by this deal. I believe it is only 
> for the external bearing bb cranks though.
>
> Brian
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 3:13:51 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> The email update says 177 and 184 Silver cranks are 40% off.  Nows the 
>> time to get them if you zig while others zag.  
>>
>> If one of you has a 173 and are looking to go longer, I may be willing to 
>> take your 173.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, 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/1a69d417-0c91-4bce-93ce-936e52784846n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv Canti/Vbrake Frame in 54/55/56

[iamkeith]

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-6 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

My dimensions have been the bane of my cycling existence, Bill! 


Bill's question and suggestion to clarify was pretty insightful then.  I 
suffer from the same handicap as you:  short legs/ long torso.  (6'2" w/ 87 
pbh in my case.)  

Knowing what I now know after many years of figuring it out,  I'd suggest 
making sure you get the biggest frame you can possibly stand over.  
Especially with the older models that tended to have proportionately 
shorter top tubes.  They might still only be marginally long enough, but 
the good news is that there was likely a size increment that worked pretty 
well.  The later, expanded-sizing models don't come in as many increments, 
but the good nees here is that if you DO happen to find one that maxes-out 
your standover height  it is likely to be the most no-compromise, best-fit 
bike you've ever owned.  Just don't settle until you find it.  

Also, FWIW, the very first run of sam hillbournes (canti versions in 
metalic orange or sagey green wihout creme headtubes and with gold decals, 
I recall), which were among  if not THE first to use the expanded sizing, 
had longer top tubes than later versions.  Im always on the lookout for one 
of those, even though i don't "need" one.




 

I'm in Atlanta GA, but I travel all over the East coast for work. Also have 
shipped plenty with bikeflights and happy to talk to folks from wherever 
about what's available!

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 1:26:04 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:

Yeah you're a fair bit taller than me and I used to ride a 58cm 700c 
original-run Atlantis.  That may be a tricky fit challenge.  I like your 
inclusion of the Platy on your list.  No standover worries with a nice big 
step through!  Last suggestion, if you mention your general location, you 
may be able to arrange test-ride try-outs on a good candidate chassis from 
a friendly RBWGroup reader.  Good luck with the search  

BL

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-7 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for the thoughts Bill! 

My saddle height is 74cm and the Atlantis I just got rid of is a 53cm. I'm 
6' with a 840 pbh, so pretty long torso and shorter legs. 

Budget is fairly open depending on what the Frame is/how rare it might be.


On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 1:10:51 PM UTC-4 Ryan wrote:

what size are you looking for?

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:55:25 AM UTC-5 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

Hey Y'all,

Recently sold my Atlantis frame that was a bit too small for me to move up 
to something that fits better. Wondering if anyone here has an Appaloosa, 
Atlantis, Plat, Sam that they're looking to move on. Also into older models 
if the sizing works/they're in good shape(Hunq, Saluki, Bombadil, etc.)

Figure this might be a long shot, but better to make it known here before 
starting to dig too deep into the corners of the internet.

- Drew

-- 
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/8e79d370-c510-4f51-93eb-464b4675db00n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Ron's Ortho... stem question

[iamkeith]

I can't offer much input regarding length, without knowing more about you 
and your bike, but can offer this in case it helps:  I just swapped a Ron's 
Ortho bar in place of a 65cm Riv Tosco bar, mainly because it was black.  
The two bars are almost identical in terms of rise and reach and sweep.  I 
still have the Tosco on one bike (Susie), with a 135 faceplater.  The Ortho 
is has a 120 stem, but on a frame with a significantly longer top tube 
(Scapegoat), so almost comparable reach in the end.  In both cases, I wish 
my stem was even longer, but they're hard to find and I do have a uniquely 
long torso, too.  Main point is that if  you have access to a Tosco, you 
can extrapolate safely.  Ron's has more graceful curves and doesn't have 
the fugly 31.8mm bulge at the clamp area but Tosco, being steel, is MUCH 
stiffer and therefore the superior bar from a practical standpoint. Ortho 
is too flexy, but aesthetically superior.   Either one achieves the most 
comfortable cockpit I've ever owned.  
On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

> It’s 26.0 clamp diameter.
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Richard Rose  wrote:
>
> Chris, are you changing handlebar on an existing bike or, is this a new 
> build? If the former & when I did a bar swap on my Gus, I was able to 
> determine stem length with a couple of measurements. I always prefer a 4 
> bolt stem but as I understand it the ortho bar has an unusual clamp size?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Brian Turner  wrote:
>
> 
> Without having the most important factors (frame, size, and what you’re 
> currently running), I’d say going with a faceplater type stem would be a 
> good idea because these are very wide bars, and it’s good to have a stem 
> that will clamp down on them more securely than a single bolt quill stem.
>
> I currently have Ortho bars on my 54cm Gus, and I’m using a 110mm Nitto 
> threadless stem with 4 bolts on the faceplate.
>
> -Brian
> Lexington KY 
>
> On Mar 10, 2024, at 1:03 PM, Chris K  wrote:
>
> Hey all, I've got some Ortho Bars in my cart and looking for stem advice 
> from those who use this bar. Obv there are multiple fit and frame factors 
> that play into something like this, but curious what people are generally 
> going with. Here are the options I'm deciding between:
>
> - Faceplater 110mm
> - Faceplater 135mm
> - Tallux 12cm
>
> Will the 110 Faceplater be too short?
>
> -- 
> 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/650cf8f5-80e3-46e7-87dd-0cb5bf5543c5n%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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/E3BCA9D9-22A0-45C8-9079-5AA37D9F712D%40gmail.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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7612CA26-81A5-4D21-8937-5F4B43B90A13%40gmail.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/bf7d3e9c-eb31-42f2-964e-dc20fc4ae49bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Thinking of replaceing the clem with the gus. Thoughts?

[iamkeith]

On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 1:09:23 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

When I measured mine (a while ago) the bottom bracket on my 57(large) Gus 
was a full 2”! higher than on my 52 Clem. This single dimension makes these 
bikes quite different in my opinion. I love both bikes but use Gus for 
trail/MTB duties almost exclusively. The Clem is my bike for pretty much 
everything else. Having both I simply could not choose one to keep. 
Sophie’s Choice. I thought but cannot claim I know that Gus & Susie are 
more or less the same.
Sent from my iPhone



^ Completely concur with this.^  They are very different bikes, no matter 
what the descriptions or adjacency in the hillibike category suggests.  
Mine are both early versions, respectively.   ( clem H, and fillet susie.  
Both 700c though.)  Current versions are slightly different ( clem has 
longer front, susie has ever-so-slightly lower bb, relative to my version) 
so my observations might not be 100% accurate.  In each case, the changrs 
seem to be improvements.

The higher bb on the Susie - and thus, rider's center of gravity - is the 
biggest difference.  It's very noticable.  But the chainstay length 
difference and frame stifness are notieable, too.  I don't really feel the 
different steering geometry.

If you want to ride trails, there's no question that the Susie is better.  
I'm kind of a bike snob, so I like the fillet (and/or lugged) construction 
better.  And the current Susie colors are possibly the best ever.

All that said (and despite the fact that, on paper, Susie is my dream bike 
to grow old with), I'd  keep the Clem if I had to choose.  Or, probably, 
have a custom made that is based in it.  There's just nothing else like it 
out there.  Supremely comfortable and one of very few bikes that I choose 
automatically when going for a ride.  If I didn't have several other rigid 
mountain bikes that I can ride on trails, my answer would probably be 
different.


 

On Mar 9, 2024, at 1:39 PM, Johnny Alien  wrote:

A Susie would be a pretty lateral move from a Clem (by description and 
such) where as a Gus would be more stout. If the Clem covers the type of 
riding you like than the main difference would be style/visuals IMO. Which 
is 100% as good a reason as any other to swap frames. I love my Clem and am 
often tempted by the beauty of the Susie/Gus.



On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 12:34:49 PM UTC-5 NYCbikeguy wrote:

Regardless of the price/value of each frame, what do all of you think are 
the pros and cons of either bikes? overlaps vs. differences? Ultimately, 
which would you choose to keep?

FYI, I tend to over-build my bikes and I enjoy riding them, so any comments 
alluding to "that's too much bike" will be disregarded. 

Thanks,
IY
[image: IMG_8169.JPG]

-- 
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/4a8e1311-d774-44f2-91c3-f0ba6acfca54n%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/3ce5620d-7c3d-4aae-bdb1-5a2c2bf823e4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/


THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry

The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
'05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".

When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.

Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
faithful to.

Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
Vassago riders, we confidently say;

   - 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
   - 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
   - Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
   - It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
   just numbers on paper.
   - Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
   - 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
   - The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.

So what can *WetCat* do for you?

*Climbing*
Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
grandma's house. (what you never did that?)

Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
the pedalin's done.

*Descending*
Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.

*Comfort*
9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.

*Balance*
Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
ridden.

Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.

Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
tag. You'll see what we mean.

 


A word about chainstays.

Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
climbing, we focus on that.

The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels 
by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line 
when on a steep accent.

To use another motorsport analogy, dirt bikes are converted to hill climb 
monsters by adding more power and stretching the rear wheel further out.  
When applied to mountain bikes, this means a more relaxed climbing position 
that takes the focus off of balancing the bike and lets you put all your 
energy into putting the power down.

The secondary benefit of using longer stays that you can get away with on 
29ers is the all day comfort factor. Proper butting profiles in a longer 
steel chainstay offers a level of compliance like no other

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Russell
>
> Your collection presents like an afficionado of

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones LWB, 
or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.

Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of 
it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved 
that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  

Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's 
comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're 
talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through 
scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I 
think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream 
sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't 
feel the need to produce that particular tool.

If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' bikes 
was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to make a 
29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's what 
people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.Every 
bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of every 
other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big wheels into 
as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube and 
re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work with 
the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now 
commonplace.

The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely 
mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance 
and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The 
"riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be 
perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I 
have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)

The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and, 
arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for 
others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away 
from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now 
evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and 
buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40 
years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer, 
slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike 
industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas, 
now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.  

I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also 
from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that approached 
the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and criticized to no 
end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and wheelbases - to the 
point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold the company.  They 
were probably on the right track years early, but closed-minded critics and 
a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and progress for a decade and a 
half or more.  I had to go to the wayback machine to find this, but here 
they talk about that battle.  It's interesting to read in retrospect.  
(This was the real point of my now long-winded post.)(The other interesting 
thing to look at would be the relentless vassago hate threads from 
contemporary mtbr forums.):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html

I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when, in 
reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things, 
opinions of others be damned.  And Jones, on a whole other track.

Last thought:  I have several older more-traditional rivendell models, with 
short stays and near-level top tubes.  I'm so accustomed to them after 
years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever 
upgrade.  But they look dated to my eye - not "classic."  Longer stays, 
sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me.  It's  a bit 
form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.


On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones? 
> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like crazy. 
> Switchbacks and tight turns were a chore. Up and down techy Boulder 
> sections, the bash guard was getting a workout. Stopped me dead in my 
> tracks a few times. 
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Do the

Re: [RBW] Stainless bottle/ cage recommendation

[iamkeith]

Salsa Nickless Cage is my favorite.  Kind of a copy of the Nitto R, with 
fatter tubing and a lot cheaper.
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7 wats...@umn.edu wrote:

> I've settled on Nitto R cages and Bivo water bottles. I like this combo; 
> no rattle yet. 
>
> I have both the insulated and uninsulated bivos that I swap depending on 
> weather. It's nice to not have ice cold water on cold days in Minneapolis. 
>
> On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 6:24:22 AM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> King Iris, Delta INOX, VO Touriste… all the same basic design but at 
>> varying price points. Personally, I have the INOX cages on all my bikes. 
>> They don’t have the shiny finish of the King, or VO versions. Most people 
>> ask me if they are titanium, but they are just stainless.
>>
>> I use the Kleen Kanteen classic stainless bottles with them, and it looks 
>> classy and doesn’t rattle.
>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2024, at 12:23 AM, Adam Moss  wrote:
>>
>> +1 for king cages and I’ve recently discovered Bivo water bottles. 
>> They’re excellent and silent. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 8:33:57 PM UTC-8 John Dewey wrote:
>>
>>> + 1 Iris. Simple, indestructible, elegant shape,
>>>
>>> Jock
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 8:07 PM John Rinker  wrote:
>>>
 I've enjoyed the Iris King cages 
 .
  
 Very secure and quite elegant looking.
 [image: Screen Shot 2024-02-25 at 8.06.35 PM.png]
 Cheers, John


 On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 7:52:55 PM UTC-8 campyo...@me.com 
 wrote:

> These have worked well for me. Adjustable fit to keep the bottle 
> firmly in place.
>
> [image: cfff0946e78b4f4406f14619c8cbfea9.jpeg]
>
> Mojave Water Bottle Cage 
> 
> velo-orange.com 
> 
> 
>  
>
> --Eric Norris
> campyo...@me.com
> Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
> YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 
>
> On Feb 25, 2024, at 7:03 PM, Bernard Duhon  
> wrote:
>
> Mates, 
>  
> I would like to migrate to a stainless water bottle.  Most folks with 
> em I noticed a rattle I could not tolerate.
>  
> Recommendation for a rattle free stainless bottle & cage ( of any 
> composition)  
>  
>
> -- 
> 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/SA1PR17MB54911DBFC552D6C666AC6B07CD5A2%40SA1PR17MB5491.namprd17.prod.outlook.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-bun...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c0f1c64a-174f-4e7d-ac3a-ab2aca5e25a5n%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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9ba91b81-cd33-42ac-9d89-096dbd1e7128n%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/a4f24946-fdf8-4119-a941-5ae9516555d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Cantilevers or Direct Mount-Centerpulls

[iamkeith]

Would you gain any tire/fender clearace advantage by choosing cantilevers?  
Or will the chainstays end up being the thing that determines max size?
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 1:05:38 PM UTC-7 kyleco...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Just swooped up an old bleriot that I am going to be bringing to a local 
> frame builder to do some mods to for racks and mounted brakes. I am looking 
> to set this one up as a touring bike and torn between having cantilever or 
> centerpull brake posts installed. Any thoughts from folks who have ridden 
> both?
>
> Kyle
>

-- 
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/48792c69-e485-487c-bea6-0599dc1bdbb5n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: I only have 1 chance to get a Rivendell.. which would you recommend?

[iamkeith]

Welcome, and what a solid bunch of advice you're already getting.  Two 
thoughts and my own recommendation:

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Sam Hilbourne was originally 
conceived as a less-expensive A Homer Hillsen.  Fewer sizes offered, 
simpler paint and details, and different country of manufacture.  It's 
always been  interesting to me that, after morphing and changing so much, 
they've both stayed around.  Other similar instances (Romulus as a 
less-expensive Rambouillet, Bleriot as a less-expensive Saluki) didn't last 
once the original rationale ceased to exist.  This is over-simplifying, but 
the main point - which is evidenced by your interest in both - is that 
there is still a lot of overlap and similarity.

So, between those two, I'd personally make the decision based on brake 
preference and tire/fender clearance, and the Hillbourne wins for me 
personally.  You can always use a smaller tire if you want.  If you think 
you will lean more toward wanting an actual "road bike" experience, for 
paved-surface riding, then the Homer is maybe a little more elegant and 
lighter?

All that aside, I'd really say get whatever fits the best.  There's nothing 
like a bike that  fits without compromises, and you would choose it over 
any other bike in real-life practice if you had more than one, regardless 
of any other limitations it might have.

