Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Agreeing with dougP, and just for the fun of it, wording it another way: In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret selling bike X" ? I bet it's a lot In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret holding on to bike X" ? I bet it's not many Apply that to your

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

"I may hold onto it." A thought I strongly encourage. Consider the number of people who've posted "...I wish I'd never sold my Atlantis." dougP On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-8, Hugh Smitham wrote: > > Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I

[RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I love to read discussions like this and learn from the variety of feedback. After having and trying bikes with 26" ,650b and 700c wheels my take it is not so much about the wheel size as like others have pointed out but the quality of the tires. That said, I also think it is even more about

RE: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:54 AM To: iamkeith; RBW Owners Bunch Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling That's the earliest catalog I have. Does anyone have some scans of catalogs or frame brochures earlier than #5 (1999)? I think Keith is right.

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I'd almost trade you for my green 2003 Curt built custom! Man, I sometimes wonder if a Rat Trap Pass bike wouldn't be better than even a road-29er. Anyway, let us know how you like those tires. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:39 PM, iamkeith wrote: > So, what I really want to

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I may hold onto it. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:39:41 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > > So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis. > > > > I might as well post this,

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Sorry... that is my 60, not 59. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis. I might as well post this, too. I showed a different picture in the Rat Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, just before it started snowing last fall. I've

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I don't know whether a 700C bike as such -- *as such* is faster or slower than a 26" wheeled bike. If it is faster, I can't imagine any reason except that bigger wheels somehow roll more easily than smaller ones. (I do think I notice more drag on my 406 mm Kojaks than on my 559 or 622 Kojaks.) I

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C > wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a > tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

t: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote: Thanks Hugh! It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 65 went to 70

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the Elk Passes) but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus effort

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

All these bikes look great to me! Thanks for posting! On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:43:26 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote: >> >> Thanks Hugh! >> >> It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

@Keith, Norm and Tim: Those are hot bikes! Exactly what I'm thinking! Great Rough Stuff, Go-Anywhere All-Rounders! On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:43:26 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote: >> >> Thanks Hugh! >> >> It

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote: > > Thanks Hugh! > > It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 > and 65 went to 700c > > I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the period of model availability,

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

at 3:55 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: > Hugh asked: > > > "Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis > (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? " > > *It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better. It >

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

; > > > -- > *From:* Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com> > *To:* RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:30 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Hugh asked: "Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? " *It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better. It will make it a different bike. I trust both old and new Atlantii

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

mit...@gmail.com> To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling Yeah Norm we know you have this beauty!! Thanks for rubbing it in dude :) ~Hugh “Life is like riding a bicy

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

album-72157639527145063/> > Preview by Yahoo > > > -- > *From:* Steven Sweedler <sweed...@gmail.com> > *To:* "rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" < > rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the first AR's in all sizes were 26&q

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I have a large (60cm) with 26" wheels. 1999 model year. Others are much more knowledgeable about changes and history, but my understanding is that 2000 is when they switched to 700c for the larger models, so that would jive. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-7, Steven Sweedler

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c. Steve Apache Junction, Az. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham wrote: >

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Road wheels must be 26". Off road wheels must be 700C. Amen. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM, john wrote: > I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring. > > Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the > frame size? > >

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

As a former XO-1 owner I can tell you the smaller wheels accelerate faster and are probably a little easier on a slow grinding climb while loaded, but in the other end of the spectrum the larger wheels seem to maintain momentum better. I might go 26" if traveling to somewhere outof tge way,

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I am 6'2", touring on a Thorn with 26" wheels and am very comfortable if the frame is well designed it will work regardless of wheel size Also much easier to pack if you fly with your bike It was Grant who convinced me years ago on 26" wheels but on larger frames he didn't like the extra long

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

It's like we attend the same meetings and drink the same kool-aid-laced #coffeeoutside. Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:02:11 PM UTC-7, Tim Gavin wrote: > > > Grant designs the frames to have roughly the same tire clearance for each > wheel size, so each size

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

Some folks believe that 26" wheels are best for touring because of their widespread availability. I.e., if you're touring in Borneo you'll still find tires, tubes, and wheels. Other than parts availability, I don't believe that one wheel size has an inherent advantage over the others.

[RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring. Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the frame size? Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq? What am I missing here?