[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Good point. A good custom builder should at least know what size crank the buyer intends to use. Depending on the level of communication before the build, the builder may know how the rider pedals. On Feb 5, 12:42 am, Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 4, 12:18 pm, CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net wrote: on 2/4/10 8:28 AM, Rene at valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: ... You could probably measure the BB to front axle distance, and see if there was a consistency in what size caused the issue. The variables would be wheel size, tire size, fender standoff (gap from tire), fender thickness, shoe size (literally, the materal thickness at the toe), foot position with relation to pedal spindle (i.e. how much meat is in front of the spindle, ... Two more variables - foot angle and crank length. The angle of your toe up or down (pitch?) affects your TCO. I can go from a full inch of overlap to none just by tilting my size 12s up or down. Employee sizing a bike: So, what's your PBH? Okay. How do you pedal? What's the yaw, roll and pitch of your foot when pedaling normally? What do you mean 'what?' You know: Yaw! Pitch! Roll! I have fat knobbies and metal fenders on my (fixed) 60cm Quickbeam, and I hit the fender stays sometimes at slow speeds. When I had 175mm cranks on the bike, I hit the fender all the time. That's not why I took them off the bike, but I probably wouldn't put them back on, either. Philip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:28 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? Jeez, what's with the little wheels? Aren't those wheels awfully slow? Small wheels have higher rolling resistance. Etc. I tell them this wheel is 14 years old and I've never had to true it. Then I pass them going down the next hill. Interesting. I've been on several rides with people riding Bike Fridays, and I've never heard anybody make any comments other than discussions of travel bikes, touring, high airline fees, etc. and I ride my 650B bikes on many rides and nobody's ever said anything about a smaller wheel size to me. However, I've ridden an AM-series Moulton on some rides and yes, there sure were plenty of comments about that! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Tim is sensitive about his small wheels. Whenever he visits me at the shop, I try not to stare. On Feb 4, 8:03 am, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:28 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? Jeez, what's with the little wheels? Aren't those wheels awfully slow? Small wheels have higher rolling resistance. Etc. I tell them this wheel is 14 years old and I've never had to true it. Then I pass them going down the next hill. Interesting. I've been on several rides with people riding Bike Fridays, and I've never heard anybody make any comments other than discussions of travel bikes, touring, high airline fees, etc. and I ride my 650B bikes on many rides and nobody's ever said anything about a smaller wheel size to me. However, I've ridden an AM-series Moulton on some rides and yes, there sure were plenty of comments about that! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 4, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:28 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? Jeez, what's with the little wheels? Aren't those wheels awfully slow? Small wheels have higher rolling resistance. Etc. I tell them this wheel is 14 years old and I've never had to true it. Then I pass them going down the next hill. Interesting. I've been on several rides with people riding Bike Fridays, and I've never heard anybody make any comments other than discussions of travel bikes, touring, high airline fees, etc. and I ride my 650B bikes on many rides and nobody's ever said anything about a smaller wheel size to me. However, I've ridden an AM-series Moulton on some rides and yes, there sure were plenty of comments about that! Another interesting bit is that I only get comments if the fenders are off the A/R; with fenders on, no one seems to notice the smaller wheels. And another factor is that I used to ride the A/R on racing club rides. Most of the group rides I go on now are with people who get the Rivendell thing (and are often riding various Riv products themselves) so I don't get specious comments from them! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I've only had a couple of comments about my 26-wheeled XO-1. One fellow commented on the long wheelbase, mistaking the roomy clearance for fat tires for axle to axle stretch, I think. Another comment when I was jamming on a club ride that I was pretty fast on that thing. It is a pretty lively bike with 1.5 Paselas! I''ve never felt it was notably slow due to the small wheels, and they sure accelerate quick. (also noted on my 26 Bianchi Milano fixed gear conversion commuter) No one's ever noticed the wheelsize on my 650b Saluki--testament to the proportional appearance of 650bX38 wheels/tires on a 54cm frame, I think. I have gotten a couple of comments on the fancy, bags on my Saluki and other Rivs, though. B-) Steve Frederick, East Lansing, MI -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Frederick, Steve frede...@mail.lib.msu.eduwrote: my 26 Bianchi Milano fixed gear conversion commuter May we see photos? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. -- Rene On Feb 3, 2:12 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
There's a couple on my flick'r page--it lost a lot of weight when I took off the Nexus IG/drum brake hubbed wheel! http://www.flickr.com/photos/40738...@n08/3763276193/ Those are cut down Nitto Promenade bars--pretty nice Scorcher style setup! I have different bars on there now but no pics of the current setup... Steve -Original Message- From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com]on Behalf Of PATRICK MOORE Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:09 AM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Frederick, Steve frede...@mail.lib.msu.edu wrote: my 26 Bianchi Milano fixed gear conversion commuter May we see photos? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Actually, Grant didn't start the thread. But I think it is time for other entrail readings and that we should move on to analyzing Grant's wardrobe or his deoderant or something. I don't like his haircut. Anyone else care to chime in? Christ! Let's all get ourselves lives! On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rene valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. -- Rene On Feb 3, 2:12 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
I do have a life. that's why i don't reply to any all topics here;-) if grant did not start the thread, who did? isn't it if your name is on topof the topic or the first one, it is considered that you started the topic? -- rene -Original Message- From: PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com>Sent: Feb 4, 2010 12:13 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. Actually, Grant didn't start the thread.But I think it is time for other entrail readings and that we should move on to analyzing Grant's wardrobe or his deoderant or something. I don't like his haircut. Anyone else care to chime in? Christ! Let's all get ourselves lives! On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rene valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all theRivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me lesssensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hopeRivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating atwhat size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be "a problem"even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is abigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly toRBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I canpropose it here.-- ReneOn Feb 3, 2:12pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: "TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice." For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text ---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.