Finally:  unless you subscribe to the mainstream belief that bikes are for 
going fast first of all, and should be as light as possible (which it 
doesn't sound like you are), then the Playpus really seems like the perfect 
answer to the "if I could have only one" question.  Speaking for myself 
again, who owns seven Rivendells.  If I HAD to choose, I'd give them all up 
and get the Platypus (which I don't have and haven'tactually ridden, but 
can extrapolate pretty well).  It combines the best parts of all my 
favorite bikes / other Rivendells, does everything I'd need other than 
full-on mountain biking, and I'd know that I could ride it for the rest of 
my life.
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-7 Bikie#4646 wrote:

> Dear A.H.,
> Welcome!  I can't speak to the Platypus except it has wide acceptance 
> here. However, I do have both a Sam Hillborne and a A.H. Homer Hilsen. Both 
> are capable on pavement and dirt roads/rail trails, etc. The lighter tubing 
> on the Homer makes it a bit more lively but the Sam is more capable for 
> touring. 
> My bikes both date to 2015 and before. So, the Sam has Paul center pulls 
> and the Homer was converted to Paul Touring cantilevers. Both have fenders 
> and use 38mm tires. Both use moustache bars (for different reasons).
> So, I'd say, "pick your poison" depending on the type of riding you expect 
> to do and what you intend to carry.. (And maybe your personal body weight. 
> I am 170 lbs.+ -).
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/53407463860/in/album-72177720313691125/
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/53181801054/in/album-72177720313691125/
> Paul Germain
> Midlothian, Va.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/2e61ec50-43cd-4c0e-aea8-6040ab4364bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 58cm 650B AHH F/F/HS

[iamkeith]

Upon second look, I take part of that back.  You obviously knew this but, 
at that time  there appears to have been both a 56 in 700c and a 57 in 
650b.  I didn't remember that, and it’s odd because the 650b  saluki (which 
morphed into the AHH) came in the even size increments.  Still, a Riv size 
should measure c-t-t.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:52:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

>
> A 56 center-to-center seat tube measurement would likely equate to a 57 
> center-to-top measurement as tyically used by Rivendell.  But that actually 
> jives with the chart at the link you provided.  There is a 57 but not a 56.
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:36:44 AM UTC-7 Dan wrote:
>
>> Good morning. I was told that the measurements didn't come through 
>> clearly in the pictures, so I remeasured and this is a 56. It's squarely 
>> 56cm, measured center to center. When I posted yesterday I misremembered 
>> and unfortunately I can't change the subject line.  *It is a 56cm.* 
>>
>> The seat tube measures 56cm CTC and the TT (CTC, but there's a 2* slope) 
>> is about 562. Riv's geo chart is here: 
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170602082329/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>>
>> And here's the geo on BikeInsights (comparing the 56 and the 58): 
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5a1e69902a0c030014708caa,5a1e69902a0c030014708cab,
>>
>> Finally, here's the product page from that same archive/same era is here: 
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20170704042854/https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/a-homer-hilsen
>>
>> The only picture with the measuring tape I can discern is the headtube 
>> (~246mm), which is not a helpful measurement, IMO, but I know a lot of 
>> people look at that like gospel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel in LA, CA, USA
>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 4:52:13 PM UTC-8 Dan wrote:
>>
>>> I have a 2017 58cm AHH that is I'm ready to pass along to a new home. 
>>> This is a 58cm 650B A. Homer Hillsen, which I believe makes it a 
>>> Waterford.  Frame shows some chips and wear but no dents, no rust. Seatpost 
>>> not included. Additional parts are available; let me know what you might 
>>> need. Asking $1400 + shipping. Price includes frame, fork, and Tange 
>>> headset. 
>>>
>>> For +$300 (only with the frameset), I'll include wheels and tire. Wheels 
>>> are all silver with Velocity rims, SP dynamo, Bitex cassette rear, wrapped 
>>> in (white) Soma Grand Randonneur tires, plus 1 extra tires (still in 
>>> wrapper). 
>>>
>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/WygAM61nM5u6uiNJA
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>> LA, CA, USA
>>>
>>

-- 
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/bf15fa22-1ee2-421c-b7e3-0a96a32c7b80n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: FS: 58cm 650B AHH F/F/HS

[iamkeith]

A 56 center-to-center seat tube measurement would likely equate to a 57 
center-to-top measurement as tyically used by Rivendell.  But that actually 
jives with the chart at the link you provided.  There is a 57 but not a 56.
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:36:44 AM UTC-7 Dan wrote:

> Good morning. I was told that the measurements didn't come through clearly 
> in the pictures, so I remeasured and this is a 56. It's squarely 56cm, 
> measured center to center. When I posted yesterday I misremembered and 
> unfortunately I can't change the subject line.  *It is a 56cm.* 
>
> The seat tube measures 56cm CTC and the TT (CTC, but there's a 2* slope) 
> is about 562. Riv's geo chart is here: 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170602082329/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>
> And here's the geo on BikeInsights (comparing the 56 and the 58): 
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5a1e69902a0c030014708caa,5a1e69902a0c030014708cab,
>
> Finally, here's the product page from that same archive/same era is here: 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170704042854/https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/a-homer-hilsen
>
> The only picture with the measuring tape I can discern is the headtube 
> (~246mm), which is not a helpful measurement, IMO, but I know a lot of 
> people look at that like gospel.
>
>
>
> Daniel in LA, CA, USA
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 4:52:13 PM UTC-8 Dan wrote:
>
>> I have a 2017 58cm AHH that is I'm ready to pass along to a new home. 
>> This is a 58cm 650B A. Homer Hillsen, which I believe makes it a 
>> Waterford.  Frame shows some chips and wear but no dents, no rust. Seatpost 
>> not included. Additional parts are available; let me know what you might 
>> need. Asking $1400 + shipping. Price includes frame, fork, and Tange 
>> headset. 
>>
>> For +$300 (only with the frameset), I'll include wheels and tire. Wheels 
>> are all silver with Velocity rims, SP dynamo, Bitex cassette rear, wrapped 
>> in (white) Soma Grand Randonneur tires, plus 1 extra tires (still in 
>> wrapper). 
>>
>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/WygAM61nM5u6uiNJA
>>
>> Daniel
>> LA, CA, USA
>>
>

-- 
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/63e20122-7e66-44e7-aab7-18b2c591b089n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

Oops.  Never mind.  Don't know why I thought that's what I was looking at.  
Something about the angle of the photo and frame color made my mind jump to 
something that wasn't there.  Being distracted while typing on my 
phone  It all makes more sense now.

-- 
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/4ef184e9-1f4b-44ce-93cf-d6b84bafcc6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

I said "bosco," but meant "chaco."  The first ones, on the first run of 
appaloosas, were the bullmoose version.  

(The bosco was designed, coincidentally, in tandem with a model that was 
also originally going to be called the Appaloosa, but never went beyond 
prototype form.  It's usually referred to now as tge mystery bike or long 
bike.)

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 8:39:43 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> First of all, "welcome,"  and beautiful bikes!
>
> I'd encourage you not to give up on getting the appaloosa to fit, even if 
> it requires some out-of-the-box solutions, or thinking in diferrent ways 
> than you're accustomed or predisposed to.  Put some miles on it and get to 
> know it intimately.  And then, if you DO decide it's not ideal as the drop 
> bar bike you dreamed of, get something else BEFORE you get rid of the 
> appaloosa.  This group is full of people who sold a Rivendell only to 
> regret it after the fact.  Your bike might be  perfect as something you 
> don't yet realize you need.
>
> A couple of things you may or may not be aware of:
>
> 1.  As with many Riv models, the appaloosa was originally conceived with a 
> specific handlebar in mind.  In this case it was the Bosco, which was 
> likewise originally made FOR the Appaloosa.   You could descibe that as 
> drop bar- or moustache bar-like, in that it has multiple hand positions, 
> but it doesn't have the long, forward reach of those bars.  It comes back 
> TOWARD the rider.  I'm actually sort of surprised Antonio recommended that 
> stem and reach.  I'd expect that to work for me, with my abnormally-long 
> torso, but not normal people.
>
> 2.  Stems are available with very short reach, or none at all:
>
> https://analogcycles.com/products/analog-wright-stem?variant=40095824674993
>
> Grant recently blahged about a bike with a stem turned around and reaching 
> backward  and said it felt totally normal.
>
> 3.  Another thing Grant has discussed better than I can, is the 
> self-negating effect of raising your stem without ALSO shortening it.  (Not 
> even sure I paraphrased that properly, but it's worth reading before you 
> mess around with things too much.)  I think that one is on the website 
> articles.
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 2:20:53 PM UTC-7 eitanz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all, wanted to introduce myself and my bikes. Over the last six months 
>> I went from zero to two Rivendells, and joined this group--though this is 
>> my first post: First up, a Cheviot, picked up secondhand, as my city bike. 
>>  Previous owner built this up swanky: Son, XTR,, Pacenti, Paul, XT, etc. . 
>> added the front and rear racks. I also picked up a Riv Happisack, which 
>> alternates with the YEPP mount. Apologies for the distinctly un-glamorous 
>> garage pic:
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_2009.jpeg]
>>
>> I love this bike. It is exceedingly comfortable and beautiful. 
>>
>> Last month I took delivery of a Homer,  which I had built up to be a 
>> zippy road bike with a classic look: 9 speed friction shifting using the 
>> Dia Compe shifters to XT derailleur, Rene Herse crankset, Paul brakes, the 
>> TRP drilled brake levers, with Velocity Quill rims on Deore hubs. 
>>
>> [image: IMG_2739.jpeg]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, as beautiful as this bike is, I haven't been able to get 
>> comfortable on it. I am too stretched out. I have tried raising the bars a 
>> bit from these pics, but fundamentally I think the reach is too long. I 
>> gave my height/PBH to Antonio at Rivendell, and they set the bike up with 
>> an 80mm stem. I have ordered a 70mm version of the stem, though I'm 
>> concerned that's getting pretty short. Next step if that's not enough is 
>> try a shorter-reach handlebar, in a narrower size.  If that doesn't work I 
>> fear I will need to sell the bike. I could replace the drops with upright 
>> bars, but I already have the Cheviot and specifically wanted a drop-bar 
>> endurance/all-roadish bike. 
>>
>> I get the need to raise the bars, but I don't want a situation where the 
>> bars are 5" above the saddle. 
>>
>> Any thoughts on other ways to get this bike to fit better?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> --Eitan (in Los Angeles)
>>
>

-- 
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/5bd62136-e1ed-4c78-8286-313b183f97f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Intro post, pics of my RIvs, and a Homer fit question

[iamkeith]

First of all, "welcome,"  and beautiful bikes!

I'd encourage you not to give up on getting the appaloosa to fit, even if 
it requires some out-of-the-box solutions, or thinking in diferrent ways 
than you're accustomed or predisposed to.  Put some miles on it and get to 
know it intimately.  And then, if you DO decide it's not ideal as the drop 
bar bike you dreamed of, get something else BEFORE you get rid of the 
appaloosa.  This group is full of people who sold a Rivendell only to 
regret it after the fact.  Your bike might be  perfect as something you 
don't yet realize you need.

A couple of things you may or may not be aware of:

1.  As with many Riv models, the appaloosa was originally conceived with a 
specific handlebar in mind.  In this case it was the Bosco, which was 
likewise originally made FOR the Appaloosa.   You could descibe that as 
drop bar- or moustache bar-like, in that it has multiple hand positions, 
but it doesn't have the long, forward reach of those bars.  It comes back 
TOWARD the rider.  I'm actually sort of surprised Antonio recommended that 
stem and reach.  I'd expect that to work for me, with my abnormally-long 
torso, but not normal people.

2.  Stems are available with very short reach, or none at all:

https://analogcycles.com/products/analog-wright-stem?variant=40095824674993

Grant recently blahged about a bike with a stem turned around and reaching 
backward  and said it felt totally normal.

3.  Another thing Grant has discussed better than I can, is the 
self-negating effect of raising your stem without ALSO shortening it.  (Not 
even sure I paraphrased that properly, but it's worth reading before you 
mess around with things too much.)  I think that one is on the website 
articles.


On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 2:20:53 PM UTC-7 eitanz...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Hi all, wanted to introduce myself and my bikes. Over the last six months 
> I went from zero to two Rivendells, and joined this group--though this is 
> my first post: First up, a Cheviot, picked up secondhand, as my city bike. 
>  Previous owner built this up swanky: Son, XTR,, Pacenti, Paul, XT, etc. . 
> added the front and rear racks. I also picked up a Riv Happisack, which 
> alternates with the YEPP mount. Apologies for the distinctly un-glamorous 
> garage pic:
>
>
> [image: IMG_2009.jpeg]
>
> I love this bike. It is exceedingly comfortable and beautiful. 
>
> Last month I took delivery of a Homer,  which I had built up to be a zippy 
> road bike with a classic look: 9 speed friction shifting using the Dia 
> Compe shifters to XT derailleur, Rene Herse crankset, Paul brakes, the TRP 
> drilled brake levers, with Velocity Quill rims on Deore hubs. 
>
> [image: IMG_2739.jpeg]
>
>
>
>
>
> That said, as beautiful as this bike is, I haven't been able to get 
> comfortable on it. I am too stretched out. I have tried raising the bars a 
> bit from these pics, but fundamentally I think the reach is too long. I 
> gave my height/PBH to Antonio at Rivendell, and they set the bike up with 
> an 80mm stem. I have ordered a 70mm version of the stem, though I'm 
> concerned that's getting pretty short. Next step if that's not enough is 
> try a shorter-reach handlebar, in a narrower size.  If that doesn't work I 
> fear I will need to sell the bike. I could replace the drops with upright 
> bars, but I already have the Cheviot and specifically wanted a drop-bar 
> endurance/all-roadish bike. 
>
> I get the need to raise the bars, but I don't want a situation where the 
> bars are 5" above the saddle. 
>
> Any thoughts on other ways to get this bike to fit better?
>
> Thanks!
> --Eitan (in Los Angeles)
>

-- 
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/efa11cc2-ae89-470f-ac32-aa7e4aaadd1fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Susie / Appaloosa indecision

[iamkeith]

Tough call, based on your stated criteria and preferences.  I don't think 
you could go wrong, but I don't have the direct experience for a 
comparison.  I have a Susie and a bunch of other Rivs, but my All Rounder 
is the closest analog to the Appaloosa.  (If you cosider Appaloosa evolved 
from the Atlatis, which evolved from the All Rounder but it's pretty 
far removed at this point.)

I'll say that both are among the few bikes I'll  never ever part with.  But 
ESPECIALLY the AR,  because it is just so classic looking and also so 
versatile.  I suspect the Appaloosa will still feel more like a sprightly 
road bike than the Susie, with it's new thicker tubing - not the more 
"over-built" load carrier you're anticipating

On the other hand, I'll note that my one, big complaint about the Susie - a 
too-high-for-my-liking bottom bracket - is being remedied in the new, 
lugged batch.  So that's a huge improvement that should make it feel more 
like a Rivendell and be more comfortable for the riding you describe.

I'll also say that you're probably correct that you won't want or need all 
of the tire clearance that the susie has. I got B65 fenders to work with 
2.8 tires, with mods.  (More on that later.)  But it's way too much.  It's 
overkill and doesn't ride or steer well.  (But the high BB compounds that, 
Im sure, by making the center of gravity too high.)

Then again, it's nice to finally  have MORE room than you need or want for 
a change.  I think 2.5ish tires are probably the sweet spot - at least at 
my weight and terrain and for the type of riding you describe.  (What I 
have on my clem)  And, unfortunately, the Appaloosa caps out at 2.25  
(going from memory...  so check that.)  

