Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Eric Floden]

Proto Bomba .ulti top tubed?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAOGTYJDNj3Pf82fQqphmoWw5eBG1aut5QY4dRceDmP%3D50kfA6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Andrew Turner]

Tom Bombadill is described as wearing yellow boots and a blue coat which 
was perhaps the inspiration for the frame color. I'll be curious to see if 
John adds some blue accents to the frame...I seem to recall a blue Paul 
rear mech on sale on eBay a few months back... 
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 9:43:07 PM UTC-6 Luke Hendrickson wrote:

> I have a freehub that has a 7-speed and can take an 11/12 without a 
> spacer. Idk what John meant when he said that… maybe CK is different. 
>
> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-8 Andrew Letton wrote:
>
>> I'll add a link to some photos of my original order 2TT 60cm Bombadil:
>> 2009 Rivendell Bombadil 
>>
>> 2009 Rivendell Bombadil
>>
>> Explore this photo album by letton on Flickr!
>> 
>> Most of the photos are from the original build in 2009, but the last two 
>> show a recent iteration here in Australia, complete with Towel Rack bars 
>> and Gravity dropper post.
>>
>> On my most recent bikepacking trip, I found myself the oldest, heaviest, 
>> least-fit rider on the heaviest, most-overpacked bike, so in an effort to 
>> keep my friends from having to wait for me at the top of every hill, I'm in 
>> the process of reconfiguring it yet again with more of a bikepacking theme: 
>> half frame bag, fork bags, handlebar roll, and long, narrow Ortlieb drybag 
>> strapped a Nitto R14 rack (so I can still use the dropper). With the 
>> smaller bags, I'll be less able to pack as many kitchen sinks. ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrew...north of Sydney
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 02:16:17 AM GMT+11, Eric Marth <
>> eric...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>>
>> It seems the Bombadil and Hunqapillar frames are beloved. They're stout, 
>> beautiful, and sometimes have intricate additional tubes and lugs. While 
>> I've done a lot of reading about Rivendell I was a bit unclear on the 
>> origins and intended uses of these frames. 
>>
>> I wanted to start a thread where we could share and dump info about these 
>> bikes along with pictures of builds. 
>>
>> Joe and Jim were helpful in laying out a bit of background in another 
>> thread 
>> , 
>> there's 
>> some great info there. 
>>
>> The original Hunqapillar catalog is up here: 
>> http://notfine.com/rivendell/Brochures/Rivendell%20Frames%20Hunqapillar.pdf
>>
>> The first mention I can find of the Bombadil is in RR 41, sometime in 
>> 2009. Excerpted pages attached. As a few members might recall I am very 
>> into raw frames with brass spilling out of the lugs! I know that many 
>> Bombadil owners have had their frames repainted like Jason Fuller, whose 
>> absolute stunner shows up here from time to time. By the way, the picture 
>> below is one of my very favorite Rivendell images. 
>>
>> [image: Jason Bombadil green.jpg]
>>
>> There's also the butter-banana Bombadil that recently sold on eBay. I 
>> believe that one was purchased by John Watson of the Radavist (and he's got 
>> a Hunq) so we might see some nice pics of that bike sometime soon. 
>>
>> [image: s-l1600-2.jpg]
>>
>> And speaking of, here's John's Hunqapillar, more images and write-up here 
>> .
>>
>> [image: Johns-Rivendell-Hunqapillar-29er-Klunker-76.jpg] 
>>
>> Are both of these frame names borrowing from Tolkien? I understand RBW 
>> had to stop using Tolkien names. 
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9d44c9c9-01b9-4cd9-baff-f2299f52fb39n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bdbb0799-7aa0-49f6-9e8f-d57049235944n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Chris L]

I wouldn't mind if my Hunqapillar was painted Dupont Imron, Light 
Continental Blue Metallic w/clear coat!!! 

I've always loved the color of Breezer #1 and those early Stumpjumpers in a 
similar color. 