-- Patrick MooreAlbuquerque, NMFor professional resumes, contactPatrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com(505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Actually I think this round of TCO discussion was started off with this innocuous little query... Subject: TCO on an Atlantis? Morning query: With BIG 50mm or larger tires on a 700c Atlantis, are there TCO issues? Enjoy a Sunday ride! Cheers, David Redlands, CA Grant did start this particular thread in response to that thread which also diverged into a thread about tire width side of things. So while he may have started the thread, he did not start the topic, he was responding to it, albeit using a different subject line. Apparently I don't have anything better to do today than sort through old email. :-) And, if one really wanted to go back, I thinking one could claim this is all just an extension of the 12/1/2007 (!) topic: Not The Last Word on TCO ( http://goo.gl/SaGU ) One my QB (700c/35mm/fendered/big feet/no clips) I did experience a wee bit of TCO (no consequences) the first day I rode it and, having noted it, have never had a problem since then. At least on my bike it isn't particularly hard to avoid, even at low speed. Aloha! Bob On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Rene Valbuena valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I do have a life. that's why i don't reply to any all topics here;-) if grant did not start the thread, who did? isn't it if your name is on top of the topic or the first one, it is considered that you started the topic? -- rene -Original Message- From: PATRICK MOORE Sent: Feb 4, 2010 12:13 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. Actually, Grant didn't start the thread. But I think it is time for other entrail readings and that we should move on to analyzing Grant's wardrobe or his deoderant or something. I don't like his haircut. Anyone else care to chime in? Christ! Let's all get ourselves lives! On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rene valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. -- Rene On Feb 3, 2:12 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Robert
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
This has gotten ridiculous. Grant's post ended with an expression of concern that he shouldn't have said anything. I imagine it might be a bit before he does again and I for one find that unfortunate. TCO is an offense? Honestly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:34, Brad Gantt brdg...@gmail.com wrote: This has gotten ridiculous. Grant's post ended with an expression of concern that he shouldn't have said anything. I imagine it might be a bit before he does again and I for one find that unfortunate. TCO is an offense? Honestly. This is directed to Brad and Patrick: is there really a need to be so condescending? You don't mind TCO, fine. Please don't insult those of us who do. James Black -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:42, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: This is directed to Brad and Patrick: is there really a need to be so condescending? You don't mind TCO, fine. Please don't insult those of us who do. And by the way - I joined in this discussion not because it gives me pleasure to fight with Grant Petersen, but because I think it's important for him and others to be aware of the perspective of people like myself (prospective customers). James Black -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 3, 4:17 pm, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:54 PM, JoelMatthews wrote: For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed around 26 wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. Did not realize people were so hostile to 26. I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26 wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26 because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. Ha, it could be worst, can you imagine what people would say if you were riding 650B wheels? The HorrorThe Horror... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Email and forum posts are a poor substitute for actual communication. Intent, tone, etc. is often lost in translation. If I insulted anybody, I apologize. I simply felt as though this string had degenerated beyond the point of reason and perspective had been lost. I make no judgement as to the importance (or not) of TCO. My comments were directed at the nature of the discussion following Grant's post. I will admit that I simply do not understand the sentiment that TCO is an offense. I believe that word choice is inflammatory and honestly insulting to the designers and builders of these bicycles. I also admit that I cannot understand the heated reaction to Grant's post. As always, we have options when we purchase bicycles. If a particular builder is committing an offense by designing bicycles the way they believe best, perhaps we should look elsewhere. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
on 2/4/10 8:28 AM, Rene at valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. I think GP's post was a new thread to comment about a previous thread. Nevertheless, I do want to remind folks that if they want to communicate with Rivendell on any subject, the best way if directly. (Or cc them on the email with a note explaining why.) This list is an off-site get together. Back on this subject, to paraphrase and engage in conjecture, I think Rene's post above gets at the crux of the issue - the significant number of variables in what seems a simple question. A frame that has no TCO for a rider with size 10 feet may cause problems if you are a size 12. If I use a clip-in pedal system, with cleats under the ball of my feet, that's going to be different than if I use platforms and pedal with a mid-foot-centered position. Large soled shoes? Fitted shoes? Do I make low course corrections more with body english or tiller input? Clearly, for those folks to whom this is an issue, there must be a way to quantify it. You could probably measure the BB to front axle distance, and see if there was a consistency in what size caused the issue. The variables would be wheel size, tire size, fender standoff (gap from tire), fender thickness, shoe size (literally, the materal thickness at the toe), foot position with relation to pedal spindle (i.e. how much meat is in front of the spindle, though you can really just combine those two variables into one), and crank length. But, all of those would run on the basic dimension of bb to front axle. So, I get all charged up and measure this out on the Quickbeam, a 58 cm frame which seems to have about a 610 mm bb-front axle measurement. The distance from the axle to the outside of the fender is 362 mm, the cranks are 170 mm and the foot protrusion is 100 mm. Which would mean that the overlap is ~22 mm. Except it isn't. I don't have any issues on that bike. And then it dawns on me that the whole thing has a 2nd dimension which involves (a) the arc of the front wheel and (b) the offset of foot position from the centerline of the bike (determined by bb spindle length, crank tread width, length of pedal spindles, and the inboard/outboard position of the foot on the pedal itself.) So, if I pedal with toes pointed in, using a narrow Q crankset on the shortest possible bb spindle, it's going to be different than toes out, wide cranks and longer bb spindle. And that, my friends, gets quickly beyond any math I can quickly do in my head on a lunch break. Dang. - Jim humbled by numbers once again... -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net One Cog - Zero Excuses L/S T-shirt - Now available http://www.cyclofiend.com/stuff Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:00, Brad Gantt brdg...@gmail.com wrote: I will admit that I simply do not understand the sentiment that TCO is an offense. I believe that word choice is inflammatory and honestly insulting to the designers and builders of these bicycles. I also admit that I cannot understand the heated reaction to Grant's post. As always, we have options when we purchase bicycles. If a particular builder is committing an offense by designing bicycles the way they believe best, perhaps we should look elsewhere. Sorry, I used the word offense and didn't mean it to be inflammatory - I mean it in the same sense that I would use the word offensive to describe a lingering bad odor in a room I just entered. I consider TCO an annoyance, and fairly mild, but it would annoy me on a continuing basis if I had to deal with it. And I agree, all customers should consider how important TCO is to them when selecting a bike. That's why I wanted this perspective given proper consideration by Grant and others in the business of designing bikes for customers! I've read many reports over the years of people falling from their bikes because of TCO. It hasn't happened to me, but I wouldn't want to tell anyone that the thing that made them fall over was purely user error and not an attribute of bicycle design. Further, I submit that the heated reaction you perceive was essentially begged for by Grant's comment, and he knew it was coming, and we gave it to him. And he probably did regret it in the morning, as he said he would. And I think I've now said all I have to say on this stimulating topic. Thanks, James Black -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