Making your decision even more muddied, I'm sure...
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:30:07 PM UTC-7 Tim Bantham wrote:

> I would recommend the Appaloosa. If you're primary use is commuting and 
> grocery getting there isn't a better bicycle then the Joe A. You could put 
> a decent size knobbie tire on there is you wanted. I had Schwalbe Thunder 
> Burts on mine which made it great for road and great for the occasional off 
> road excursion. It certainly can be a "have fun" bike if you build it up 
> right. If you are looking to add fenders under a reasonably sized tire then 
> the Appaloosa also gets the nod. I've never owned a Susie/Gus but I've 
> owned an Appaloosa which was one of my favorites Riv bikes I had ever 
> owned. I regret selling it all the time. 
>
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 5:16:03 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Others here can no doubt offer more experienced opinions but, I would get 
>> the Susie and an extra set of wheels. One with 2.5”-2.6” knobbies (Honcho, 
>> Ehline) for singletrack or other off road stuff (backpacking), and the 
>> other with 2.0” - 2.25 smoothish tires for more roadish use. Susie is such 
>> a versatile platform. This of course is my perspective only & reflects my 
>> preference for off road excursions.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Brian Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hey Everyone. I'm seriously torn between a lugged Susie and an Appaloosa 
>> later this year. Help me commit!
>>
>> I commute and run errands (no question that's most of my mileage), but 
>> fun rides are always in seek of trails with pavement as needed: day rides 
>> plus occasional camping. I think each bike is overkill in a different way. 
>> The Appaloosa is capable of longer distances and heavier loads, which would 
>> be pretty rare for me. The bigger tires on the Susie would open up more 
>> technical singletrack, which would be similarly rare. 
>>
>> What to do? I like the idea of the Appaloosa's more traditional look, but 
>> I like the Susie's higher handlebars and increased crotch clearance. I'm 
>> likely to want fenders, so I may end up not using the Susie's tire 
>> clearance to full advantage (sidebar: what's the biggest tire that will 
>> really fit under a B65? B69? Anyone know of another decent-looking jumbo 
>> fender?).
>>
>> All opinions welcome, with special thanks to anyone who's ridden or owned 
>> both.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/1e47cf36-31e0-4a3c-8e64-39bd3cf86693n%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:/

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 10:12:07 AM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:

I am confused and its probably just that I am not the market for a bike 
like this. I feel like once you decide you want a few gears its easier to 
do a 1x7 for limited gears than 3x1. And big jumps on the front will be 
fidgity anyway. Understanding that the idea is to stick in one gear most of 
the time but I still don't see the value. Either you want a 1x or you want 
a few options and if you want a few options 7 is theoretically better than 
3.



Having not tried it, I can only speculate.  What is interesting about it to 
me is:


1.  You wouldn't technically even need a front derailleur.  You could just 
move the chain by hand or stick, and not have to fuss with loosening  
re-centering, and re-tightening a wheel.  I don't know if you need 
narrow/wide teeth patterns to keep the chain from bouncing off the 
chainring though.

2.  You could have more subtle jumps in gearing.  (2 teeth is a smaller 
percentage of 44 teeth than it is 16 teeth.)

 


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 11:37:14 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:

While im at it: 

Seat stays:
QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
"spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.

Paint:
QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
highlights.


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
drivetrains.  

Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.

Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer (but 
Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between the 
Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 

Size range:
Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used in 
the earlier years.  The classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes 
way of ensuring that there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple 
One was a geometic clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really 
huge or really small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium 
sizes, because it was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where 
people tend to have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer 
"expanded" sizing method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I 
believe:  sloped top tubes allow more standover AND taller stack heights, 
and longer top tubes allow for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial 
in the fit for more riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer 
lengths) is cheaper and avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche 
sizes that take forever to sell.

Lugs:  
All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
previously only used on customs.  

Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the tight 
spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of the 
dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  Later 
QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect it 
had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire technology 
and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is getting the 
unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, because it's 
being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.

Brakes:
QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.

Chainstays;
Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.

Dropouts:
QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in th

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

...why that minutia about dropout construction and connection methods 
matters is this:

Even with the longer chainstays, it may actually be more difficult to spead 
the rear end to 130 or 135mm.  I haven't tried, but it seems logical when 
you look at the dropouts.  With the QB and its brazed-in plate steel 
dropouts, people spread them to 135 fairly regularly.

Here are some 120mm cassette hubs I mentioned earlier.  Bill has a thread 
detailing his own experimenting with one:

https://www.hubjub.co.uk/sunxcd-120-mm-old-rear-cassette-hub-5204-p.asp


https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/grand-bois-5-speed-cassette-hubs/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true/




On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 9:37:14 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> While im at it: 
>
> Seat stays:
> QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
> "spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
> saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
> the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
> the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
> strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
> also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
> welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.
>
> Paint:
> QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
> least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
> Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
> highlights.
>
>
> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
>> Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
>> following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
>> that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
>> whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
>> multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
>> drivetrains.  
>>
>> Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that 
>> take truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new 
>> Suntour group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm 
>> OLN.
>>
>> Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer 
>> (but Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between 
>> the Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 
>>
>> Size range:
>> Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used 
>> in the earlier years.  The 
>> classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes way of ensuring that 
>> there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple One was a geometic 
>> clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really huge or really 
>> small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium sizes, because it 
>> was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where people tend to 
>> have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer "expanded" sizing 
>> method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I believe:  sloped top tubes 
>> allow more standover AND taller stack heights, and longer top tubes allow 
>> for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial in the fit for more 
>> riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer lengths) is cheaper and 
>> avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche sizes that take forever to 
>> sell.
>>
>> Lugs:  
>> All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
>> previously only used on customs.  
>>
>> Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
>> First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the 
>> tight spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of 
>> the dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  
>> Later QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect 
>> it had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire 
>> technology and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is 
>> getting the unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, 
>> because it's being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.
>>
>> Brakes:
>> QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
>> Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.
>>
>> Chainstays;
>> Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
>&

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

While im at it: 

Seat stays:
QB and SO attached to the seat tube cluster with traditional brazed 
"spoons."  Unlike their contemporary production models (rambouillet, 
saluki, atlantis), they weren't double-tapered (they only got skinnier at 
the bottom end) so that fewer lengths were needed.  Frank and Roaduno use 
the newer ball-and-socket connection, that doesn't rely on the shear 
strength of brazing for structral integrity.  At the bottom, QB and SO were 
also brazed (slotted) at the dropout plate.  Frank and Roaduno are tig 
welded to a breezer-esque, cast, hooded flange.

Paint:
QB and SO were simple, single-color.  Decals were on TOP of the paint (at 
least with QB.) Intent was to keep the bike inexpensive and utiliarian.  
Frank and Roaduno are fancy  with creme head tube and window fill 
highlights.


On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
> Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
> following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
> that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
> whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
> multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
> drivetrains.  
>
> Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
> truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
> group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.
>
> Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer 
> (but Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between 
> the Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 
>
> Size range:
> Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used 
> in the earlier years.  The 
> classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes way of ensuring that 
> there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple One was a geometic 
> clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really huge or really 
> small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium sizes, because it 
> was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where people tend to 
> have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer "expanded" sizing 
> method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I believe:  sloped top tubes 
> allow more standover AND taller stack heights, and longer top tubes allow 
> for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial in the fit for more 
> riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer lengths) is cheaper and 
> avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche sizes that take forever to 
> sell.
>
> Lugs:  
> All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
> previously only used on customs.  
>
> Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
> First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the 
> tight spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of 
> the dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  
> Later QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect 
> it had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire 
> technology and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is 
> getting the unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, 
> because it's being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.
>
> Brakes:
> QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
> Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.
>
> Chainstays;
> Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
> tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.
>
> Dropouts:
> QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
> slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in the slot 
> the wheel was clamped.  It was intended to see frequent manual gear changes 
> by moving the chain to adjacent cog and/or chainring, either of which would 
> change the effecive chainstay length.  It could accommodate an 8 tooth 
> total range.  Frank had similar sloped slots, but used a fancy investment 
> cast dropout.  Roaduno has an investment-cast dropout too, but the slot is 
> horizontal and, of course, has the hanger.
>
> Braze-ons:
> Haven't studied this closely, but it should be easy enough to figure out.  
> The first QBs were pretty spare.  Later ones at least got mounts for a 
> campee rack on the fork.  I >think< Roaduno will have a full range for more 
> utility with racks.  But they talk about it being lightweight and NOT 
> intended for touring loads, too

Re: [RBW] Roaduno and the state of single speed bikes

[iamkeith]

I believe that the Roaduno is going to be 120mm spaced, just like the 
Quickbeam/Simple One and Frank Jones Sr.  (I'm going from memory from 
following the updates too, though).  The idea behind the hanger is more 
that it could accommodate a chain tensioner than a derailleur.  For 
whatever reason, Rivendell is currently enamored with a 
multiple-chainring/single-cog approach to achieving multi-speed 
drivetrains.  

Nonetheless, there are still some 120mm cassette hubs out there, that take 
truncated gear clusters.  I seem to recall Grand Bois and the new Suntour 
group.  There are also several internal geared hubs that are 120mm OLN.

Ignoring any ride quality differences, which we of course can't answer (but 
Will did address in the recent email), I think the differences between the 
Roaduno and other Riv single-speeds goes like this: 

Size range:
Quickbeam came in the relatively small 2cm size increments that Riv used in 
the earlier years.  The classic-but-surprisingly-rare-for-production-bikes 
way of ensuring that there was a frame to fit everyone properly.  Simple 
One was a geometic clone of the Quickbeam, but wasn't offered in the really 
huge or really small sizes.  Frank was ONLY produced in small to medium 
sizes, because it was intended specifically for the Japanese market, where 
people tend to have a shorter stature.  Roaduno follows Rivs newer 
"expanded" sizing method, which started with the Sam Hillbourne, I 
believe:  sloped top tubes allow more standover AND taller stack heights, 
and longer top tubes allow for reach-back bars and/or shorter stems to dial 
in the fit for more riders.  Fewer frame sizes (and fewer fork steerer 
lengths) is cheaper and avoids having to buy mimimum quantities of niche 
sizes that take forever to sell.

Lugs:  
All three are fully-lugged.  Frank had the extra-fancy ones, which were 
previously only used on customs.  

Fork Crown / Tire Clearance:  
First QBs had the (narrowest)  RC02 crown, but that wasn't really the tight 
spot anyway.  The chainstays were.  With wheels toward the back of the 
dropout, you could fit maybe 44mm with fenders. (Officially less)  Later 
QBs and SOs had a wider crown.  I don't know about Frank, but suspect it 
had slightly more tire clearance simply because available tire technology 
and sizes had progressed so much further by then.  Roaduno is getting the 
unique Appaloosa crown which COULD take a 55mm or so but, because it's 
being used with caliper brakes, is limited to 50mm or so.

Brakes:
QB and SO had cantis.  Frank and Roaduno use caliper (or center-pull).  
Roaduno (maybe Frank too?) need long-reach.

Chainstays;
Roaduno has longer stays, though that appears to have been significantly 
tempered over the evolution of the prototypes.

Dropouts:
QB and SO had water-jet cut plate steel dropouts with the slot cut at a 
slope, so that the brake pads would hit the rim no matter where in the slot 
the wheel was clamped.  It was intended to see frequent manual gear changes 
by moving the chain to adjacent cog and/or chainring, either of which would 
change the effecive chainstay length.  It could accommodate an 8 tooth 
total range.  Frank had similar sloped slots, but used a fancy investment 
cast dropout.  Roaduno has an investment-cast dropout too, but the slot is 
horizontal and, of course, has the hanger.

Braze-ons:
Haven't studied this closely, but it should be easy enough to figure out.  
The first QBs were pretty spare.  Later ones at least got mounts for a 
campee rack on the fork.  I >think< Roaduno will have a full range for more 
utility with racks.  But they talk about it being lightweight and NOT 
intended for touring loads, too.

Kick Sta
The only difference between the QB and SO (other than country of origin for 
tubing and manufacture) was that SO had a kickstand mounting plate.  
Roaduno will likely have one too.




On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:24:12 AM UTC-7 Arthur Mayfield wrote:

> If my FJ had a derailleur hanger, I’d be constantly tempted to turn it 
> into a 1X or 2X 5 or 6. 120mm rear spacing and the difficulties of mounting 
> a derailleur under track forks keeps me in line. As I recall, the Roaduno 
> has wider rear end to go with the hanger-equipped dropouts, so there are a 
> zillion hubs that will fit. I ride it as a single, rather than fixed, and 
> am content. The one change I’d make to a re-imagined FJ would be to add a 
> kickstand mount. I’ve never been comfortable with clamp-on kickstands, 
> always afraid they’d slip or I’d over tighten and damage the chain stays.
>
> On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 9:24:09 AM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well damn it. Looked this up & now I really want a silver Roaduno. Look 
>> like the same dropouts but with the hanger?
>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2024, at 9:04 AM, Arthur Mayfield  wrote:
>>
>> Not what else is out there, but what should be—Rivendell should bring 
>> back the Frank Jones. 700c, sidepu

Re: [RBW] Re: Bikeshop A-Hole Video

[iamkeith]

This was great.  I sometimes am not sure if people are expressing similar 
"values" or "priorities" to my own, only to reach an entirely different 
conclusion.  The '96 All Rounder was perfect confirmation though.  Thanks 
for posting.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 6:45:46 PM UTC-7 John Dewey wrote:

> Troop 21 BSA, many Lake Mills campouts. We even rode our 3-speeds with 
> gear one time. 
>
> Brain workin’ hard today, whew 😰 And this after cold dark wet NorCal ride 
> this aft. I need a long hot shower & nap. 
>
> Jock
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:30 PM Bob  wrote:
>
>> Fairly sure he's in Lake Mills, WI: https://gibsbikes.com/
>>
>> His All-Rounder can also be seen here, 
>> https://www.instagram.com/p/CUd84lVNlD-, and elsewhere on his Instagram 
>> account: @bikefarmer
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-7 RichS wrote:
>>
>>> Steve, your question about his location. It appears to be Wisconsin. 
>>> Note the BKEFRMR license plate at 2:26 in the video.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Rich in ATL
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-5 Steve wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for sharing Doug. It was refreshing to hear a shop owner 
 critique high end race bikes. Any idea where the guy's shop is located?  
 His personal All Rounder looked pretty sharp.

 Steve in Asheville

 On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 8:14:34 AM UTC-5 Doug H. wrote:

> It's a fun video despite the title and if you watch the whole thing 
> you'll even see a Rivendell All Rounder for a few seconds. I thought you 
> all might enjoy this on the heels of Bike Snob's Outside article. It's in 
> the same vein. Enjoy. Video 
> 

 -- 
>> 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/5af7a7c0-3034-4f35-9c7f-a08bb0d6aea9n%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/92345c9d-fa43-425c-9406-07303a0f2954n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

Pam, I agree the R10 probably won't work, but wanted to offer:  Ive got a 
currently-unmounted one lying around.  If it would help, I could use it 
along with one of the smaller bikes in the garage to mock up something 
similar, and then take any  measurements you might need.

Also - and again, this might not help but mentioning to complete the 
thought - there's this slightly different version offered by simworks, that 
i found in a different, recent discussion about the R10.

https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934



On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:37:20 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

> Also, here's my NR-20  shown 
> mounted to my 26" Atlantis, so you can see how it works with my fenders and 
> mounted to the rear bridge. With all the clearance I have, I had to use a 
> 25mm aluminum spacer to get it to fit, and fortunately everything worked 
> out perfect with my fender lines. I don't know if this will help you, Pam, 
> but I thought I'd put the info out there so you can make a more informed 
> decision.
>
> -Brian
>
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-5 Brian Turner wrote:
>
> I got mine from across the pond: 
> https://sprockets.uk.com/nitto-nr-21-canti-rear-rack-mount/
>
> Keep in mind, there are two different versions depending on your brake 
> bridge mounting orientation. NR-20 is for vertically oriented mount, NR-21 
> is a threaded mount meant to go straight through (like a fork crown does). 
> Also, these are meant for 26" wheels.
> -Brian
>
>
>

-- 
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/3806ddc0-40df-4b07-9a59-a415c405605cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Preaching to the choir

[iamkeith]

Eben Weiss shines a light on the folly of carbon, in the way only he can.

https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/opinion/theres-no-good-reason-to-buy-a-carbon-bike/?fbclid=IwAR0muu-zFYlIDfTmjI3DiAeGq8a9WL0O3NfeyNV6biqV4dGqV-CGxsRbrDU

While I'm at it, I've been meaning to share this.   A modern roadie 
discovers steel:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lh6qCZESZU

 I enjoy this guy's, Lois Scott's, youtube videos, because he articulates 
the modern rooadie mindset so well.  I left the lycra and aero, group-ride 
mindset behind me so many decades ago that I often feel like those people 
and I speak an entirely different language.  Over the last year or so, he 
discovered steel and became a convert.  There are a number of videos on his 
youtube "channel" documenting his journey.  This is just one I could find 
from near his epiphany.  I think he's taken it further since.