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC-6 J J wrote:

> Echoing Shoji's message, I love the diagonal tubes on the Hunqs (and 
> Bombadils) that had them. 
>
> Thanks for mentioning Joe Breeze. Grant has spoken often of Breeze and the 
> original Breezer 1. I can't imagine it was not a design inspiration for the 
> Hunqapillar. 
>
> The Breezer 1 is in the Smithsonian Museum of American History. I attached 
> a photo and the build list of the original, which is a fantastically 
> interesting historical document. Check out the reinforced fork on that 
> thing!! The build list states that the weight as configured was 38 pounds. 
> It's from 1977, yet it still seems so familiar and current given how folks 
> outfit their Rivs.  
>
> You can find more info at the Smithsonian 
> .
>
> Jim
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-5 Shoji Takahashi wrote:
>
>> For me, the Hunqapillar diagatube was a visual draw-- I liked it better 
>> than the parallel-to-top-tube bar of the Bombadil.
>>
>> The diagatube reminds me of the original Joe Breeze mountain bike frame: 
>>
>> https://mmbhof.org/portfolio/first-fat-tire-bike-with-a-new-frame-and-all-new-parts/
>>
>> Additional tubes have been around for a long time in bicycle history, 
>> some for functional reasons and others for style. (E.g., google cargo bikes)
>>
>> shoji
>> arlington ma
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-5 Bill Schairer wrote:
>>
>>> I've also thought the diagonal tube to look odd except on the very 
>>> largest of frames for the very largest of riders.  They seem reminiscent of 
>>> the original Santana Sovereign tandems, where they seemed to make some 
>>> sense.  I remember Santana claiming the "marathon" style to be the stiffest 
>>> configuration for a tandem per all sorts of tests they performed.  Later, 
>>> it seems everyone, including Santana, shifted to a diagonal tube running to 
>>> the rear bottom bracket and, nowadays, most tandems have dispensed with the 
>>> diagonal tube.  It all leaves me wondering...
>>>
>>> In a quick search for some history on the "marathon" style I found this 
>>> on the Rodriguez site: "so this design kind of went the way of the Ford 
>>> Edsel in our shop."  I couldn't quickly find the origins of the style but 
>>> it seems the tandem industry abandoned the design long before Rivendell 
>>> applied it to singles.  It has always been a bit of a curiosity to me as, 
>>> even for a tandem, it is considered over-built these days.
>>>
>>> [image: loaded santana.jpg]
>>> 1980 Santana Sovereign.  I remember crossing paths with a couple 
>>> honeymooning on their Rodriguez tandem.  I can't remember if it was a 
>>> marathon.  I am now noticing that the additional Rivendell stays extend to 
>>> the rear dropouts rather than to the seat stays' mid section.
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> San Diego
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:46:22 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>
 The Bombadil(60 cm w/700c wheels, parallel TT) is the only frame I 
 really much paid attention to and bought, albeit from a list member in 
 2011. I'm pretty sure they were all customer choice paint jobs, save and 
 specials, returns, cancels and such.

 I recall also that the Bomba tubes were heat treated, not sure about 
 the Hunq but I'd be surprised if they were. Only GP knows what tubes cost 
 what. Plus the fancy lugs. I have no idea about the Hunqa frames lugs but 
 the Bombas sure are fancy, if that's you're thing. I don't ride a Riv for 
 the rep/status or the paint jobs or even the looks, I have two because 
 they 
 fit me well and they're steel. I'm outside the bounds of most every stock 
 Riv bike and yet those two worked(Susie is the other). That's about it. 
 I'm 
 all for Practicability. 

 While the Hunqapillar was touted as a Bomba replacement, it was only 
 that in category as the frame itself was totally different in dimensions 
 and sizes, not to mention the diagonal tube which still looks odd to me. 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/effdcaef-a7b3-45e7-88c0-e1d54f11c4c2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[James M]

Whoa - the adjusters on those Breezer brake levers!

(Super interesting thread overall!)