RE: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
CycloFiend wrote, in part: I think GP's post was a new thread to comment about a previous thread. Nevertheless, I do want to remind folks that if they want to communicate with Rivendell on any subject, the best way if directly. (Or cc them on the email with a note explaining why.) This list is an off-site get together... I'd like Grant to be able to pop in here and make a post occasionally just as a guy, a fellow rider. I know it's tough to not read everything from him as gospel (which he hates, I understand) or the official Rivendell final word on something, but I think he was just weighing in with his own feelings about TCO. (and I do recognize that his word often is the final one on all things Rivendell so that there's a bit of a catch 22) I (speaking just as a guy and fellow rider) prefer little or no TCO but can live with it if need be--I wouldn't trade my Rambouillet for anything, TCO and all, even though my Saluki has no TCO at all...which speaks volumes I think for the advantages of designing smaller frames around smaller wheels... Steve Frederick, East Lansing, MI -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
I've read many reports over the years of people falling from their bikes because of TCO. It hasn't happened to me, but I wouldn't want to tell anyone that the thing that made them fall over was purely user error and not an attribute of bicycle design. This I think is the crux. TCO is an aspect of bicycle design as Grant stated. In his opinion (and the majority of builders in my experience), TCO is the lesser evil when considering the entire bicycle's sizing, handling, aesthetics, performance, etc. If there was some way to achieve all the rest and not have TCO in ALL frame sizes, ALL wheel sizes, ALL tire sizes, and ALL shoe sizes, then ALL builders would likely pursue this course. A bicycle frame is a closed system, at least when we are talking about a traditional diamond frame, and as such when you tweak one thing, everything else is effected. I realize that most folks here know this but sometimes I think it is easy to forget just how difficult it is to design bicycles that ride as well as Rivendells do. I am astonished how my new Riv has literally transformed the experience of riding for me. I put myself in Grant's hands and I'm very glad I did. Over and out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
That would be affected not effected. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Not to offend anybody, but my personal opinion is that TCO is a sign of weak character and moral failing. On Feb 4, 2:44 pm, Brad Gantt brdg...@gmail.com wrote: That would be affected not effected. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 12:49 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Not to offend anybody, but my personal opinion is that TCO is a sign of weak character and moral failing. Weak character on the part of the frame builder and designer, right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
ROTFL!! One of the reasons I do business with Jim is his sensitive nature. On Feb 4, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Tim is sensitive about his small wheels. Whenever he visits me at the shop, I try not to stare. On Feb 4, 8:03 am, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:28 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? Jeez, what's with the little wheels? Aren't those wheels awfully slow? Small wheels have higher rolling resistance. Etc. I tell them this wheel is 14 years old and I've never had to true it. Then I pass them going down the next hill. Interesting. I've been on several rides with people riding Bike Fridays, and I've never heard anybody make any comments other than discussions of travel bikes, touring, high airline fees, etc. and I ride my 650B bikes on many rides and nobody's ever said anything about a smaller wheel size to me. However, I've ridden an AM-series Moulton on some rides and yes, there sure were plenty of comments about that! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners- bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Yeah, remind me to never ever, ever-never ask a question on the internets On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Robert F. Harrison rfharri...@gmail.comwrote: Actually I think this round of TCO discussion was started off with this innocuous little query... Subject: TCO on an Atlantis? Morning query: With BIG 50mm or larger tires on a 700c Atlantis, are there TCO issues? Enjoy a Sunday ride! Cheers, David Redlands, CA Grant did start this particular thread in response to that thread which also diverged into a thread about tire width side of things. So while he may have started the thread, he did not start the topic, he was responding to it, albeit using a different subject line. Apparently I don't have anything better to do today than sort through old email. :-) And, if one really wanted to go back, I thinking one could claim this is all just an extension of the 12/1/2007 (!) topic: Not The Last Word on TCO ( http://goo.gl/SaGU ) One my QB (700c/35mm/fendered/big feet/no clips) I did experience a wee bit of TCO (no consequences) the first day I rode it and, having noted it, have never had a problem since then. At least on my bike it isn't particularly hard to avoid, even at low speed. Aloha! Bob On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Rene Valbuena valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I do have a life. that's why i don't reply to any all topics here;-) if grant did not start the thread, who did? isn't it if your name is on top of the topic or the first one, it is considered that you started the topic? -- rene -Original Message- From: PATRICK MOORE Sent: Feb 4, 2010 12:13 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. Actually, Grant didn't start the thread. But I think it is time for other entrail readings and that we should move on to analyzing Grant's wardrobe or his deoderant or something. I don't like his haircut. Anyone else care to chime in? Christ! Let's all get ourselves lives! On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rene valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. -- Rene On Feb 3, 2:12 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
without being facetious, but wanting to pursue the proposal to the point of absurdity, we can limit the number of variables jim pointed out to only those which can be measured. let us not use the size of the shoes or even the angle of the foot when pedalling or heeling the pedal. so as not to have so many un-measureable variables -- we just use the two sizes of metal toe clip: medium and large; two lengths of Sugino crankarm: 170mm and 175mm; and the depth of the MKS touring pedal as a constant. all these components are readily available from RBW. the use of actual metal toe-clips is actually more appropriate, if i might say so. with these measureable combinations of variables, we then plot our findings according to the following table which we can call MATRIX OF TCO OF RBW BICYCLE MODELS: For example, if an A. Homer Hilsen size 57 has TCO with the use of 170mm crankarm and large metal toe-clip, we put an x under the colum Large Toe-Clip Size across A. Homer Hilsen 57. Model Size / crank length /Toe-Clip Size170mm Medium Large 175mm Medium Large Roadeo 51 Roadeo 53 Roadeo 55 Roadeo 57 Roadeo 59 Roadeo 61 Roadeo 63 X A. Homer Hilsen 57 A. Homer Hilsen 59 A. Homer Hilsen 61 A. Homer Hilsen 63 A. Homer Hilsen 65 A. Homer Hilsen 67 A. Homer Hilsen 72 -Original Message- From: CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net Sent: Feb 4, 2010 3:18 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. on 2/4/10 8:28 AM, Rene at valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. I think GP's post was a new thread to comment about a previous thread. Nevertheless, I do want to remind