-- 
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/7f0a9698-20b6-4edd-ad40-60d5796deeefn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Seat lug crack

[iamkeith]

Where are you located, Logan?  Maybe someone will know a builder or repair 
service near you, that they can recommend.  

It sure looks like a crack to me, and I too would guess that the most 
likely cause was a too-small seat post.  I also like Christian's idea:  If 
you're lucky, perhaps a small drill hole to stop it propogating further, 
and then brazing the crack itself might suffice without a large area of 
paint damage.  Great that you caught it before it got worse.

Finding a good builder will be the first step.   I wouldn't hesitate to ask 
Rivendell if they have any ideas or experience.  You're way beyond anything 
that could be construed as a reasonable warranty period, so be clear that 
you're not approaching it from a standpoint of expecting something or 
pointing fingers.  You're just asking for advice and brainstorming. 

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:22:09 AM UTC-7 christian poppell wrote:

> Amateur framebuilder here...
>
> Id drill a hole to stop the propagation of the crack then TIG weld to fuse 
> the crack. grind smooth to finish. I would try that first before replacing 
> the whole seat lug.
>
> "If my understanding of frame construction is correct, that also means the 
> top of the seat tube is cracked, since it extends through the seat lug and 
> is cut off even with the top of the lug."
>
> Some seat lugs are like that, many lugs used in production have a shelf on 
> the inside where the seat tube would be cut at 90deg then inserted into the 
> lug. (image from torch and file 
> )
>  
> I believe that is how the lug is on the QB, I can check mine when i get 
> home and report back. 
>
> Are you at U Michigan? If so, there's Doug Fattic (Niles, MI) and Franklin 
> Frames (Newark, OH?) that are closeish. Doug is great, I don't have 
> experience with Franklin but have heard he is willing to take on odd jobs. 
>
> Long live the Quickbeam!
> Christian
> Phoenix AZ
>
> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:29 AM UTC-7 George Schick wrote:
>
>> Are you the original owner of this Quickbeam or did you buy it used from 
>> someone?  If the latter is true it may be that the wrong diameter seat post 
>> was initially used and thus the seat post binder bolt over tightened to 
>> accommodate.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 1:07:41 AM UTC-6 eil...@umich.edu 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, 
>>>
>>> I am seeking information about what looks to be a small crack in the 
>>> seat lug of an orange Quickbeam. The reason I think it’s a crack in the lug 
>>> and not just the paint is that it is visible from both inside and outside 
>>> the seat tube. Pictures attached below. 
>>>
>>> Some questions I have are: 
>>> - Am I diagnosing this correctly as a cracked seat lug? 
>>> - Is a crack this size and in this location a big deal (I’m assuming 
>>> yes), and if so, how big of a deal? 
>>> - Does this render the frame dangerous to ride? 
>>> - Can something like this be repaired? Is there anyone that’s had 
>>> something similar repaired who can share their experience? 
>>>
>>> Thank you for any information anyone can share or point me toward. 
>>>
>>> Logan 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/27c69cb2-b863-49e3-9d4a-b6e34637e58bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bosco for small bikes

[iamkeith]

Nice bike, Dave.  I kind of interpreted it the same way as you.  The caveat 
being that not all old mtbs are created equal, and it probably works better 
the older they are.  By '88 / '89 or so, the frame angles had gotten so 
steep, owing to NORBA fashion, that they required a good portion of the 
rider's weight to be distributed to the handlebars.  At least that's what 
Ive concluded when trying to turn them into more upright riders.  They just 
feel twitchy without weight on the front.

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 9:27:27 AM UTC-7 DavidP wrote:

> Yes, I always guessed it was talking about rise and assuming the use of a 
> long stem.
>
> My townie is an old Univega MTB that is a bit small for me that is setup 
> with a Bosco and 120mm stem. The use of a sprung saddle helps with the seat 
> post height and the Bosco helps with the stem height. The result is very 
> upright when on the grips, but I can slide my hands forward on the bars to 
> lean forward a bit. I've tried a bunch of configurations with this bike and 
> like this setup the best but the overall feel is still not quite as good as 
> a larger bike with swept back bars (I've been spoiled by my Platypus).
>
> -Dave
>
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 11:39:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Yeah the second one has never made sense. It'll get your bars up high on 
>> a bike with a tiny headtube but said bike will also have a short toptube. 
>>
>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:12:32 PM UTC-8 peter...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone
>>>
>>> The rivbike page for the Bosco handlebars mentions this -
>>>
>>> "Here’s its best use:
>>> - Longish top tube bikes and upright riding. Mountain bike conversions 
>>> to supa-comfee cruisers.
>>> - Making too-small bikes fit and feel better."
>>>
>>> I think I understand the first use - since the handlebar reaches far 
>>> back it would make long reach bikes easier to fit. How do you make sense of 
>>> the second one? Wouldn't it make the small bikes feel smaller? Or perhaps 
>>> the reference is to the handlebars rise and not reach?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>

-- 
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/4ff3b6dd-6211-4a9a-891f-1cdbc9a1cdfdn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Max,  I can't imagine why you'd have a problem but, obviously, someone with 
more experience should chime in.  I'm going to "try" to use this same bb 
without the spacers, and get a different crank.  I'm not sure I can find 
one with the right spindle length, right spindle diameter, and 10 speed 
compatible rings in suitable sizes, but I know for a fact that the cups 
install just fine without any spacers at all.  (in this case, they each 
have an aluminum sleeve that telescopes over each other, but same thing as 
an accordian plastic sleeve in function.)

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:28:47 PM UTC-7 Max S wrote:

> A different, but related question: 
>
> I mistakenly bought the MTN version of a Shimano bottom bracket (external 
> cups) for a recent 105 crank. Comparing to the old (road) BB, it looked to 
> me like the only difference was the internal plastic sleeve length. I 
> swapped in the old sleeve between the new cups, and that seemed to go in 
> fine. Maybe last couple of millimeters were a little tighter than the right 
> hand cup, but went in. 
>
> Did I do something that will come back to bite me?.. 
>
> - Max 
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> Keith, road bike double crank chainline spec is always 43.5mm. Are you 
>> measuring between the rings ? 
>>
>> You may hate me for saying so but it sounds like this crank would be 
>> better suited for another frame with at least 135mm spacing. With the big 
>> ring that far out on a 130mm spaced road frame, your available cogs(without 
>> a lot of friction) diminishes by at least one, likely two. 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with 
>>> cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense 
>>> that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the 
>>> shell.  That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure 
>>> out why it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  
>>> it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS 
>>> there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the 
>>> crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that.  
>>>
>>> As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road 
>>> double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on 
>>> that side.
>>>
>>> You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to 
>>> the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
>>> millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  
>>>
>>> It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
>>> fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
>>> it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
>>>> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded 
>>>>> view - spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>>>>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>>>>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>>>>> slightly smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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/52a71012-77b1-44f2-97de-bfff26d2d31en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

To wrap this up, and hopefully make it useful for someone else down the 
line:

I think Garth is right.  This crank will not work on this bike.

Even if an X-type crankset is advertized as working with both 68 and 73 mm 
shells, it's not that straight forward.  It can technically "work," but 
there will be  tradeoffs with chainline or centering or Q-factor not being 
ideal.   If I had a 73mm shell and used one spacer on the drive side, I'd 
have a 47.5 mm chainline AND symmetry between the arms.  I'd still have to 
just  "hope" it cleared the chainstays though. 

This is exactly why I was so slow to adopt X-type cranksets.  After a 
lifetime of being able to pick a square taper spindle in virtually any 
length I wanted, the inability to adjust width didn't seem intuitively 
right.  If my other forrays (on mountain bikes) hadn't been so 
plug-and-play easy, I would have questioned this more before ordering.  
Then again, there was nothing about this on the product description webpage 
that alluded to the dimensional details or specs. 

For anybody interested, here's the product link.  It's really not bad 
quality and is attractive and has many chainring options available, with 
shift aids, AND is available SILVER!  I think Riv was out of everything in 
the configuration I needed, and this was on sale for a really good price.  
For a 10- or 11-speed mountain/hillibike with 73mm shells and 135 or wider 
rear hub, it's a good option.

https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/ird-vortex-sub-compact-crankset-46-30t-4722#attr=1257,4857


On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:28:47 PM UTC-7 Max S wrote:

> A different, but related question: 
>
> I mistakenly bought the MTN version of a Shimano bottom bracket (external 
> cups) for a recent 105 crank. Comparing to the old (road) BB, it looked to 
> me like the only difference was the internal plastic sleeve length. I 
> swapped in the old sleeve between the new cups, and that seemed to go in 
> fine. Maybe last couple of millimeters were a little tighter than the right 
> hand cup, but went in. 
>
> Did I do something that will come back to bite me?.. 
>
> - Max 
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> Keith, road bike double crank chainline spec is always 43.5mm. Are you 
>> measuring between the rings ? 
>>
>> You may hate me for saying so but it sounds like this crank would be 
>> better suited for another frame with at least 135mm spacing. With the big 
>> ring that far out on a 130mm spaced road frame, your available cogs(without 
>> a lot of friction) diminishes by at least one, likely two. 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with 
>>> cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense 
>>> that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the 
>>> shell.  That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure 
>>> out why it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  
>>> it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS 
>>> there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the 
>>> crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that.  
>>>
>>> As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road 
>>> double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on 
>>> that side.
>>>
>>> You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to 
>>> the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
>>> millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  
>>>
>>> It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
>>> fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
>>> it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
>>>> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded 
>>>>> view - spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>>>>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>>>>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>>>>> slightly smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
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/6eef04a1-7d28-4781-8cd6-7e8d580c2c2bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with cranks 
that take spacers between the arm and the cup.  It makes more sense that 
way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the shell.  
That's how it was assembled when it arrived.  I just cant figure out why 
it's asymmetrical.  Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell,  it would 
still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS there was a 
bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate.  But you'd think the crank arms 
would be shaped to compensate for that.  

As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline.  Sheldon says a road double 
should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on that 
side.

You probably had the best idea though.  I guess I'll take a dremel to the 
non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more 
millimeters and at least be symmetrical.  

It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, 
fortunately.  I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though 
it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website?

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in 
> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. 
>
> Will
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote:
>
>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded view - 
>> spacers going between the cup and the BB shell.  
>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work.  Both bikes were chased, but 
>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack 
>> slightly smaller.
>>
>>

-- 
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/61d94656-f599-4bc9-b259-1d7298857905n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Thanks.  I didn't even think to see if the chainline was matching some 
standard or other.  On multi-gear drivetrains, I've always been more 
concerned with, and prioritized, arm- or chainring-to-chainstay clearance.  
I might have compounded my problem by using a modern, wide (mtb or modern 
gravel bike?) crankset with a 130mm hub.  Crank was such a good deal on 
sale that I couldn't pass it up.

Funny, I meant to post this question on the ibob list.  But Brenton's 
thread - asking for advice on chain sizing - threw me off and made me think 
that's where I was.  At least the bike is a Rivendell.  :-)
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 7:09:03 PM UTC-7 aeroperf wrote:

> And of course, the system reversed my photos versus their names.  1 - 
> Soma.  2 - Homer.  3 - EV.
>
>

-- 
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/53a494b7-725f-419a-b237-7f1a54e4ad1cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] External bottom brackets for dummies?

[iamkeith]

Needing some confirmation that I'm doing things correctly with a new IRD  
crankset and x-type bb, from SOMA,  that I'm putting on an old bike.  I 
mostly have square-taper setups, so I'm fairly new to these external 
setups.  The others that I have are different (and more logical)  but I 
suspect this new one is actually more standard.

Question has to do with spacers and their configuration.  And lack of 
symmetry!  The crank and bb fit either 68mm or 73mm shells.  In this case, 
the spacers go between the cup and the threaded shell.  If there were two 
2.5 mm spacers, things would be obvious: one per side, 5mm total + 68mm = 
73mm, symmetrical.  But there are three 2.5 mm spacers and, through trial 
and error, I discovered that I need all three to take up side-to-side play 
in the crank.

The problem is that no arrangement of the spacers will give me symmetrical, 
lateral positioning of the crank arms.  If I use two spacers on the drive 
side and one on the n-d side, the arms are offset 2.5mm to the left (more 
space between the left chainstay and the crank arm),  if I put all three 
spacers on the right, it is 1.75mm  too far that way but, more important, 
seems fragile in a sort of cantilevered way, with not enough threads 
engaged between the cup and the shell.

Do people usually just live with the crank being offset to the left?  The 
perfectionist in me has a hard tine accepting that something isn't wrong.  
I've offset  phil-type bbs, with separate retaining rings, to adjust 
chainline or clear a chainstay, but never this severely.

Do shops keep thinner spacers around and just use those instead, for better 
adjustment?

(My other x-type bbs are on mountain bikes with 73mm shells, and the 
spacers went between the cups and the arms, and were thinner, to allow much 
more  fine-tuned adjustment).

-- 
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/e7100b64-084a-4ee0-ada0-c7c4b084787an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] big big chain sizing method dilemma

[iamkeith]

I agree with others, that it'll look better when threaded through a mounted 
derailleur.  Definitely do NOT remove another link until you try that 
though.Even so, I have definitely had cases where I still felt like 
there was too much slack, and ended up replacing the B-screw with a longer 
one.  In fact, I was doing that so often that I just bought some in bulk.  
(I think my issue is that Im usually trying to maximize gear range, rather 
than achieve tiny, incremental steps for maintaining cadence.)  In a pinch, 
you can also turn the B-screw around and thread it from the opposite side.  
In that case, UN-screwing it increases the tension.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 3:40:17 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Generally and to all: I've very often decided to use a rd that is far out 
> of spec in chain takeup for a given chainring + cassette combination, for 
> all sorts of reasons. Instances: well, first, the DA 7401 (I think it's the 
> ...01) on my present Matthews for an admittedly close ratio 13-25 10-sp 
> cassette but OTOH paired with a 44/28 wide range "1x + granny." But back in 
> the day a 8 sp Ultegra rd with a 48/38/26 crank and a 14-32 7 sp cassette, 
> just because. With the long hanger on the Spec SJ Team frame it worked well 
> enough: I could shift all 7 in the 36; but -- and this is point -- there 
> was severe chain sag in the grannies and all except the 3 or so biggest 
> cogs (perhaps 5 biggest with the Matthews). But then you don't use the 
> granny with the small cogs.
>

-- 
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/f509323e-87fa-486d-911a-529eae3ab630n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: If you plan to get a Roaduno..,

[iamkeith]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 1:54:57 PM UTC-7 aeroperf wrote:

Whups.  My shopping bike is 130mm.  Looks like I'll have to fix it rather 
than cannibalize it for a Roaduno.


It would be pretty easy to spread the frame by 10mm, given the longish 
chainstays we'reseeing on the prototypes..  Or maybe you can remove a 
spacer on  one or both sides of the axle, and re-dish the  wheel? 

To the original question, I've been thinking about a 3 speed / coaster 
brake too.  If not using caliper brakes allows for a little fatter tire, 
like 55 or 60mm, it will nudge  me even further that way.  

I'm watching this from a classic N+1 starting point.  I don't need a new 
bike - especially since I already have a Quickbeam - but was excited when 
the Roaduno was going to be based on the Clem.  I would definitely use a 
simple, low-maintenance, weather-proof, mud-proof and sand-proof, 
baloon-tired, cruiser sort of thing... that isnt crappy.   The ability to 
use 3 speed IGHs is the best thing about horizontal dropouts, once the 
single-speed novelty wears off.

-- 
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/adb7ac38-a79f-4190-8f46-2d6581742b16n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: New Jewelry for my Platypus

[iamkeith]

What a great story!  

In case it didn't come up, you should still try to keep your bike out of 
direct sunlight when you're not riding it.  I've have a fair number of Paul 
components at this point (first ones were those same moto-lite V brakes 
from 1995 or thereabouts), and most of them HAVE faded.  Black is kind of 
brown now.  I doubt it will be like your others, but you might as well 
preserve them the best you can.  Also, if anodizing is anything like paint, 
red tones will naturally oxidize quicker than other colors.