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 1:53:02 PM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Echoing Shoji's message, I love the diagonal tubes on the Hunqs (and 
> Bombadils) that had them. 
>
> Thanks for mentioning Joe Breeze. Grant has spoken often of Breeze and the 
> original Breezer 1. I can't imagine it was not a design inspiration for the 
> Hunqapillar. 
>
> The Breezer 1 is in the Smithsonian Museum of American History. I attached 
> a photo and the build list of the original, which is a fantastically 
> interesting historical document. Check out the reinforced fork on that 
> thing!! The build list states that the weight as configured was 38 pounds. 
> It's from 1977, yet it still seems so familiar and current given how folks 
> outfit their Rivs.  
>
> You can find more info at the Smithsonian 
> .
>
> Jim
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:07:39 AM UTC-5 Shoji Takahashi wrote:
>
>> For me, the Hunqapillar diagatube was a visual draw-- I liked it better 
>> than the parallel-to-top-tube bar of the Bombadil.
>>
>> The diagatube reminds me of the original Joe Breeze mountain bike frame: 
>>
>> https://mmbhof.org/portfolio/first-fat-tire-bike-with-a-new-frame-and-all-new-parts/
>>
>> Additional tubes have been around for a long time in bicycle history, 
>> some for functional reasons and others for style. (E.g., google cargo bikes)
>>
>> shoji
>> arlington ma
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-5 Bill Schairer wrote:
>>
>>> I've also thought the diagonal tube to look odd except on the very 
>>> largest of frames for the very largest of riders.  They seem reminiscent of 
>>> the original Santana Sovereign tandems, where they seemed to make some 
>>> sense.  I remember Santana claiming the "marathon" style to be the stiffest 
>>> configuration for a tandem per all sorts of tests they performed.  Later, 
>>> it seems everyone, including Santana, shifted to a diagonal tube running to 
>>> the rear bottom bracket and, nowadays, most tandems have dispensed with the 
>>> diagonal tube.  It all leaves me wondering...
>>>
>>> In a quick search for some history on the "marathon" style I found this 
>>> on the Rodriguez site: "so this design kind of went the way of the Ford 
>>> Edsel in our shop."  I couldn't quickly find the origins of the style but 
>>> it seems the tandem industry abandoned the design long before Rivendell 
>>> applied it to singles.  It has always been a bit of a curiosity to me as, 
>>> even for a tandem, it is considered over-built these days.
>>>
>>> [image: loaded santana.jpg]
>>> 1980 Santana Sovereign.  I remember crossing paths with a couple 
>>> honeymooning on their Rodriguez tandem.  I can't remember if it was a 
>>> marathon.  I am now noticing that the additional Rivendell stays extend to 
>>> the rear dropouts rather than to the seat stays' mid section.
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> San Diego
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:46:22 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>
 The Bombadil(60 cm w/700c wheels, parallel TT) is the only frame I 
 really much paid attention to and bought, albeit from a list member in 
 2011. I'm pretty sure they were all customer choice paint jobs, save and 
 specials, returns, cancels and such.

 I recall also that the Bomba tubes were heat treated, not sure about 
 the Hunq but I'd be surprised if they were. Only GP knows what tubes cost 
 what. Plus the fancy lugs. I have no idea about the Hunqa frames lugs but 
 the Bombas sure are fancy, if that's you're thing. I don't ride a Riv for 
 the rep/status or the paint jobs or even the looks, I have two because 
 they 
 fit me well and they're steel. I'm outside the bounds of most every stock 
 Riv bike and yet those two worked(Susie is the other). That's about it. 
 I'm 
 all for Practicability. 

 While the Hunqapillar was touted as a Bomba replacement, it was only 
 that in category as the frame itself was totally different in dimensions 
 and sizes, not to mention the diagonal tube which still looks odd to me. 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/331b3b90-1703-4049-a616-285c80e89737n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Shoji Takahashi]

For me, the Hunqapillar diagatube was a visual draw-- I liked it better 
than the parallel-to-top-tube bar of the Bombadil.