folks that if they want to communicate with Rivendell on any subject, the best way if directly. (Or cc them on the email with a note explaining why.) This list is an off-site get together. Back on this subject, to paraphrase and engage in conjecture, I think Rene's post above gets at the crux of the issue - the significant number of variables in what seems a simple question. A frame that has no TCO for a rider with size 10 feet may cause problems if you are a size 12. If I use a clip-in pedal system, with cleats under the ball of my feet, that's going to be different than if I use platforms and pedal with a mid-foot-centered position. Large soled shoes? Fitted shoes? Do I make low course corrections more with body english or tiller input? Clearly, for those folks to whom this is an issue, there must be a way to quantify it. You could probably measure the BB to front axle distance, and see if there was a consistency in what size caused the issue. The variables would be wheel size, tire size, fender standoff (gap from tire), fender thickness, shoe size (literally, the materal thickness at the toe), foot position with relation to pedal spindle (i.e. how much meat is in front of the spindle, though you can really just combine those two variables into one), and crank length. But, all of those would run on the basic dimension of bb to front axle. So, I get all charged up and measure this out on the Quickbeam, a 58 cm frame which seems to have about a 610 mm bb-front axle measurement. The distance from the axle to the outside of the fender is 362 mm, the cranks are 170 mm and the foot protrusion is 100 mm. Which would mean that the overlap is ~22 mm. Except it isn't. I don't have any issues on that bike. And then it dawns on me that the whole thing has a 2nd dimension which involves (a) the arc of the front wheel and (b) the offset of foot position from the centerline of the bike (determined by bb spindle length, crank tread
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
The order form for a custom Rivendell explains TCO, and asks if TCO is or is not acceptable. http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/177/original_custom_frame_form.pdf On Feb 3, 12:51 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: On a single I'm willing to put up with some TCO, though I'm very glad that Mike Barry designed my Mariposa without it. You cannot compare a custom with a stock design. Unless the owner demands some wacky wheel size/geometry, a custom builder should have a lot more flexibility than a basic design carried through on several sizes. On Feb 3, 11:48 am, Kenneth Stagg kenneth.st...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: ... I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. I agree. That's the part of this whole debate that bothers me. It's not that those of us who care about it can't appreciate that some people don't, it's that some people try to tell us it's an imaginary problem and that we should just get over it. On a single I'm willing to put up with some TCO, though I'm very glad that Mike Barry designed my Mariposa without it. On a tandem I would not consider putting up with it - it's too dangerous when the person controlling the bike doesn't have complete control of the pedals. -Ken- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
I would NEVER post such data on the website or in any other public place! Ignorance is bliss! TCO is simply a non-issue to 98% of riders. The 2% who worry (justifiably, of course) about TCO will ask the necessary questions. No sense placing doubt in the minds of the other 98%. No better way to choke off sales than by introducing an extra variable that few will understand. On Feb 4, 7:02 pm, Rene Valbuena valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: without being facetious, but wanting to pursue the proposal to the point of absurdity, we can limit the number of variables jim pointed out to only those which can be measured. let us not use the size of the shoes or even the angle of the foot when pedalling or heeling the pedal. so as not to have so many un-measureable variables -- we just use the two sizes of metal toe clip: medium and large; two lengths of Sugino crankarm: 170mm and 175mm; and the depth of the MKS touring pedal as a constant. all these components are readily available from RBW. the use of actual metal toe-clips is actually more appropriate, if i might say so. with these measureable combinations of variables, we then plot our findings according to the following table which we can call MATRIX OF TCO OF RBW BICYCLE MODELS: For example, if an A. Homer Hilsen size 57 has TCO with the use of 170mm crankarm and large metal toe-clip, we put an x under the colum Large Toe-Clip Size across A. Homer Hilsen 57. Model Size / crank length /Toe-Clip Size 170mm Medium Large 175mm Medium Large Roadeo 51 Roadeo 53 Roadeo 55 Roadeo 57 Roadeo 59 Roadeo 61 Roadeo 63 X A. Homer Hilsen 57 A. Homer Hilsen 59 A. Homer Hilsen 61 A. Homer Hilsen 63 A. Homer Hilsen 65 A. Homer Hilsen 67 A. Homer Hilsen 72 -Original Message- From: CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net Sent: Feb 4, 2010 3:18 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general.. on 2/4/10 8:28 AM, Rene at valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be a problem even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can propose it here. I think GP's post was a new thread to comment about a previous thread. Nevertheless, I do want to remind folks that if they want to communicate with Rivendell on any subject, the best way if directly. (Or cc them on the email with a note explaining why.) This list is an off-site get together. Back on this subject, to paraphrase and engage in conjecture, I think Rene's post above gets at the crux of the issue - the significant number of variables in what seems a simple question. A frame that has no TCO for a rider with size 10 feet may cause problems if you are a size 12. If I use a clip-in pedal system, with cleats under the ball of my feet, that's going to be different than if I use platforms and pedal with a mid-foot-centered position. Large soled shoes? Fitted shoes? Do I make low course corrections more with body english or tiller input? Clearly, for those folks to whom this is an issue, there must be a way to quantify it. You could probably measure the BB to front axle distance, and see if there was a consistency in what size caused the issue. The variables would be wheel size, tire size, fender standoff (gap from tire), fender thickness, shoe size (literally, the materal thickness at the toe), foot position with relation to pedal spindle (i.e. how much meat is in front of the spindle, though you can really just combine those two variables into one), and crank length. But, all of those would run on the basic dimension of bb to front axle. So, I get all charged up and measure this out on the Quickbeam, a 58 cm frame which
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
to jamb my shoe into my fender. Bicycles should not cause this kind of low-grade anxiety. It's unnecessary - if a bike has TCO, the wheels are too big. Design it out with smaller wheels! As GP argues, there are many other concerns in a bike design than TCO. Designing a bike so it will be a good fixie may make sense for a one off custom builder. No sense at all for someone who designs bike for a wide range of riders most of whom have zero interest in fixed gear bicycles. On Feb 2, 9:22 pm, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 23:36, Grant Petersen gr...@rivbike.com wrote: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. THere are some builders who would disagree; and although in the spirit of diplomacy and reasonableness and agreeing to disagree and all that, I accept thatI can't understand it. To fear TCO or to regard it as Dangerouswell, it's ust something that to me doesn't make any sense. I also disagree - I strongly dislike toe clip overlap, having encountered it on a few frames (I usually ride long-raked 60-62cm frames now, so have little problem). It can be a problem trackstanding, riding slowly, turning sharply while riding a fixed gear, riding offroad, and climbing slowly. If it doesn't make you crash, it's still annoying, inconvenient, and I don't want to sit around while riding constantly thinking, Oh, I better be careful not to jamb my shoe into my fender. Bicycles should not cause this kind of low-grade anxiety. It's unnecessary - if a bike has TCO, the wheels are too big. Design it out with smaller wheels! One cyclist's opinion. James Black Los Angeles, CA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:32, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: I think there are a number of us who want our cake and get to eat it too: sporty fast geometry with 45 mm tires, full fenders and no TCO. I'd say pick two. Some enchiladas can't be readily served whole. What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on various attributes. I understand that many of you will come to a reasoned point of view that the drawbacks of going to a smaller wheel size outweigh the benefits of eliminating TCO. Nearly every bike company makes some bikes with TCO. But there are also many cyclists who share my point of view that the benefits of the larger diameter wheel do not outweigh the disadvantage of TCO. Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. James Black Los Angeles, CA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: ... I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. I agree. That's the part of this whole debate that bothers me. It's not that those of us who care about it can't appreciate that some people don't, it's that some people try to tell us it's an imaginary problem and that we should just get over it. On a single I'm willing to put up with some TCO, though I'm very glad that Mike Barry designed my Mariposa without it. On a tandem I would not consider putting up with it - it's too dangerous when the person controlling the bike doesn't have complete control of the pedals. -Ken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on various attributes. I agree that smaller wheels are a solution for TCO and other real and perceived problems, and my custom touring bike is basically a copy of my 58 Atlantis, but for 26 wheels. For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed around 26 wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. On Feb 3, 11:37 am, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:32, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: I think there are a number of us who want our cake and get to eat it too: sporty fast geometry with 45 mm tires, full fenders and no TCO. I'd say pick two. Some enchiladas can't be readily served whole. What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on various attributes. I understand that many of you will come to a reasoned point of view that the drawbacks of going to a smaller wheel size outweigh the benefits of eliminating TCO. Nearly every bike company makes some bikes with TCO. But there are also many cyclists who share my point of view that the benefits of the larger diameter wheel do not outweigh the disadvantage of TCO. Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. James Black Los Angeles, CA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On a single I'm willing to put up with some TCO, though I'm very glad that Mike Barry designed my Mariposa without it. You cannot compare a custom with a stock design. Unless the owner demands some wacky wheel size/geometry, a custom builder should have a lot more flexibility than a basic design carried through on several sizes. On Feb 3, 11:48 am, Kenneth Stagg kenneth.st...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: ... I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. I agree. That's the part of this whole debate that bothers me. It's not that those of us who care about it can't appreciate that some people don't, it's that some people try to tell us it's an imaginary problem and that we should just get over it. On a single I'm willing to put up with some TCO, though I'm very glad that Mike Barry designed my Mariposa without it. On a tandem I would not consider putting up with it - it's too dangerous when the person controlling the bike doesn't have complete control of the pedals. -Ken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed around 26 wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. Did not realize people were so hostile to 26. I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26 wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26 because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. On Feb 3, 12:24 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery thill@gmail.com wrote: What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on various attributes. I agree that smaller wheels are a solution for TCO and other real and perceived problems, and my custom touring bike is basically a copy of my 58 Atlantis, but for 26 wheels. For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed around 26 wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. On Feb 3, 11:37 am, james black chocot...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:32, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: I think there are a number of us who want our cake and get to eat it too: sporty fast geometry with 45 mm tires, full fenders and no TCO. I'd say pick two. Some enchiladas can't be readily served whole. What we're talking about is a matter of how much value to place on various attributes. I understand that many of you will come to a reasoned point of view that the drawbacks of going to a smaller wheel size outweigh the benefits of eliminating TCO. Nearly every bike company makes some bikes with TCO. But there are also many cyclists who share my point of view that the benefits of the larger diameter wheel do not outweigh the disadvantage of TCO. Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. I am mildly annoyed and feel vaguely insulted by the point of view I sometimes encounter that TCO is an imaginary problem, or that I'm some kind of dimwit because it bothers me. There are other cyclists (customers) like me - bike designers should be attentive to this fact. James Black Los Angeles, CA- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Anne and James: I will readily concede that TCO not being a concern to me left less sensitive to GP's choice of words. On Feb 3, 1:05 pm, Anne Paulson anne.paul...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. Isn't that what Grant says in his post? He said: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. For me, TCO is a problem in practice. I don't mind hearing that the desire for no TCO has to be balanced with other design considerations. I do mind hearing that what is an actual problem for me is not an actual problem for me. -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:37 AM, james black wrote: Those who design bicycles would be urged to consider customers like myself, recognize that TCO is an offense (however significant), and deal with it proactively, either by eliminating it, or acknowledging that it is a necessary evil (however significant) to be tolerated. That's what it is. I thought that was pretty clear in Grant's post and my post, among others. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:54 PM, JoelMatthews wrote: For some reason that isn't completely obvious, a lot of people have a reflexive distaste for smaller wheels. The 56 Atlantis was always a much harder sell than a 58 Atlantis, which I attribute to a widespread prejudice against smaller wheels. Over on the Long Haul Trucker forum, there are plenty of folks who do not understand (to the point of being angry about it) why Surly would offer the bigger LHT frames designed around 26 wheels. I'll be curious to see how the small-wheel Truckers sell, and if there's really sizable group clamoring for these. Did not realize people were so hostile to 26. I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26 wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26 because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:54 PM, JoelMatthews wrote: Did not realize people were so hostile to 26. I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26 wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26 because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: I can't imagine why they'd care [about 26 wheels -- ed.]. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? FWIW, the most common comment I get, usually from full-lycra/crabon roadies, is nice bike or, even, most recently, Beautiful bike! The other one is, How old is it? I say, Hmmm, let's see -- delivered in March of '03 or I had it made in 1999, and that surprises them. Few have even noticed or remarked at the small wheels. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:17 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:54 PM, JoelMatthews wrote: Did not realize people were so hostile to 26. I will soon receive a custom that is built around 26 wheels - at just under 6', I guess you could call my bikes either larger or average. I did not spec 26 because of some TCO concern. Rather, I wanted to have a bike that could use the biggest Big Apples without putting my head up in sub- space. I get flak about it sometimes when I am out riding my All-Rounder with 26 wheels. I can't imagine why they'd care. Can you even see that the wheels are unusual? I've only really ever seen one Riv All-Arounder, I think a 58 cm, and it looks perfectly ordinary with nothing particular to note about the wheels other than some pretty fat looking tires. What do they say? And what do you say in return? Jeez, what's with the little wheels? Aren't those wheels awfully slow? Small wheels have higher rolling resistance. Etc. I tell them this wheel is 14 years old and I've never had to true it. Then I pass them going down the next hill. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