If I remember correctly, there are at least two methods of anodizing.  The 
one Paul uses is much less toxic and more environmentally sound, but 
doesn't impart as hard or glossy or deep of a change to the aluminum.  I'm 
sure I over-simplified that though.
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:17:21 AM UTC-7 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:

> George, never.
>
> The photo I showed was from Paul. It was just to show me the color before 
> they shipped my order to me. Paul  had to break everything into tiny pieces 
> for anodizing and then they put it back together in gorgeous packaging and 
> shipped it to me.
> [image: image0.jpeg][image: image1.jpeg]
>
> On Jan 12, 2024, at 12:30 PM, George Schick  wrote:
>
> Hopefully you took the bike and the brake parts to that good bike shop 
> over there this time where they know what they're doing, not the one that 
> you tried once and they lost some of your parts.
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:07:50 AM UTC-6 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>
>> Marc - my thoughts, too! I know if will fade a little bit over time, but 
>> should not be so severe.
>>
>> Minh, no, these are a new and full set that Paul sent to the anodizer for 
>> me! I did pay extra for that, but it was a nominal fee, I thought. They 
>> don’t usually do the entire brake, usually levers and barrel adjustors, I 
>> think, but we got wild and decided to do the whole kit. We just have to be 
>> careful setting them up, but then it should be fine and shouldn’t mark up 
>> the posts.
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:58 AM, Minh  wrote:
>>
>> pretty cool, so they did not have fully made parts but were able to sell 
>> you a box of partial parts to mix and match your own?  i"m guessing this is 
>> a little too labor intensive to make a regular thing but very nice of them 
>> to still be able to do this. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:55:49 AM UTC-5 Marc Irwin wrote:
>>
>>> If Paul did the anodizing, this time it will be right!
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 8:28:30 PM UTC-5 Bicycle Belle Ding 
>>> Ding! wrote:
>>>
 I have never had Paul anything. I’ve had whatever brakes and levers 
 came with my bikes and didn’t think any more about it. I did get my VO 
 brake levers anodized, but that batch of rose pink ano faded freakishly 
 fast and everything was silver 4 months later. 

 But I’m giving it another chance. Everyone talks about Paul, and Paul 
 sometimes offers their parts in pretty, anodized colors, but currently, 
 they do not. I emailed the company, asking if they happened to have any of 
 their pink levers laying around that they would be willing to sell me. I 
 got an email back from Paul, like THE Paul, who directed me to an employee 
 I won’t name here. He and I got in contact and he was so fun, right from 
 the start. We chatted and he looked at my bikes (I sent him my pics via 
 email) and we made a plan. 

 We colored it all. 

 The bolts, the brake body, the levers, the barrel adjustors ALL of it. 

 The parts came in 3 boxes, plus one extra little envelope. The envelope 
 had a small personalized gift from my new friend at Paul, just because, 
 with a handwritten note in the prettiest handwriting I’ve ever seen. 
 Swoon! 
 I opened the first box and it was wrapped like origami inside. I uncovered 
 the first gorgeous pieces and the breath left my body. So beautiful. 
 Quality even a novice can’t miss. Just what I wanted. Rich, rose color. 

 I would need to be with bike people to get the full joy out of this 
 experience. My bike shop knows about Paul Components. A blizzard is on its 
 way to Michigan and I knew my shop would not be busy. I put the pieces 
 back 
 in the box, loaded the boxes and my bike in the van and drove to the shop. 
 I came in and there were 4 mechanics and zero customers. “Guys!” I said, 
 “I 
 have a fun project for us to do, and I can’t do it without you! Who wants 
 to see what is in these boxes?” 

 So there we were on company time, hovering over these immaculate little 
 parcels, oohing and aahhing. There was extra swag in there, stuff I had 
 never seen. 

 “What’s this?” I asked, holding up a flat, wooden thing with Paul 
 emblems. 

 “It’s a carpenter’s pencil,” said the mechanic. I gave it to him.

 I left th

[RBW] Re: 2024 Frame Schedule

[iamkeith]

I admittedly parse these things to heavily, but the thing that struck me 
was the comma between  Charlie Gallop and nu model.  I assume that refers 
to the Charlie itself, but that barely feels new anymore.  Could there be 
something else we don't know about on the horizon, or was this a 
punctuation oversight??

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 2:03:05 PM UTC-7 drewfi...@gmail.com wrote:

> Saw this in the last email:
>
>
>- February - Clems
>- March - Lugged Susies - kind of a new model
>- April - Roaduno bikes and frames - new model
>- May - Sam Hillbornes
>- June - Appaloosas
>- July - Platypus bikes and frames
>- August - Charlie Gallop, nu model, bikes and frames, more info later
>- September - Roadini
>
> Been waiting to pick up a Sam for a lng time. Anyone else have plans 
> to pick up a new frame in 2024? 
>
> Also, Looks like the foreboding about the Atlantis going into retirement 
> is holding true with more appaloosas coming in the summer. Anyone out there 
> still pining for that turquoise dream? 
>
> - Drew  
>

-- 
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/97328bc6-d868-4195-99d4-f34e9014c568n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

If you watch that video from the youtube link at the end, he explains why 
the Racer is stiffer than more-common long-reach brakes.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:04:14 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
> originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
> acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
> useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
> center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
> newsletter:
>
>
>
>
> The Racer Brake
> Making the Classics Even Classier
>
>
>
> We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.
>
> You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
> what they are yet.
>
> Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=7994ab722d&e=f5449e7ee3>,
>  
> and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
> 27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=1c3617e3b3&e=f5449e7ee3>.
>  *
>
> Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.
>
> Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
> centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
> pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
> for conversion.
>
> What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
> your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
> stopping.
>
> Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
> NEW VIDEO PAGE 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=f8b185241f&e=f5449e7ee3>,
>  
> where all of our videos can be found.
>
> Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
> black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).
>
> [image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=8b61987dd6&e=f5449e7ee3>
> Product page, plus video 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=be57d4a7cb&e=f5449e7ee3>
> .
>
> Watch on YouTube 
> <http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=c4a111f0d9&e=f5449e7ee3>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:
>
>> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>>
>> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
>> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
>> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
>> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
>> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
>> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
>> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
>> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
>> the post mount Racers. 
>> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on 
>> the Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing 
>> and much more affordable brakes. 
>> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in 
>> wet weather braking generally suck.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>>
>>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>>
>>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>>
>>> Max Beach
>>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
>>>> decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
>>>> officially discontinued it just a couple of yea

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

That's interesting.  The website definitely says that the racer was 
originally designed to work with dedicated posts, but Paul has previously 
acknowledged that it was created per a request from Grant, with the rirst 
useage being the Saluki.  That bike never came with direct- mount 
center-pull braze-ons, unless maybe in prototype form.  This is from a 2016 
newsletter:




The Racer Brake
Making the Classics Even Classier



We’re a bike component company for people with tricks up their sleeves.

You’ve got plans for those old frames lying around...you just don’t know 
what they are yet.

Back in March we had an upcycle idea for your old mountain bike 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=7994ab722d&e=f5449e7ee3>,
 
and now we’ve another suggestion for converting that old steel classic or 
27-inch wheel bike to a 700c: *It’s called the Racer Brake 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=1c3617e3b3&e=f5449e7ee3>.
 *

Or what’s known as a long-reach brake with a reach of 57 to 70mm.

Back in the day, Grant Peterson of Rivendell fame called Paul requesting a 
centerpull brake like the Mafac Racer. Which sounded crazy But when Paul 
pulled down some old frames and got to thinking, he could see it’d be great 
for conversion.

What's so special about a Mafac replica? The arms are much stiffer than 
your typical dual pivot brake, which means more power is transferred for 
stopping.

Below is our video how-to on the conversion, and it’s housed on our BRAND 
NEW VIDEO PAGE 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=f8b185241f&e=f5449e7ee3>,
 
where all of our videos can be found.

Note that the Racer is available in recessed and non-recessed mounting in 
black, silver, and high polish. (Sorry folks, no green).

[image: Using the PAUL Racer Brake] 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=8b61987dd6&e=f5449e7ee3>
Product page, plus video 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=be57d4a7cb&e=f5449e7ee3>
.

Watch on YouTube 
<http://paulcomp.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5871cd1aab61e668a1275b221&id=c4a111f0d9&e=f5449e7ee3>


On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:07:00 PM UTC-7 velomann wrote:

> "The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
> version, on a Tony Pereira. "
>
> Yes, the *braze-on version* is a good brake - I had them on my Rambler 
> and was mostly satisfied with their stopping power. I was not happy that 
> the absolute widest tire that would clear the thin-line pads (with washers 
> reversed to get more clearance) was a 38. I ran 42's but had to deflate the 
> tire if I wanted to remove the wheel.
>  There's a reason these brakes were originally designed for special post 
> mounts, which the Roaduno will NOT have. You would have to use the single 
> fork/brake-bridge mount version of the Paul centerpulls, resulting in more 
> flex in the brake arms and lower performance (for the same high price) than 
> the post mount Racers. 
> All of which could have been avoided with cantilever/V-brake bosses on the 
> Roaduno, which would have allowed the option of several high-performing and 
> much more affordable brakes. 
> I live in Portland and as others have said, long-reach center-pulls in wet 
> weather braking generally suck.
>
> Mike M
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-8 reynoldslugs wrote:
>
>> The Paul Long Reach racers stop very, very well.  I have the braze-on 
>> version, on a Tony Pereira.  
>>
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/41563482@N06/13677929833/in/album-72157643546486474/
>>
>> If they work on a Roaduno, I'd vote for them.
>>
>> Max Beach
>> Santa Rosa CA 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7:37:28 AM UTC-8 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did 
>>> decide to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had 
>>> officially discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 
>>> for a pair, but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
>>>> brakes. 
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I can live with the hanger and shifter 

Re: [RBW] Roaduno

[iamkeith]

I assume everybody is aware but, just in case, Paul Components did decide 
to resume production of the long-reach Racer brake.  (They had officially 
discontinued it just a couple of years ago).   It's almost $400 for a pair, 
but at least it comes in purple.  ;-)

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 6:46:17 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> The Grand Crus are mid reach brakes, the Roaduno will take long reach 
> brakes. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ryan  wrote:
>
>> What about vo grand cru brakes?
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 4:11:26 AM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
> I can live with the hanger and shifter boss, they offer some intriguing 
>>> build ideas. But the long reach brakes killed this frame for me. Based on 
>>> my previous experiences with them, they are barely adequate in the dry, and 
>>> unacceptable in the wet. Maybe it doesn’t rain in Walnut Creek?
>>>
>>> I’m looking at (another) BMC Monstercross to scratch this build itch 
>>> instead. 
>>>
>>> Eric
>>> Not a long reach fan, even in flat
>>> Plain City OH
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 8, 2024, velomann  wrote:
>>>
 When the initial info about the Roaduno was coming out, I was pretty 
 stoked about it. I was anticipating a true, clean, Rivendell lugged single 
 speed with 120 rear spacing and the ability to take wide-ish 700c tires 
 courtesy of cantilever mounts.

 The addition of the derailleur hanger was the first sign this was being 
 designed for a different audience, and would be (in regard to my personal 
 interest) an odd duck. losing the canti mounts bums me out - the phrase 
 ""long-reach sidepull" is a real buzzkill for me - and now there's the 
 whole thing with the single left-side downtube boss. And I love DT 
 shifters, but I don't want one on my singlespeed.

 I guess the bike I really was wanting is closer to the Crust single 
 speed Lightning Bolt.
 But since learning the latest details, I'm maybe moderating my position 
 some. The Roaduno is most decidedly not what I was originally hoping for. 
 But it might still be a really fun bike for me. The idea of a single rear 
 and triple front is goofy, but maybe a cool way to set this up and push 
 back against my inner purist ;-)
 Currently on the Roaduno fence, I guess.

 Mike M



 On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:55:29 PM UTC-8 CMR wrote:

>
> Anyone test ride and can tell whether they will be a long top tube 
> model (e.g., Atlantis, Clem), or a shorter top tube model (Hillborne, 
> Homer)? The front-center looks super long in the photos which makes me 
> think a long top-tube, upright bars only build - which I'd prefer!
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> For those of you planning, plotting, conspiring to do a build of your 
>> own, one thing that is not crystal clear is that you'll need is a pair 
>> of 
>> long reach caliper brakes.  I've got two sets that I would like to sell. 
>>  
>> One is the very modest Tektro 365.  It's got the identical forgings and 
>> geometry of the "nicer" models but has a modest finish, solid brake 
>> blocks 
>> and a primitive adjusting barrel.  The ones I'm selling have some 
>> corrosion 
>> visible as well, so they are budget, ugly-duckling brakes.  The other is 
>> the nicer 556, which has a nicer barrel adjuster and came with nice 
>> metal 
>> pad holders.  These were on friend-Doug's A. Homer Hilsen and at some 
>> point 
>> he replaced one set of brake pads, so the holders are black on one 
>> brake, 
>> grey on the other, and the brake inserts themselves are red on one brake 
>> and black on the other.  I'm asking $35 shipped for the 365s and $55 
>> shipped for the 556s.
>>
>> Photos:
>>
>> 556
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53435669677/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> 365
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53437016535/in/album-72157634724093620/
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-8 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the 
>>> new bike is very similar to a Homer geometrically. I also saw some 
>>> reference to it being offered as a complete. I cannot wait to learn of 
>>> all 
>>> the details.
>>
>> -- 

>>> 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/d79a1bef-9075-4515-a829-cc9838f95609n%40googlegroups.com
  
>>>

[RBW] Re: Roaduno

[iamkeith]

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:32:33 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking of Roaduno, I read in one of the earlier updates that the new bike 
is very similar to a Homer geometrically.  


It's hard to keep up with changes, and I think we just need to wait until 
the end to know for sure what it'll be.  After that "just like a Homer" 
update, it seemed to get really long chainstays - much longer than the 
Homer.   Buy now they do say they're going to get shorter again.  
 

-- 
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/998f9cb4-5321-45c2-8d60-8955a7010f2bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Coaster Brakes for a Beachy Clem Build

[iamkeith]

You may get lucky with a "magic gear" ratio, that doesn't require a 
tensioner.  This will help:

https://eehouse.org/fixin/formfmu

The chain will eventually stretch and droop though, and that might be 
exacerbated by the longer-than-normal length.  

A drum brake is probably a better idea though.  You could even get this 
with a 3-speed igh.

Interested to see what you come up with.  This is why I was so excited when 
the Roaduno was going to be a single-speed clem.  I wanted to do the same 
thing for the exact same reason.  I want a "nice" bike to keep at a family 
condo in Florida, because I go stir crazy otherwise.
On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 1:22:39 PM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> Handsome has some coaster wheels for ~$150, but spaced at 110mm:
>
>
> https://handsomecycles.com/products/handsome-handbuilt-rear-wheel-single-speed-coaster-brake-aluminum-700c-silver
>
> Eric
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:58 PM Justin Kennedy  
> wrote:
>
>> I'm considering converting my 64 Clem L frame into a beach cruiser and 
>> kid hauler to keep at my in-laws' place in Florida. The bike is currently 
>> stripped down to just F/F/HS/BB, so starting from scratch here. I can 
>> source most of the components from my various parts bins, but looking into 
>> doing a coaster brake set up which I do not have on-hand. 
>>
>> Anyone have experience with setting up a coaster brake'd bike? (Not 
>> specifically on a Clem, just any bike in general.) I see MONē has a pretty 
>> bas 
>> ass coaster brake wheel 
>>  that's 
>> built on-demand, but I'm not sure it's worth $325++ as I'd prefer to keep 
>> the build as inexpensive as possible (we're only down there a few times a 
>> year). Any other off-the-shelf coaster brake wheelset recommendations? 
>>
>> Also, what other fun components make it a certified beach cruiser? I have 
>> some VO Klunker bars to throw on there and I got some some inspirational 
>> ideas at the two below links (LOOK barefoot pedals per Crust Matt's 
>> Romanceur, pops of anodized components, etc.). Maybe a B-O-B or Frances 
>> Cycles trailer to haul gear to the beach? What else is fun? 
>>
>>
>> https://theradavist.com/the-coaster-brake-challenge-and-yall-thought-you-were-a-freak/
>>
>> https://droppedchain.com/first-gen-romanceur/
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/d0786edc-83ec-4e0d-810e-69e9ce105782n%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/0bcb6e68-2bad-437b-8c8a-9046f97dee21n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] 1st world commuting dilemma

[iamkeith]

I can't seem to get past Josiah's reply, referring to Missoula and the U of 
M as having a notorious bike theft problem.  If that's true, then things 
have really changed since I went to college in Montana (MSU) in the 1980s, 
and is very sad.  I can't help but think/hope though, that bike theft there 
is mostly a crime of convenience?  College kids taking someone else's bike 
home from the bar, perhaps?  I can't even fathom it being as bad as Denver, 
where my daughter now attends college, and where bike theft is a 
full-fledged industry, and where the police turn a blind eye even when 
someone locates their stolen bike.  Thieves there use cordless angle 
grinders to cut locks in broad daylight, with no fear of repercussion.

What matters is crime conditions in Indianapolis though, and Josh's 
tollerance for risk.  I'm going to take the contrarian view, and say don't 
ride anything that you're not WILLING to lose.   If theft occurs locally on 
any kind of regular basis, just concede that it's inevitable.  Economics 
would matter more than brand to a thief - so they should to you, too.  If 
you can afford to replace the bike without it being a hardship, then go for 
it.  You can still get your current Atlantis, so there's not even the 
"irreplaceable" consideration that you'd have with the hunquapillar.   

On the other hand, if losing the bike is going to be a hardship or cause 
you to loose sleep and become bitter, get a "true" beater, and tune it for 
efficiency.   The fact that you're asking this question tells me you have 
some concerns.

But my opinion is  based on my own priorities and the life choices I've 
made, which are probably different than most people's..  I deliberately 
chose to live in a place where theft is non-existent, even though that 
choice came with career limitations and economic implications.  Partly for 
that reason, I tend to treasure my nice bikes and think of them as lifetime 
investments or heirlooms.  I usually don't have to make this choice, but I 
think I'd be happy to make riding them a stricly "special event," while 
having a dedicated sacrificial bike for the mundane.

-- 
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/c2dfe27a-ff5a-4799-9dc1-d4a53c7716e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: PSA: Brooks B68

[iamkeith]

Does this mean Riv can start selling the a la carte?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 5:40:17 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Hope you guys get yours quick. I put in an order for another item a month 
> ago at tradeinn and it still hasn’t shown up. 
>
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-7 Josh C wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I grabbed one. My wife ordered one with her Platy, that has yet 
>> to ship, and it got me wanting to try it out for myself. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:22:12 PM UTC-5 maxcr wrote:
>>
>>> PSA: I bought mine here a while back and saw they have some in stock:
>>>
>>> Brooks england B68 Saddle, Brown | Bikeinn 
>>> 
>>> tradeinn.com 
>>> 
>>> [image: icon-180x180.png] 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/2b5eabc4-9eb5-4965-a654-8279d7fa131bn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: son hub sales anywhere?

[iamkeith]

Don't forget about Peter White.  Also:  not to be argumentative, because 
I'm always on the lookout for sales and deals myself, but I think it might  
be an unrealisic expectation in this case.  If you want the best, you 
usually pay what it's worth.  In the case of anything that Petrr sells, I 
usually realize it's a bargain after researching and shopping and comparing 
enough.  I honestly don't know how a small, real, bike shop like his can 
offer the things he offers at such good prices.

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:49:11 PM UTC-7 Sean, PNW wrote:

> I haven't checked in a year or so, but the last few SON hubs I purchased 
> were all from European mail order sites (SJS/Bike24/Condor/Berthoud/etc) 
> and were significantly cheaper as a result of favorable exchange rates and 
> no VAT, despite the shipping cost.
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-8 in...@brentknepper.com 
> wrote:
>
>> hi pals, I'm considering buying a widebody 32h son hub in the near 
>> future. just checking if anyone's seen them pop up on any of the consumer 
>> bacchanalia sales over the weekend :)
>>
>> Brent "always asks Bacchus for a discount" in chicago
>>
>

-- 
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/e8c597fb-541c-47d8-b61d-a20d26c5c125n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[iamkeith]

That's cool about your serial number.  If there was ever a question, you 
for sure can never sell now.

Crank is VERY attractive, too.  I like arms with the fattened ends where 
the pedal spindle attaches, but it does make it harder to use a single mold 
for multiple arm lengths.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> One detail from the narrative on Roman's Legolas:  His serial number is 
> MN18RMS.  (M)ark (N)obilette 20(18) (RMS) Roman's initials.  Sure enough I 
> looked at my serial number and it's got my initials too!  That's pretty 
> fun.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at Roman's 
>> Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time, so I 
>> always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 
>>
>> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset. 
>>  Looks pretty cool!
>>
>> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, 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/ddf489bf-6115-46ce-9035-9b9dac253854n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Fender Install, Clem 52, SKS B65

[iamkeith]

I had to make a small notch for the chain to clear, when on the small ring 
of a triple crank
  Mine's a 59, and it's probably somewhat dependent on crank/bb choice.  No 
other trimming though.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:16:11 AM UTC-7 pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey out there. Ordered some B65 fenders for my 52 Clem and am wondering if 
> they required trimming? 
>
> TIA
>

-- 
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/f5d292f9-f070-4376-adb3-6a6d0d7bb0a7n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bosco Knuckle Clearance?

[iamkeith]

Oh - maybe never mind.  You said long-pull.  Oh, well, I'll take a picture 
anyway, in case it helps someone else..

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I have these Velo Orange levers on my bosco bar.  They work well.  I'll 
> take a photo tomorrow, when it's light out:
>
>
> https://velo-orange.com/collections/brake-levers/products/city-bike-brakes-levers
>
> I'm not sure I'd say they're easy to operate from a forward position, on 
> the curved part of the bar, though.  Prior to these, I tried dia compe 
> guidonnet levers (shown here on the VO site, by coincidence), and they WERE 
> operable from the curve as well as the straight section.  
>
> https://velo-orange.blogspot.com/2009/08/guidonnet-levers.html?m=1
>
> I didn't realize at the time, that I had the wrong version, meant for 
> fatter road bar diameter bars, which was preventing me from fully clamping 
> them,  and thus allowing the levers to rotate when operated from certain 
> positions.  I thought it was a design flaw, and only after subsequently 
> installing the city brake levers, realized that my error was just a clamp 
> size.  I wish I'd figured it out and given them a more fair try -  but I do 
> like both.  They both allow for full bar wrapping, like a drop bar or even 
> better, and  solve the knuckle clearance issue.  Flat bar levers don't seem 
> to make sense for these bars, to my thinking.  Plus, why spend more?!
>
> One caution:  With the city bike lever, I did have to raise my bars a bit 
> more than I prefer.  Otherwise, the end of the lever was aimed right at my 
> top tube...  a dent and heartbreak waiting to happen.  (This only equated 
> to about 1" of stem showing, above full insertion, but the bullmoose stem 
> has a lot of rise built in.)
>
>
> ³
> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7 Andrew Letton wrote:
>
>> Hello Good Listers,
>>
>> I have (55cm CroMo) Bosco bars and Shimano BL-R780 levers on my old 
>> Shogun kid-hauler/commuter, and I find that I just can't get the brake 
>> levers in a position that both works well for braking and gives clearance 
>> for my big knuckles when I have my hands on the top of the curve, forward 
>> of the levers.  I got in an "altercation" with a car a month ago (they 
>> turned in front of me, and I slammed into the side of their car at speed) 
>> and while my fractured shoulder and torn MCL are healing, I'd like to 
>> complete the bike repairs, so it's ready to ride when I am. The left brake 
>> lever suffered some damage, so I'm looking at replacing these with levers 
>> that have more knuckle clearance between the bars and the adjusters. The 
>> two levers that look promising online are the Paul Love Levers and the IRD 
>> Cafam levers, but I'm open to other long-pull candidates.
>>
>> *If you have Love Levers, the Cafams, or some other lever you think would 
>> be a good candidate, would you mind measuring the distance from the 
>> adjuster to the handlebar (assuming a straight bar, for consistency) and 
>> reporting back here?*  The dimension on these Shimano levers is about 
>> 28mm.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Andrew in Sydney
>>
>> [image: Inline image]
>>
>> [image: Inline image]
>>
>>

-- 
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/08c6f621-b6eb-427d-b6e1-c439ef84c71fn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bosco Knuckle Clearance?

[iamkeith]

I have these Velo Orange levers on my bosco bar.  They work well.  I'll 
take a photo tomorrow, when it's light out:

https://velo-orange.com/collections/brake-levers/products/city-bike-brakes-levers

I'm not sure I'd say they're easy to operate from a forward position, on 
the curved part of the bar, though.  Prior to these, I tried dia compe 
guidonnet levers (shown here on the VO site, by coincidence), and they WERE 
operable from the curve as well as the straight section.  

https://velo-orange.blogspot.com/2009/08/guidonnet-levers.html?m=1

I didn't realize at the time, that I had the wrong version, meant for 
fatter road bar diameter bars, which was preventing me from fully clamping 
them,  and thus allowing the levers to rotate when operated from certain 
positions.  I thought it was a design flaw, and only after subsequently 
installing the city brake levers, realized that my error was just a clamp 
size.  I wish I'd figured it out and given them a more fair try -  but I do 
like both.  They both allow for full bar wrapping, like a drop bar or even 
better, and  solve the knuckle clearance issue.  Flat bar levers don't seem 
to make sense for these bars, to my thinking.  Plus, why spend more?!

One caution:  With the city bike lever, I did have to raise my bars a bit 
more than I prefer.  Otherwise, the end of the lever was aimed right at my 
top tube...  a dent and heartbreak waiting to happen.  (This only equated 
to about 1" of stem showing, above full insertion, but the bullmoose stem 
has a lot of rise built in.)


³
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7 Andrew Letton wrote:

> Hello Good Listers,
>
> I have (55cm CroMo) Bosco bars and Shimano BL-R780 levers on my old Shogun 
> kid-hauler/commuter, and I find that I just can't get the brake levers in a 
> position that both works well for braking and gives clearance for my big 
> knuckles when I have my hands on the top of the curve, forward of the 
> levers.  I got in an "altercation" with a car a month ago (they turned in 
> front of me, and I slammed into the side of their car at speed) and while 
> my fractured shoulder and torn MCL are healing, I'd like to complete the 
> bike repairs, so it's ready to ride when I am. The left brake lever 
> suffered some damage, so I'm looking at replacing these with levers that 
> have more knuckle clearance between the bars and the adjusters. The two 
> levers that look promising online are the Paul Love Levers and the IRD 
> Cafam levers, but I'm open to other long-pull candidates.
>
> *If you have Love Levers, the Cafams, or some other lever you think would 
> be a good candidate, would you mind measuring the distance from the 
> adjuster to the handlebar (assuming a straight bar, for consistency) and 
> reporting back here?*  The dimension on these Shimano levers is about 
> 28mm.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andrew in Sydney
>
> [image: Inline image]
>
> [image: Inline image]
>
>

-- 
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/20986bff-0303-4dc3-8f0a-797939c807ebn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Considering trading my Ram for a Lightning Bolt

[iamkeith]

Alex, your modified Ram is outstanding.  Probably the most nicest, modified 
Rivendell I've ever seen.

This whole thread inspired me to wrap up a few things on my own 650b 
conversion project, an RB-1, and to ride my Ram one last time this 
weekend.  (It's supposed to start snowing this weekend, so season's over 
I'm affraid).

Interesting thing about the Ram, that strikes me every time, is how 
comfortable or "plush" it feels, despite only having 33.33 tires.  I don't 
understand why.  When it was new, it made "normal" road bikes, with 23 to 
28mm tires look positively silly.  As the rest of the industry has caught 
up and embraced fatter tires, the Ram now "looks' outdated next to a lot of 
other, newer bikes I saw.  My own tendency is almost always to choose 
something with fatter tires, too.  But as I said, I'm struck every time by 
how well it rides and how relevant it still is.  I don’t think I'll ever 
sell it, even if I have to be "prompted" to ride it once in a while.  I 
think if I ever felt differently, I'd now consider Alex's example.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-6 Applegate wrote:

> Hey Max,
>
> I sort of love this dilemma. As much as my platonic ideal of a bike has 
> been shaped by Jan Heine, featuring skinny, thin-wall tubing and a flat top 
> tube, I will definitely back a 650b Ram. I would wholeheartedly recommend 
> MAFAC Raids (or go all-in with the Compass/Rene Herse updates). I have a 
> couple pairs of Raids I'm reconditioning with brass bushings/washers and 
> could probably ship one your way for a reasonable fare. Not the point of me 
> posting though.
>
> I had a V1 XL Canti Bolt for 14 months, using it for randonneuring as well 
> as some gravel rides and mixed terrains touring (with smallish front 
> panniers on a lowrider rack). It was nice to look at and often felt great, 
> but it never really fit me (too long of top tube, seemingly resolved in 
> current geometry). I think I put just over 4k miles on it in that timespan, 
> which is probably the fastest mileage rate of any of my bikes to date.
>
> However, I also got a 62 (so 60 C–C, as it would happen) Rambouillet about 
> the same time, and the connection felt deeper, sooner. It was stripped to 
> the bare steel and was sporting an eccentric genius 650b build, courtesy of 
> @shredportals Lyle. I rode it as a be-basketed commuter and overnighter, 
> and knew the fit and ride quality was something I wanted to hold onto. I 
> asked Erik Billings for a small litany of BQ-rando-style frame 
> modifications (fork re-rake and all), and got new paint and decals from 
> Rick Stefani. It's now replaced my Crust Canti Lightning Bolt as my 
> midcentury French cosplay randonneuring bike, and I was very happy with the 
> more upright fit when I rode it for Paris–Brest–Paris.
>
> This is all subjective and fit-oriented, etc, but I support trying a 650b 
> conversion on your Ram first. It might just be the ticket for great joy; if 
> nothing else, then you have a 650b wheelset for your next bike? The most 
> ideal is if you could *somehow* have both built up and in your possession 
> at the same time, for some fun back-to-back testing.
>
> Anyway, here are some pics. Yes, I re-sold the Waterford Homer you sold me 
> (great bike though—don't try to 650b that one) Good luck with your process 
> here!
>
> Alex
> 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/87f948e7-3df6-456c-9c1a-2a2c67b7b97bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: New Platypus Lug

[iamkeith]

Interesting how our tastes are so individual.  I greatly prefer the lugged 
joint.  I was looking at the pictures in the newsletter, without 
consciously noticing what had changed, and thinking to myself:  "why did I 
dismiss this model until now?  These are just about perfect."  Does anybody 
know if the bottom bracket shell is lugged?  Tigged?  Fillet brazed?
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 5:44:36 PM UTC-6 ted.l...@gmail.com wrote:

> Gonna say I’m also more a fan on the fillet brazed variant but I can 
> understand from a cost and production standpoint why they might have 
> switched, lugs being easier to produce with less skill (relatively 
> speaking). Shame, though. The fillet brazing on the Gus was one of the big 
> attractions to me. It really enhances that swoopy, flowy look to me.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:28 PM Jason Fuller  wrote:
>
>> I hadn't noticed this! I liked the fillet brazed junction better too but 
>> it definitely looked like a pain in the butt to fabricate. The new lug (old 
>> lug - I am sure Allan's right) does have a clean and tidy look too.  A 
>> friend's Platy has a pretty noticeable blem in the brazing too, maybe 
>> evidence it was problematic for Maxway. 
>>
>> On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 06:54:04 UTC-7 Marc Irwin wrote:
>>
>>> Cost was probably involved.  The fillet brazing on the original Platypus 
>>> would be very time consuming and more difficult in a factory setting than 
>>> connecting a few tubes with lug.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:50:25 PM UTC-4 allan@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 [image: 0F3B224F-E805-48D6-9A22-8F51C4323F9C.jpeg]Perhaps they dusted 
 off the Betty Foy/Yves Gomez lug…

 On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 3:23:46 PM UTC-4 CoalTrain wrote:

> Looks like the new run of Platy's are getting a lugged top/seat tube, 
> where as the previous models were welded. Very nice.