One of the non-Riv bikes we sell comes standard with clips and straps (we should really take them off). Last Summer a guy came in to test one, so I aired up the tires, offered a helmet (declined), and away he went. When he returned, both he and the bike were scraped up. Apparently, the TC got caught in the fender, and he went down. I really can't imagine what maneuver he was trying to execute (track stand?), and on the 50 or so times I've ridden one of those bikes, I never noticed a TCO issue or experienced anything remotely resembling a TCO difficulty. On Feb 2, 1:36 am, Grant Petersen gr...@rivbike.com wrote: Seems to be a problem because it has a name/acronym. All it means is that at speeds less than about 6mph, if you turn the wheel enough and time it just wrong with your pedal stroke, your shoe hits the fender or tire. It's one of those things that sounds worse than it is. It cannot happen at faster speeds, because you don't turn the wheel that much except if you're doing a near or full U-turn. When you go around a hairpin at 17 mph, you turn the front wheel maybe 1.5-degees. It is ONLY at SUPER slow speeds and super sharp turns that you can make contact. I want to say this, because it even being a topic of discussion suggests that there's something wrong. At the risk of being gross or something, it's sort of like, I have mucus coming out of my face--what can I do? What's wrong with me? And the answer is blow your nose. But TCO (a term I've used a hundred times, by the way) is mucus coming out of face in a different context. In a bike like the Atlantis, or any fatty tire bike, the designer, at some point, comes to a fork in the road. He can design for NO TCO and compromise the elements of design that affect position and fit and ride; or he can design for P, F, and R and accept some TCO. Or, just go to a smaller wheel. But even that involves some value judgements. A 58cm Atlantis with a 26--inch wheel would have a monster-long head tube that would look funny and make the bike less suitable to load carrying than the 700C wheel version (with a longer fork and hence shorter head tube). As it is, the 58 is a really well triangulated frame, and the bike rides like a demon (my opinion, but I am biased). TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. THere are some builders who would disagree; and although in the spirit of diplomacy and reasonableness and agreeing to disagree and all that, I accept thatI can't understand it. To fear TCO or to regard it as Dangerouswell, it's ust something that to me doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying anybody here fears it. I haven't read all the posts and prolly won't...I just clicked on this thread for the heck of it, read something, and now.ahhhshouldn't have said anything! Will regret it in the morning. Going to bed. Goodnight, Moon. Best, G -- Grant Rivendell Bicycle Workswww.rivbike.com925 933 7304 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
When pictures of my Hilsen first showed up on Cyclofiend, someone e- mailed me a brief - 'Wow. How's that TCO doing ya?' Or something generally in that line. Presumably the author meant to make me feel bad for having bought the bike. Two problems with the effort. First, with its 32 tires and SKS fenders a 59 Hilsen does not have TCO. Second, even if it did, as Grant points out, so what. Obviously designers do not build a bike intending to have TCO. But there are many other design elements more important than avoiding the occasional toe clip fender knock. On Feb 2, 1:36 am, Grant Petersen gr...@rivbike.com wrote: Seems to be a problem because it has a name/acronym. All it means is that at speeds less than about 6mph, if you turn the wheel enough and time it just wrong with your pedal stroke, your shoe hits the fender or tire. It's one of those things that sounds worse than it is. It cannot happen at faster speeds, because you don't turn the wheel that much except if you're doing a near or full U-turn. When you go around a hairpin at 17 mph, you turn the front wheel maybe 1.5-degees. It is ONLY at SUPER slow speeds and super sharp turns that you can make contact. I want to say this, because it even being a topic of discussion suggests that there's something wrong. At the risk of being gross or something, it's sort of like, I have mucus coming out of my face--what can I do? What's wrong with me? And the answer is blow your nose. But TCO (a term I've used a hundred times, by the way) is mucus coming out of face in a different context. In a bike like the Atlantis, or any fatty tire bike, the designer, at some point, comes to a fork in the road. He can design for NO TCO and compromise the elements of design that affect position and fit and ride; or he can design for P, F, and R and accept some TCO. Or, just go to a smaller wheel. But even that involves some value judgements. A 58cm Atlantis with a 26--inch wheel would have a monster-long head tube that would look funny and make the bike less suitable to load carrying than the 700C wheel version (with a longer fork and hence shorter head tube). As it is, the 58 is a really well triangulated frame, and the bike rides like a demon (my opinion, but I am biased). TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. THere are some builders who would disagree; and although in the spirit of diplomacy and reasonableness and agreeing to disagree and all that, I accept thatI can't understand it. To fear TCO or to regard it as Dangerouswell, it's ust something that to me doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying anybody here fears it. I haven't read all the posts and prolly won't...I just clicked on this thread for the heck of it, read something, and now.ahhhshouldn't have said anything! Will regret it in the morning. Going to bed. Goodnight, Moon. Best, G -- Grant Rivendell Bicycle Workswww.rivbike.com 925 933 7304 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Some of the people I know who ride ultra-short-wheelbase fixed-gear bikes w/clips have what seems like whole foot overlap, but they manage in boston traffic nonetheless. I know from experience that riding in this traffic must involve some serious weaving and sharp cuts of the wheel left/right. But these folks do it anyway and they're still alive, so it must be something you can learn to cope with pretty easily. On Feb 2, 6:58 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery thill@gmail.com wrote: One of the non-Riv bikes we sell comes standard with clips and straps (we should really take them off). Last Summer a guy came in to test one, so I aired up the tires, offered a helmet (declined), and away he went. When he returned, both he and the bike were scraped up. Apparently, the TC got caught in the fender, and he went down. I really can't imagine what maneuver he was trying to execute (track stand?), and on the 50 or so times I've ridden one of those bikes, I never noticed a TCO issue or experienced anything remotely resembling a TCO difficulty. On Feb 2, 1:36 am, Grant Petersen gr...