 -- 
>> 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/8d73b56b-02b6-40a0-8cb1-527062b80239n%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/c5e53463-ce0e-4512-ae6c-e04faeca58f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Homers Going Live in a Few Minutes

[iamkeith]

Let me help.  :-)



On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:52:43 AM UTC-6 Dorothy C wrote:

I have been wondering all week what G.A.S. meant, and ran across it on the 
Path Less Pedalled Sam thread - gear acquisition sydrome... the Purchase 
Justification Machine I have 5 Rivendells now, and I am trying to quell 
the urge to replace sizes on two of them where technically the next 
size up would be a better fit and would open up 27.5 mountain bike tire 
sizes... my Appaloosa is one of 2 bikes I own that can squeeze inside my 
Scion xB


What you need is a circa 2006-8 Saluki, which was the old name for the 
Homer.  650 wheels, but shorter chainstays so it will fit your car (and 
give you some variety) and was available in the same butternut/mustard 
brown/yellow that the new batch of homers comes in.  Maybe by the time you 
find one, your desire will have cooled off.   Probably not, but always good 
to have a reason not to make spontaneous purchases - even ones you won't  
regret.

-- 
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/0cebd0fb-9313-4738-ae81-53d91c8fa0a2n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Bicycle Solidarity in Ukraine

[iamkeith]

Thanks for sharing this.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:14:39 PM UTC-6 John Rinker wrote:

> Stumbled across this bit of reportage after checking out Nick P's link to 
> arte.tv
>
> Ukraine: Bicycle Solidarity 
> 
>
> Cliché I'm sure, but bikes make a difference. 
>
> Cheers, 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/7a32afd7-8cb1-4d80-854b-c8653f793c98n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

Veering ever-so-slightly off topic, and apologies to those who don't have 
facebook, but check out the bike in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1148753762570679?mibextid=9drbnH


-- 
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/fd51189d-3d26-4e2c-85a2-443962a30701n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-6 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

.. does that mean the weight limit on those is going to be even lighter 
than before? Do you need to be a 150 lb rider to ride one now? I 
specifically chose the Gus because of all the discussions around the 
purported weight limits they placed on the 



Ok..  what I'm wondering *now*, is if there will still be a Gus too, after 
all.  I may have not followed closely enough and don't want to go back and 
search old info, but I thought the reason that we all assumed the Gus and 
Susie were merging into a single model was because a blug blurb said 
something about a "hybrid."   But could that have meant a hybrid in terms 
of lugs PLUS fillet welds? That's what these samples appear to be. 

Regarding weight limits, it seems that - with a couple of notable 
exceptions discussed in the group - the original Susie was alot stronger 
than anticipated.  So I wouldn't fret too much if you're considering 
getting one.  I'm a big guy myself, and certainly have no qualms riding my 
own Susie in rough conditions. It doesn't flex nearly as much as other 
bikes I own.   

I kind of thought the biggest difference between the gus's and susie's 
relative frame stregths came from their tubing diameters - especially the 
downtube, but including the headtube.   Maybe they could just thicken guage 
of  the smaller-diameter tubing if they wanted to make the susie stronger?  
Or make thin the gauge of the gus if they wanted to make it lighter?   But 
the later would require new lugs and we know Grant doesn't like thin, 
easily-dented tubing.

The oddest thing about not having a Gus Boots Willsen model is going to be 
explaining to people where Susie W Longbolts and Wolbis Slugstone derived 
from.

-- 
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/0ce3846a-3399-43c5-9c0e-b9b71e46ddb1n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:59:07 AM UTC-6 Justin Kennedy wrote:



The two bikes hanging behind Will in the pic are the lugged Susie/Gus 
hybrids. The swoop tube stays. 


I was just reading this thread on a full computer screen, instead of my 
phone, for the first time and noticed the unique colors on those frames.  
Hadn't even considered the frame details, but you're right!  Good eye. 

-- 
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/e7f04273-d63b-4af2-985c-714110541fb2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

The burrito does look like it has a concave shape side-to-side.  But, 
realistically, you just need something to stabilize the bag - not support 
it with a full "platform," right?  This does cuts into tire or fender 
clearance though, i suppose.   It does NOT seem to have the angled-up part 
at the rear, which seems to me like it would work better with a 
flat-bottomed saddlesack.  But the front of the bag would still get 
scrunched in the middle, like Vince's that Dorothy posted.  That's the 
trouble I had.  It took away a lot of volume and seemed like it would rub 
through eventually, if stuffed regularly.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:49:53 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hmm, I looked at the burrito but decided it was the same as a r10 but with 
> that “scooped” platform?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 2, 2023, at 2:43 AM, iamkeith  wrote:
>
> My own question got me searching the web for pictures of the R10 working 
> adequately.  I didn't see anything that convinced me it would, however I 
> did find this neat alternative:
>
>
> Simworks burrito rack.
>
> https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:47:22 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
>> couldn't.   
>>
>> That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that 
>> are improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
>> saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
>> mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
>> strapped to the seatposti front.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
>> two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.
>>
>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
>>> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
>>> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey group,
>>>
>>>
>>> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 
>>> to support it.
>>>
>>> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
>>> if need be.
>>>
>>> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>>>
>>> Thanks :)
>>>
>>> jared
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>> -- 
> 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/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
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/236504c8-65bd-494c-9965-e6aec67dcaebn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

My own question got me searching the web for pictures of the R10 working 
adequately.  I didn't see anything that convinced me it would, however I 
did find this neat alternative:

Simworks burrito rack.

https://www.sim.works/products/burrito-rack?variant=44004249927934



On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:47:22 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
> couldn't.   
>
> That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that are 
> improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
> saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
> mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
> strapped to the seatposti front.
>
> If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
> two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
>> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
>> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>>
>> Hey group,
>>
>>
>> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 to 
>> support it.
>>
>> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
>> if need be.
>>
>> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>>
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> jared
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
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/0df38be2-6062-4e3a-8787-1f8501461894n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] ISO: Nitto R10

[iamkeith]

Have you previously gotten a Saddlesack to work with an R10 rack?  I 
couldn't.   

That rack seems more suited to traditional bags, like a Caradice, that are 
improved by swinging them away from the seatpost and out from under the 
saddle.  Rivendell (sackville) bags are kind of hung from the center of 
mass, and only reall work when allowed to hang level, under the saddle, and 
strapped to the seatposti front.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to see photos of somebody successfully mating the 
two.  Otherwise, just something to consider before buying.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:34:18 PM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Jared. I could not find one here or anywhere for that matter. Ordered 
> from Bluelug & had it in less than a week. And, even with shipping from 
> Japan less $$ than domestic sources.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 1, 2023, at 9:45 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>
> Hey group,
>
>
> Acquired another SaddleSack medium and find myself needing a Nitto R10 to 
> support it.
>
> Would love to trade for a Riv Shiny rear rack or Marks rack, or purchase 
> if need be.
>
> Please respond off list at jared wilson327 at gmail
>
> Thanks :)
>
> jared
>
> -- 
> 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/205d7d47-c5d0-4984-9066-d26ef74319e1n%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/28c1a41e-b632-4f05-abc2-15974b1fbf13n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] WTB: Tosco-moose Bars, Threadless for the Gus

[iamkeith]

Something to consider is that, unlike the normal Bosco, the normal Tosco 
has a knurled section at the clamp area  and is oversized 31.8 diameter.  I 
agree that the bullmoose works best in terms of stiffness and inability to 
slip on the Bosco.  The it's the only version of that bar that I could get 
to work.  However, I have the steel, normal (clamp-on) Tosco on two bikes - 
a susie and another mountain bike - and have had none of the flex or 
slipping issues I had with a normal Bosco.  I'd suggest trying it if you 
know that's what you want, if you can't find a bullmoose version.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:38:26 AM UTC-6 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Erik. I don’t have one (Tosco-Moose) but I have almost made the same 
> request several times since building my Gus. I would still be curious to 
> try one but think I’ve settled on the next best alternative, the Nitto V-5 
> stem. It’s very solid with my 580 Bosco bar & only slips a little if I 
> forget to unweight my hands doing a drop. I did try a Boscomoose on my Clem 
> & could not deal with the fixed angle - I need the tips downs a  bit. It 
> would be nice if doing a lot of the rough stuff to not have to think about 
> the bar slipping.
> Good luck with your search. I think Will told me that Grant has one on a 
> tandem. Maybe you could talk him into parting with it.:)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 28, 2023, at 11:46 PM, Erik  wrote:
>
> I know this is a long shot, but I would love to land a Tosco-moose 
> threadless handlebar.  I think they were sold briefly around the time of 
> the first run of the Gus Boots Wilsen.  I'm looking to swap out my current 
> Gus cockpit for a swept-back option, but I want the moose configuration's 
> sturdiness.  
>
>
> Let me know if you have one burning a hole in your bike parts stash.  
>
> Erik 
>
> -- 
> 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/31777b76-e712-4cd9-992d-d228a5df4cc2n%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/cf90d653-0bcc-4fa5-9997-7557fc95ab18n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Favorite shifters yet, for Bosco bars

[iamkeith]

Sorry for all the typos.  Hopefully that made sense. Responding on phone in 
bright sunlight

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:41:10 PM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> My hand does move slightly forward to shift one direction, and slightly 
> back to shift the other.  But both positions are comfortable and natural. 
> Getti g leverage is easy both ways without having to let go of the bar 
> while shifting, which is one of the problems I have the single thumb lever, 
> sepending on where it is in the throw.
>
> In fact, my default grip when actuall riding along is forward, at the 
> curve of the bar.  I agree that the gpal is to maintain all the potential 
> grip positions, which is why I like the fact that they're on the inside of 
> the bar)
>
> The grip flange is soft enough that it folds under my palm and doesn't 
> bother me.  In reality, those grips were just another item from my parts 
> bins though.  I thought I'd use them until I got everything dialed in, and 
> eventually create permanent grips with tape and padding.  This is working 
> so well, that I think placement is already good, and I like the grips 
> enough (they're extra long to take advantage of the whole straight section) 
> ) that I may end up just putting some cloth tape on the curve and calling 
> it good.
>
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:59:04 PM UTC-6 DavidP wrote:
>
> Great that you not only found a setup that works well for you, but that 
> uses those neat shifters. A pair of the Diacompe wing shifters just went 
> for a steal over on the iBob group.
>
> Do you shift your hand forward to use the forward "wing" of the shifter? 
> Does the grip flange interfere?
>
> My Bosco bar bike uses a cheap Sunrace friction thumbie positioned on the 
> ramp of the bars so it doesn't interfere with a range of hand positions but 
> is also accessible from my primary cruising grip, which is a bit forward on 
> the bar.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:35:01 PM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:
>
> Short story, I stumbled on the realization that butterfly shifters work 
> very well on Bosco bars. I think dia compe has re-released something 
> similar, and may be worth considering if, like me, you love bosco bars but 
> never found the ideal shifter setup
>
> I've tried thumb shifters in a variety of configurations over the years - 
> inside, outside, reversed L-R and otherwise, with and without offset 
> mounts, located on the straight grip section, the forward sloped area, and 
> next to the stem clamp.   I was never satisfied though, and this feels the 
> most natural yet.  
>
> Longer story is that I had these bars on a Clem that I loved but imagined 
> could be improved;  regreatably gave that frame away thinking I could just 
> move all my parts to a Susie;  discovered that those were very different 
> bikes and that the bosco bars didn't work as well; replaced those bars with 
> tosco bars that are much better, but left the rest of the cockpit in 
> place.  Then, my beloved Clem  frame was returned to me!!  I had the bosco 
> bars, but needed new brakes and shifters;  didn't have the budget to buy 
> new;  rummaged through my parts bins and found these old, lightly-used 
> suntour butterfly shifters and 4-finger shimano levers, and LOVE them.
>
> Ironically, the reason I have these is that I could never get them to feel 
> right on drop bars as they were intended.  It always seemed like the levers 
> were angled backward and would have worked better on the opposite sides.  
> It felt the same here!  Since it had been working so well with left and 
> right levers reversed on the clem, and then susie, i just did the same 
> thing here and use them in friction mode.
>
>

-- 
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/6899ef40-5dc8-47ea-b99d-7b797ae98d81n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Favorite shifters yet, for Bosco bars

[iamkeith]

My hand does move slightly forward to shift one direction, and slightly 
back to shift the other.  But both positions are comfortable and natural. 
Getti g leverage is easy both ways without having to let go of the bar 
while shifting, which is one of the problems I have the single thumb lever, 
sepending on where it is in the throw.

In fact, my default grip when actuall riding along is forward, at the curve 
of the bar.  I agree that the gpal is to maintain all the potential grip 
positions, which is why I like the fact that they're on the inside of the 
bar)

The grip flange is soft enough that it folds under my palm and doesn't 
bother me.  In reality, those grips were just another item from my parts 
bins though.  I thought I'd use them until I got everything dialed in, and 
eventually create permanent grips with tape and padding.  This is working 
so well, that I think placement is already good, and I like the grips 
enough (they're extra long to take advantage of the whole straight section) 
) that I may end up just putting some cloth tape on the curve and calling 
it good.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:59:04 PM UTC-6 DavidP wrote:

Great that you not only found a setup that works well for you, but that 
uses those neat shifters. A pair of the Diacompe wing shifters just went 
for a steal over on the iBob group.

Do you shift your hand forward to use the forward "wing" of the shifter? 
Does the grip flange interfere?

My Bosco bar bike uses a cheap Sunrace friction thumbie positioned on the 
ramp of the bars so it doesn't interfere with a range of hand positions but 
is also accessible from my primary cruising grip, which is a bit forward on 
the bar.

-Dave

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:35:01 PM UTC-4 iamkeith wrote:

Short story, I stumbled on the realization that butterfly shifters work 
very well on Bosco bars. I think dia compe has re-released something 
similar, and may be worth considering if, like me, you love bosco bars but 
never found the ideal shifter setup

I've tried thumb shifters in a variety of configurations over the years - 
inside, outside, reversed L-R and otherwise, with and without offset 
mounts, located on the straight grip section, the forward sloped area, and 
next to the stem clamp.   I was never satisfied though, and this feels the 
most natural yet.  

Longer story is that I had these bars on a Clem that I loved but imagined 
could be improved;  regreatably gave that frame away thinking I could just 
move all my parts to a Susie;  discovered that those were very different 
bikes and that the bosco bars didn't work as well; replaced those bars with 
tosco bars that are much better, but left the rest of the cockpit in 
place.  Then, my beloved Clem  frame was returned to me!!  I had the bosco 
bars, but needed new brakes and shifters;  didn't have the budget to buy 
new;  rummaged through my parts bins and found these old, lightly-used 
suntour butterfly shifters and 4-finger shimano levers, and LOVE them.

Ironically, the reason I have these is that I could never get them to feel 
right on drop bars as they were intended.  It always seemed like the levers 
were angled backward and would have worked better on the opposite sides.  
It felt the same here!  Since it had been working so well with left and 
right levers reversed on the clem, and then susie, i just did the same 
thing here and use them in friction mode.

-- 
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/0803fbb8-b83b-41c6-ae13-735170c82cfen%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Did Charlie Gallop lose its swoopy top tube?

[iamkeith]

I like it too.  Interesting evolution.  I like the fact that Riv shares it 
with us, even if it occasionally means that you get attached to something 
that won't happen.   I imagine this helps keep the lug manufacturer busy 
and committed.  Plus, VO sort of stole some thunder when they knocked off 
the original charlie prototype as the low-kicker.  This is more true to 
their signature - although, yes, I see Joe's influence.

What I'm really wondering now, is if the Susie/Gus hybrid will go the same 
way.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:00:12 PM UTC-6 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I prefer a full low mixte or the swoopy hillybike style to a higher angle 
> but Rivendell doesn't do anything I would consider unpleasing to the eye. I 
> will need to see full geometry but it seems like this is just a Platy with 
> a slightly higher top tube. I doubt the tube set is different so weight 
> would be similar (just trying to think of roady considerations) Actually 
> its probably closer to a Cheviot.
>
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:05:21 PM UTC-4 J Schwartz wrote:
>
>> guess so
>> I think it looks so much better this way personally 
>>
>>
>> [image: Screenshot 2023-08-26 at 12.04.33 PM.png]
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:01:25 PM UTC-4 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting!  I wonder if they've pivoted on what the Charlie is going 
>>> to be.  Going lugged at the head tube, like the new Gus batch, is great but 
>>> losing the swoop tube would be a real shame (no offence Joe!  Your custom 
>>> pulls it off better than this Charlie IMO).  I would love to see it just be 
>>> a roadish version of the new Gus! 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 09:59:19 UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
 Right?? 😬

 [image: Screenshot_20230823_095848.jpg]

 On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:56:23 AM UTC-7 lconley wrote:

> Reminds me of a certain gray and red Rivendell Custom.
>
> Laing
>
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:05:09 PM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I mean...thats lugged and has a cream headtube. I don't care what the 
>> decal says, that can't be a Gallop.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-4 maxcr wrote:
>>
>>> From the Blue Lug instagram post, it seems like a proto Charlie with 
>>> a straight top tube at RivHQ:
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1965.jpg]
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1966.jpg]
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> PS. Apologies for the bad photo quality but it's hard to grab a post 
>>> from a video in IG.
>>>
>>

-- 
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/a2bdc6ca-2677-4f4c-b0f5-0137c62a10bcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: What to get, what to get....

[iamkeith]

I too think the 59 Clem perfectly describes what you're looking for - 
except I assume that's what you call unwieldy, having had direct 
experience.  As Johnny says  the revised, lugged Susie/gus might work, but 
it's a long way off and we can only make educated guesses about what it'll 
be.  I think that, with your experience and criteria  you might be a 
candidate for a custon riv.  

If you don't want that, the ONLY option I  can think of is an expensive 
one:  Jones makes the LWB in a large, spacframe version, but in titanium 
only.  Not a true stepthrough, but close and with most of the benefits.  
Accommodates disc brakes and rohloff and BIG tires.  Long by 
industry-standards, but not as long as a clem.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:02:20 PM UTC-6 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
wrote:

> Ha! It’s not out of the question that I would do such a thing! I have a 
> recurring nightmare that my bike gets stolen and then somehow by the end of 
> the dream I find an extra frame in the garage and it’s ok. But I think 
> Ariel had a 60, so too big!
>
> Kiley, I hope you find your dream Riv soon! 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 21, 2023, at 1:28 PM, jaredwilson  wrote:
>
> Leah,
>
>
> Mine is going to a sweet kid down in Los Angeles as his first Rivendell, 
> couldn't be more happy for him.
>
> Kiley was offered first right of refusal on Ariel's bike, I will be 
> listing hers in the next day or so. I did however have a dream last night 
> that you purchased it as some sort of reserve of Platypus goodness
>
> jared
>
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:42:49 AM UTC-7 Bicycle Belle Ding Ding! 
> wrote:
>
>> I see Jared’s 60 Platy sold…are you the lucky new owner, Kiley? 
>> 😍Leah
>>
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:53:21 PM UTC-4 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> @ Kiley - a Rivendell Clem 59cm would fit you best only in size, but 
>>> your all around needs as stated by Johnny.
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel
>>> Yelm, WA. 
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:37:46 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 Rivendell is going to replace the Susie/Gus line with something lugged 
 (I think) but that is going to be far down the line. You said you lusted 
 after a Clem L. What about one of those? They are at least related to the 
 hillybike family (susie/gus) and would meet everything you seem to want.

 On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:25:15 PM UTC-4 jaredwilson wrote:

> Piggybacking on what Joe just said, PM sent :)
>
> jared
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:19:25 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Did you like the Cheviot? The current (slightly longer) version is 
>> the Platypus; now with canti/v-brakes I would consider it a low-stepover 
>> equivalent to Appaloosa. You would probably ride a 60cm. 
>>
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:39:50 PM UTC-7 Kiley Demond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi- Formerly an active participant, I am now merely an inconsistent 
>>> lurker so I may well be asking questions already addressed. I will 
>>> gracefully accept links to previous conversations that answer the 
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Since I am approaching this with a wide range of 'acceptable' 
>>> answers, no need to limit responses to Rivendell-only possibilities. I 
>>> know 
>>> that you know what I mean when asking for certain things, such as a 
>>> steel 
>>> step-thru frame with great ride-ability and room for wider tires 😁. I 
>>> don't have to explain why those things are important. 
>>>
>>> My dream is a step-thru frame that is long enough in the chain stay 
>>> to be stable and handle-well, but not so long as to be cumbersome. With 
>>> a 
>>> PBH of 91 on a 5'10" person, I need all the help I can get with a large 
>>> bike that remains wieldy (I assume that is a word). Ideally, it could 
>>> be 
>>> fitted to be a pedal-assist electric bike at some future time.
>>>
>>> Riding: 20% pavement, 60% gravel/sand/dirt, 20% trails. Want 
>>> wide-ish tires but don't want to be a slug on pavement. (Of course, 
>>> what I 
>>> want and physics may not agree.)
>>>
>>> 1. Is there a new Riv bike on the horizon? I vaguely remember 
>>> reading about one, but I could be out of step with reality. This Q is 
>>> the 
>>> real impetus of this post.
>>> 2. In the non-Riv world, is there anything along these lines? 
>>> Perhaps one that may have (the pleasantries of) disc brakes and an 
>>> internal 
>>> hub?  
>>> 3. Step-thru frames for the tall?  Perhaps available in northern 
>>> Europe where the bike-lovers are frequently tall? I once imported a 
>>> Dutch 
>>> bike, so purchasing options don't have to be restricted to the U.S. (It 
>>> did 
>>> not handle particularly well and made my Cheviot look positively 
>>> svelte.)
>>>
>>> My actual Riv experience has been a Cheviot I owned for a couple of 
>>> ye

[RBW] Re: tube tear at valve stem base — any ideas why and how to fix?

[iamkeith]

I began having this problem frequently, about 5 years ago.  Nothing else 
about my skills or habits or rims changed from the previous four decades, 
so I've concluded that there is likely a manufacturing issue.  
Thinner/less/more brittle rubber at the base of the stem or something.  
There have always been the occasional "slices" due to tube rotating around 
the rim, or due to too-sharp edge at the valve stem hole on an aluminum 
rim, but this is different, and happened like you describe, one tube after 
another.  I could be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to fix them.

Knowing that doesn't help solve your issue though.  Here's what I started 
doing, and it's pretty much solved the issue for me:

When you install a new tube, keep the knurled nut on the stem, snug it 
lightly, and install the tube with the nut INSIDE of the rim.  Keep the nut 
from the old tube, and intall on the outside of the rim, the normal way, 
and snug firmly.  This will ensure that only the metal stem will ever 
contact the sharp or abbrasive part of the hole in the rim, which is now 
sandwiched between two nuts.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:03:27 PM UTC-6 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I had the same thing John P describes, tire rotating in rim, tugging the 
> tube along, causing the valve to tilt then tear at the base.  I also had it 
> happen twice in a day until I decided I was running the tires at too low a 
> pressure.  Increasing PSI solved the problem.  
>
> Jim in Rochester NY
>
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-4 John P. in SF wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> If what is happening to you is what happened to me, your tire is rotating 
>> on the rim. 
>>
>> This sometimes happened when I was using an undersized tube like Patrick 
>> M. mentioned, but it happened a lot to me when using modern tires on older 
>> rims, and less when using a tubeless compatible rim. Flats generally 
>> occurred when riding somewhere that involved heavy braking, and occurred on 
>> around three different bikes I have or have had. Like the one time I got a 
>> front flat at this spot 
>> .
>>   
>> I sometimes speculate that the rim heating up somehow aids with making the 
>> tire rotate, which then tears the stem, but that is just a guess.
>>
>> Moving to a tubeless setup was the only cure I found.
>>
>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I was inspired by Matthew's "Patch or Replace Tire" thread, but 
>>> didn't want to usurp it with my question/issue, so I'm starting a new one. 
>>>
>>> My tire went flat during a recent ride on my Hunq. Upon inspection I saw 
>>> that there was a tear near where the valve stem attaches to the inner tube. 
>>> No biggie. I replaced the tube with a spare, got back to riding, but within 
>>> 15 minutes, another flat. Same tear in the same location. I replaced the 
>>> tube with yet another spare. This was starting to feel weird. The same 
>>> thing happened within a few more miles, another tube gone. 
>>>
>>> I had no more spare tubes, but a buddy gave me one that is specced for 
>>> narrower tires. I managed to get back home without incident.
>>>
>>> The attached pic shows where the tear occurred in each instance.
>>>
>>> But three flats on a single ride! I replaced the tubes the way I always 
>>> do. Nothing dramatic about it. I used a pump to inflate two, and a C02 
>>> cartridge to inflate another. I snugged the valve nut like I always do, not 
>>> too tight, not too loose. I handled the valve stem carefully, no jerking or 
>>> bending it. The air pressure was about medium, not too high, not too low. 
>>>
>>> I used three different types of tubes, one a Schwalbe, another was a 
>>> no-name, and the other was a Teravail. I inspected the 50mm Schwalbe 
>>> Marathon tire carefully and found nothing of concern, no glass, screws, 
>>> metal, shards, etc. The Lesnik-built wheel itself had run fine for many, 
>>> many miles with no issues, no flats, nothing, and is in excellent 
>>> condition. I had been riding on smooth pavement when the flats occurred, 
>>> and there was nothing remarkable on the road.
>>>
>>> But suddenly, on that day, all inner tube hell broke loose. I'm stumped. 
>>> I don't know what to do differently so I've been thinking about the saying 
>>> (misattributed to Einstein): "Insanity is doing the same thing over and 
>>> over again and expecting different results."
>>>
>>> I'd be grateful for any ideas you might have or experiences you can 
>>> share. 
>>>
>>> Thanks!!
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_8384.jpg]
>>>
>>

-- 
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.go

[RBW] Re: Early 80's Specialized Sequoia

[iamkeith]

Were there different versions of the Sequoia?  The one I was familiar with 
was a dark metalic grey one, but I think it came in dark blue, too.  It wA 
a fantastic bike, built by Toyo if I remember correctly. But I thought it 
was a full-on touring bike, with heavy tubing, low bottom bracket  shallow 
seat tub angle - compared to sportier bikes of the era.  My friend used his 
for numerous, long, heavily-loaded tours, including a months-long, 
dirt-road (mud) trek from Montana to Alaska and back.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 11:31:13 AM UTC-6 Ted Durant wrote:

> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 11:57:41 AM UTC-4 Peter Bridge wrote:
>
> Did your noticeably heavy Sequoia perhaps have heavy wheels or thornproof 
> tubes or a spring Brooks saddle or some such?  I find Sequoias to be 
> sportingly light. 
>
> No, it was the stock parts that came with it. Fairly light wheels, Turbo 
> tires. I would make the same statement about Heron #1, the prototype, which 
> is a Road frame built with Touring stays at the rear. Both frames are a joy 
> to ride. 
>
> Interestingly, I read somewhere that the Sequoia was designed with a bit 
> heavier down tube and chain stays. Recently I posted on a frame building 
> forum a query about the ratio of stiffness among the frame tubes. If you 
> look at older Reynolds tube set specs, they have .1mm thicker down tubes 
> than top and seat. Or, if you like, their top and seat tube walls are .1mm 
> thinner than the down tube. All other tube manufacturers, and even Reynolds 
> now today, specify tube sets with equal wall thickness around the main 
> triangle. It's also important to note that the down tube and seat tube were 
> always 1/8" larger diameter than the top tube. Lately it seems steel 
> builders have been experimenting away from that, but I haven't seen any 
> discussion of why they would do that. For my Rivendell Road, for example, 
> Grant spec'd the exact same tube for both top and down tubes. So, that goes 
> the other direction, making the top tube exactly the same stiffness as the 
> down tube. BUT, because the top tube is shorter than the down tube, there 
> is less butted section remaining in the top tube. Anyway, my hypothesis is 
> that the relative stiffness among the tubes has an effect on how the frame 
> feels, and the a stiffer down tube and chain stays is what produced the 
> "magic" feel of a Reynolds frame. Perhaps backing up this hypothesis is the 
> "Spine" line of frames that Trek built, with steel or titanium down tubes 
> and chain stays, and carbon tubes elsewhere. Their marketing touted the 
> effect that had on the feel of the frame. A friend has the titanium one and 
> he loves it.
>
> Sorry for the meandering detour. I just found the Specialized Sequoia 
> frame to feel heavy when lifting, compared to some other steel frames. But 
> I loved the way it rode.
>
> Ted Durant
> Milwaukee WI USA
>

-- 
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/6eda4be4-d5bd-4260-9cf7-b63659672029n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Roaduno

[iamkeith]

Changing subject slightly - there have been some comments worrying that 
this will simply be a homer and the logical "why bother"  question implied, 
given that it's no longer a true single speed.  I have no inside knowledge, 
but suspect it will be different.  Specifically, I'd supect it to have a 
higher bottom bracket than the homer, to accommodate those who want to use 
it as a fixie. 

 The Quickbeam had a higher BB, and I can't help wonder if that's the thing 
that made it's ride quality so magic and so unique compared to other 
contemporary models.  (That was my riv era, so I also have a ram and a 
saluki and, as similar as they are on paper, they just feel totally 
different.) 

My newer rivs are the long, hilli bike type (susie/clem) instead of the 
road type.  Because those are what I prefer most of the time is why I was 
excited about the first Roaduno concept /prototype.  But, since it's now 
different, I just can't imagine it being less than a  improvement to the 
QB/SO.   

Like most, I tired of the single speed limitations, and have spent years 
planning to add gears to my QB - via IGH in my case.  This is despite 
owning the Saluki and Ram.  It's just such a good ride, I can't imagine 
getting rid of it.  The long winded point of this is that i totally 
understand the addition of features for adding gears.  If the bike ends up 
being a "keeper " most are going to get there eventually.

-- 
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/d4131248-9384-438d-83c0-c4b69a08d7d9n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: 2023 Riv Geo Chart

[iamkeith]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:05:15 AM UTC-6 Hetchins52 wrote:

Interesting to see that the chart shows a 2.5" max tire width for the 
Gus/Susie lineup.
The RivBike site says 2.6" max and when the frames first came out they were 
expected to fit up to 2.8". That was ... optimistic!
And, the website no longer shows a 60cm option for the GBW frames.
David (Susie in 53/650b) Lipsky
Berkeley


I have 2.8s on my Susie.  With fenders.  I wont claim the fenders were easy 
or that the steering is ideal, but they fit fine.  Still, 2.5 max is 
interesting.  




 

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-7 steve...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for sharing this Max.  I enjoy geeking out on the numbers!

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:50:46 PM UTC-4 maxcr wrote:

Here's a little nugget from Will's email, I know a few people were looking 
for the geo charts of the new frames.
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/73a8a7d2-b418-4951-93d0-c9b77c250f5cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: soma-champs-elysees-mini-front-rack On a Sam

[iamkeith]

I've got an unused one I can sell you cheap.  I can take measurements if 
you need.  It is indeed sturdier than the nitto racks, both because of the 
fixed strut and the thicker diving board.  I got it for my Saluki.  The fit 
was spot-on (I suspect it was designed for the Rivendell-standard), but the 
diving board interfered with my Paul Racer brakes.  I don't think any other 
brakes should be an issue, but measurements should confirm.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:08:09 AM UTC-6 Davey Two Shoes wrote:

> Hi All,
> I'm thinking about this rack, but I'm a little shy to pull the trigger 
> since its not adjustable. It seems sturdier than the M-18 and I like he 
> look. Does anyone run this on a Sam, did it fit without issue? I run Paul 
> Mini Moto brakes, I dont expect an issue there but who knows.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>

-- 
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/e14a8115-0eff-4191-b8df-c1127277b0bbn%40googlegroups.com.