@rivbike.com wrote: Seems to be a problem because it has a name/acronym. All it means is that at speeds less than about 6mph, if you turn the wheel enough and time it just wrong with your pedal stroke, your shoe hits the fender or tire. It's one of those things that sounds worse than it is. It cannot happen at faster speeds, because you don't turn the wheel that much except if you're doing a near or full U-turn. When you go around a hairpin at 17 mph, you turn the front wheel maybe 1.5-degees. It is ONLY at SUPER slow speeds and super sharp turns that you can make contact. I want to say this, because it even being a topic of discussion suggests that there's something wrong. At the risk of being gross or something, it's sort of like, I have mucus coming out of my face--what can I do? What's wrong with me? And the answer is blow your nose. But TCO (a term I've used a hundred times, by the way) is mucus coming out of face in a different context. In a bike like the Atlantis, or any fatty tire bike, the designer, at some point, comes to a fork in the road. He can design for NO TCO and compromise the elements of design that affect position and fit and ride; or he can design for P, F, and R and accept some TCO. Or, just go to a smaller wheel. But even that involves some value judgements. A 58cm Atlantis with a 26--inch wheel would have a monster-long head tube that would look funny and make the bike less suitable to load carrying than the 700C wheel version (with a longer fork and hence shorter head tube). As it is, the 58 is a really well triangulated frame, and the bike rides like a demon (my opinion, but I am biased). TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. THere are some builders who would disagree; and although in the spirit of diplomacy and reasonableness and agreeing to disagree and all that, I accept thatI can't understand it. To fear TCO or to regard it as Dangerouswell, it's ust something that to me doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying anybody here fears it. I haven't read all the posts and prolly won't...I just clicked on this thread for the heck of it, read something, and now.ahhhshouldn't have said anything! Will regret it in the morning. Going to bed. Goodnight, Moon. Best, G -- Grant Rivendell Bicycle Workswww.rivbike.com925933 7304 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Perhaps the Hunqapillar will fit your yearing for bigger knobby tired lugged bikes? It is touted as somwhere between the Atlantis and the Bombadil. I haven't seen any geometry yet but to me that means at least a 2.0 29er tire. Perhaps Grant can fill in the missing geometry data so those of us who are searching for that kind of bike ( rough off-road capable) can decide on whether to wait for the 'Hunqa' or not. Mike Awaiting the Hunqa in SoCal On Feb 2, 8:55 am, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Seth Vidal skvi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Horace max...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: I think that for people who think TCO is an issue -- it is, and I don't try to change their minds. But I think if someone is wondering whether it's going to be an issue for them... it probably isn't. TCO was an issue, once, for me on one bike. Then I decided if I was in a place where it could happen I had to be going so slowly that I'd just stop and put a foot down. It's not like I have clips or clipless pedals anyway so putting a foot down isn't any extra work. :) -sv -- Grant et al I was the OP for this conversation, and was wondering about TCO for a specific reason: off-road riding an Atlantis with SPD pedals. When I'm clicked in, TCO is bad cuz' I'm not the fastest un-clicker-outer. That's mainly only a problem on singletrack. My AR doesn't have it, but it only fits 42-44mm tires. I'm looking at bikes that fit full 29ers, of which the Atlantis is one. No disparaging remarks about Atlantis were made or intended at all. That's a GREAT bike, no matter how much mucus is all over it! I'm trying to rationalize buying one -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym. ~Bill Nye, scientist guy- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Another Frame builder talked about TCO. http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2006/11/5/toe-overlap-no-problem.html There was a discussion recently on Classic Rendezvous Bike list; the tread titled “Toe overlap even on good bikes,” implied that toe overlap was a design flaw and one should not expect to see this on quality bikes. Toe overlap is a result of other critical design factors and cannot always be avoided especially on smaller frames. When a framebuilder designs and builds a racing frame, his main criteria are to: (1.) Place the rider in a position where he can pedal with maximum efficiency, and (2.) Design the frame so the finished bike will handle at speed in the best way possible. If the result of the design is toe overlap then the builder can do little because to achieve toe clearance other aspects of the frame’s design would have to be altered. For example the picture above shows my own bike. It has a small 52 cm. (C to T) frame and has about an inch of toe overlap. If I were to make the front end of the bike one inch longer to avoid toe overlap, I would have to do one of the four following things or a combination of all four. (1.) I could make the seat angle steeper, or (2.) the top tube longer. (3.) I could make the head angle shallower, or (4.) the fork rake (offset) longer. The first two would effect my riding position; the last two would affect the handling of the bike. Toe overlap is not a problem because riding and cornering at normal speed the front wheel never turns far enough for the toe to hit the front wheel. The only time it becomes an issue is when turning sharply at a very slow speed; doing a U-turn on a very narrow road for example. Caution and common sense are all that is required when executing a tight U-turn. If you are turning left then your right pedal will be down for maximum ground clearance as you coast into the turn. By the time you need to start pedaling again you are already half way through the turn, and the right crank has to complete ¾ of a turn before the toe is opposite the front wheel. By that time, you should be all the way around and the front wheel is straight ahead again. If you are not the coast again, or ratchet the crank back again on the freewheel. Doing the same maneuver with a fixed gear is a little trickier; but it is a matter of timing. Go very slow and start to turn as the toe passes the front wheel; that way the crank has a whole revolution to go before it makes contact again. If the front wheel is still turned the next time round; straighten the front wheel so the toe clears, then turn sharply after it has passed. Fixed gear and fenders (Mudguards.) is going to make this move a little difficult, but not impossible. With clipless pedals, you could unclip the outside foot and move your toe back to give more clearance. I sometimes get out of the saddle and simply point my toe downwards to give more clearance. What you need to avoid is a situation where you get your toe on the wrong side of the wheel in a turn; if you do, try not to panic. Ratchet the crank back if you have a freewheel, or if you are riding fixed gear, keep going and let the toe pass the front wheel so you can straighten up again. Lastly, I would like to point out that a racing motorcycle with narrow swept down handlebars; turning is restricted because the handlebars touch the fuel tank. Here is a machine that will go 200 mph plus, and restricted turning seems not to be a problem. Therefore, I maintain the opinion that toe overlap on a bicycle is neither a design fault nor a problem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:21 PM, RonLau ron...@ronlau.com wrote: Fixed gear and fenders (Mudguards.) is going to make this move a little difficult, but not impossible. With clipless pedals, you could unclip the outside foot and move your toe back to give more clearance. I sometimes get out of the saddle and simply point my toe downwards to give more clearance. In my experience, metal fenders actually help with TCO because they provide a smooth, rounded surface off which your toe clip or toe will slip more easily than on the rubber tire. As with most things, you get used to it and learn to deal with it so that it becomes a negligible problem. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Yes! I already mentioned I hope it has... get this... room for 60mm tires and no TCO! :-) But I understand if it doesn't. That's the extreme end of the design spectrum, and may not be one of the goals. That doesn't mean it's covered in mucus, either! :-) On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Michael_S mikeybi...@rocketmail.com wrote: Perhaps the Hunqapillar will fit your yearing for bigger knobby tired lugged bikes? It is touted as somwhere between the Atlantis and the Bombadil. I haven't seen any geometry yet but to me that means at least a 2.0 29er tire. Perhaps Grant can fill in the missing geometry data so those of us who are searching for that kind of bike ( rough off-road capable) can decide on whether to wait for the 'Hunqa' or not. Mike Awaiting the Hunqa in SoCal On Feb 2, 8:55 am, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Seth Vidal skvi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Horace max...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: I think that for people who think TCO is an issue -- it is, and I don't try to change their minds. But I think if someone is wondering whether it's going to be an issue for them... it probably isn't. TCO was an issue, once, for me on one bike. Then I decided if I was in a place where it could happen I had to be going so slowly that I'd just stop and put a foot down. It's not like I have clips or clipless pedals anyway so putting a foot down isn't any extra work. :) -sv -- Grant et al I was the OP for this conversation, and was wondering about TCO for a specific reason: off-road riding an Atlantis with SPD pedals. When I'm clicked in, TCO is bad cuz' I'm not the fastest un-clicker-outer. That's mainly only a problem on singletrack. My AR doesn't have it, but it only fits 42-44mm tires. I'm looking at bikes that fit full 29ers, of which the Atlantis is one. No disparaging remarks about Atlantis were made or intended at all. That's a GREAT bike, no matter how much mucus is all over it! I'm trying to rationalize buying one -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym. ~Bill Nye, scientist guy- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym. ~Bill Nye, scientist guy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 2, 8:02 pm, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: Yes! I already mentioned I hope it has... get this... room for 60mm tires and no TCO! :-) But I understand if it doesn't. That's the extreme end of the design spectrum, and may not be one of the goals. That doesn't mean it's covered in mucus, either! :-) If that's the case then you might want to look at a 559 or 584 (650b) wheel-size bike, like a 56cm Atlantis or a 56cm Bombadil(?)I don't think you can get 60mm tires on either, though, but 60mm is pretty fat. I think those frames max out at 52mm.The Surly might be able to fit it, I'm not sure.I think you mentioned in the other thread that the 60cm Bombadil is too big for you, but the 56 would probably fit, and it has 650b wheels and zero chance of overlap. I have a 56cm Bombadil and really could not be happier with it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:02 PM, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: Yes! I already mentioned I hope it has... get this... room for 60mm tires and no TCO! :-) .. 70 mms and fenders (TCO be damned)? Patrick wimpy skinny 60s Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Toe overlap is not a problem because riding and cornering at normal speed the front wheel never turns far enough for the toe to hit the front wheel. The only time it becomes an issue is when turning sharply at a very slow speed; doing a U-turn on a very narrow road for example. This is just untrue. Toe clip overlap is also a problem climbing very steep roads at very slow speeds. At least, it is for me. I had a Romulus, and I would regularly hit my foot on the wheel on climbs. Since I like to climb, I traded my Romulus (with 700 c wheels) for an Atlantis (with smaller wheels). -- -- Anne Paulson He who wills the ends wills the means -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
Hello all, This is kind of an interesting topic, and I think about it sometimes . . . so I'll add some thoughts. I have 8, or so, bikes (guess I need one more?) 6 of them don't have TCO, but my two FAVORITE bikes do: my 63cm AHH, and my 25 Jack Taylor (which has WAY more fork rake than the AHH.) Both of those bikes have fenders, and I might not have TCO if I removed the fenders (which I won't.) If those were my only bikes, I'd probably remember the TCO, and use proper low-speed techniques to compensate. It hasn't been a huge problem: I just occasionally graze the fenders on both, and quickly remember to adjust myself. IF you are riding unclipped, then it's pretty easy to put a foot down - especially with a low BB. Bottom line: my two favorite bikes have TCO, and it's not a big deal to me, just a minor, occasional annoyance. FYI: my other bikes are mainly variations of mountain bikes, including my Bike Friday with 20 wheels - no TCO there! The only sport touring bike that I have with no TCO is a '74 Schwinn Sports Tourer, and it has fenders too. It's a great bike, but I like the AHH and the JT better . . . I do understand that some may hate it - especially if you've had to eat pavement, or something. Best! Alex Moll Seattle (ish), WA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: TCO in general..
On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:22 PM, james black wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 23:36, Grant Petersen gr...@rivbike.com wrote: TCO ends up being a problem---in my opinion---only in theoretics, but not in practice. THere are some builders who would disagree; and although in the spirit of diplomacy and reasonableness and agreeing to disagree and all that, I accept thatI can't understand it. To fear TCO or to regard it as Dangerouswell, it's ust something that to me doesn't make any sense. I also disagree - I strongly dislike toe clip overlap, having encountered it on a few frames (I usually ride long-raked 60-62cm frames now, so have little problem). It can be a problem trackstanding, riding slowly, turning sharply while riding a fixed gear, riding offroad, and climbing slowly. If it doesn't make you crash, it's still annoying, inconvenient, and I don't want to sit around while riding constantly thinking, Oh, I better be careful not to jamb my shoe into my fender. Bicycles should not cause this kind of low-grade anxiety. It's unnecessary - if a bike has TCO, the wheels are too big. Design it out with smaller wheels! Easier said than done. Any standard bike 60 cm or smaller will have to have 559 wheels- even 650B isn't small enough to guarantee no TCO. Most people find those aesthetics unacceptable as the small wheels makes the bike look like a toy in their eyes (I ride a '96 60 cm All Rounder with 559s, so I get that reaction a lot). Bicycle design involves compromises. You can eliminate TCO with a 68 degree head angle and 70 mm fork offset. But most people don't want to ride the bikes that would result from that geometry (You'll find that geometry on millions of old British 3 speeds. They handle like wheelbarrows but no TCO). You can eliminate TCO with a 62 cm top tube and normal angles, but nobody under 6 feet tall will be able to ride it and it'll look funny on a 56 cm frame. Or you can use a naked 23 mm wide tire instead of a 45 mm tire with fenders. Or you can build frames with tiny trail due to huge fork offsets (but I won't buy 'em. I had that geometry years ago, don't want it again. 55 mm trail is just about right). Sorry folks, but TCO is a necessary design compromise in many cases. Get a pencil, some graph paper, a compass, a straightedge and draw up some proportional drawings of bikes. You'll see the hopeless problem pretty quickly. It's easy to say get rid of TCO but it's well-nigh impossible to do so in every instance without designing something like the Moulton. I've done enough frame design to have worked this out for myself. I've got bikes with TCO, having size 13 feet and not liking to pedal on my tippy toes results in this. I haven't have a crash or a near crash in years, the last being riding fixed on the street on my old track bike (zero toe overlap problems on the velodrome, which is where such bikes belong. They don't belong on the street, speaking from experience) years ago. I'm used to the TCO since most of the bikes I've owned since I was 14 have had TCO, I don't pedal through corners at low speeds and have low enough gears- and thankfully enough strength- to not have to weave back and forth up hills. My riding style is adapted to the reality of my bikes. It's just not a problem. I think there are a number of us who want our cake and get to eat it too: sporty fast geometry with 45 mm tires, full fenders and no TCO. I'd say pick two. Some enchiladas can't be readily served whole. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