The diagatube reminds me of the original Joe Breeze mountain bike frame: 
https://mmbhof.org/portfolio/first-fat-tire-bike-with-a-new-frame-and-all-new-parts/

Additional tubes have been around for a long time in bicycle history, some 
for functional reasons and others for style. (E.g., google cargo bikes)

shoji
arlington ma



On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:49:05 AM UTC-5 Bill Schairer wrote:

> I've also thought the diagonal tube to look odd except on the very largest 
> of frames for the very largest of riders.  They seem reminiscent of the 
> original Santana Sovereign tandems, where they seemed to make some sense.  
> I remember Santana claiming the "marathon" style to be the stiffest 
> configuration for a tandem per all sorts of tests they performed.  Later, 
> it seems everyone, including Santana, shifted to a diagonal tube running to 
> the rear bottom bracket and, nowadays, most tandems have dispensed with the 
> diagonal tube.  It all leaves me wondering...
>
> In a quick search for some history on the "marathon" style I found this on 
> the Rodriguez site: "so this design kind of went the way of the Ford Edsel 
> in our shop."  I couldn't quickly find the origins of the style but it 
> seems the tandem industry abandoned the design long before Rivendell 
> applied it to singles.  It has always been a bit of a curiosity to me as, 
> even for a tandem, it is considered over-built these days.
>
> [image: loaded santana.jpg]
> 1980 Santana Sovereign.  I remember crossing paths with a couple 
> honeymooning on their Rodriguez tandem.  I can't remember if it was a 
> marathon.  I am now noticing that the additional Rivendell stays extend to 
> the rear dropouts rather than to the seat stays' mid section.
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:46:22 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>
>> The Bombadil(60 cm w/700c wheels, parallel TT) is the only frame I really 
>> much paid attention to and bought, albeit from a list member in 2011. I'm 
>> pretty sure they were all customer choice paint jobs, save and specials, 
>> returns, cancels and such.
>>
>> I recall also that the Bomba tubes were heat treated, not sure about the 
>> Hunq but I'd be surprised if they were. Only GP knows what tubes cost what. 
>> Plus the fancy lugs. I have no idea about the Hunqa frames lugs but the 
>> Bombas sure are fancy, if that's you're thing. I don't ride a Riv for the 
>> rep/status or the paint jobs or even the looks, I have two because they fit 
>> me well and they're steel. I'm outside the bounds of most every stock Riv 
>> bike and yet those two worked(Susie is the other). That's about it. I'm all 
>> for Practicability. 
>>
>> While the Hunqapillar was touted as a Bomba replacement, it was only that 
>> in category as the frame itself was totally different in dimensions and 
>> sizes, not to mention the diagonal tube which still looks odd to me. 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/22af44c8-9984-4d6e-8419-2e66dd4c5477n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Garth]

The Bombadil(60 cm w/700c wheels, parallel TT) is the only frame I really 
much paid attention to and bought, albeit from a list member in 2011. I'm 
pretty sure they were all customer choice paint jobs, save and specials, 
returns, cancels and such.

I recall also that the Bomba tubes were heat treated, not sure about the 
Hunq but I'd be surprised if they were. Only GP knows what tubes cost what. 
Plus the fancy lugs. I have no idea about the Hunqa frames lugs but the 
Bombas sure are fancy, if that's you're thing. I don't ride a Riv for the 
rep/status or the paint jobs or even the looks, I have two because they fit 
me well and they're steel. I'm outside the bounds of most every stock Riv 
bike and yet those two worked(Susie is the other). That's about it. I'm all 
for Practicability. 

While the Hunqapillar was touted as a Bomba replacement, it was only that 
in category as the frame itself was totally different in dimensions and 
sizes, not to mention the diagonal tube which still looks odd to me. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/78ecb541-0793-4ecb-9e37-ebfc7f8605b8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Jim M.]

Our peerless site admin has a whole Bombadil page 
here: http://cyclofiend.com/rbw/bombadil/index.html, which goes back to RR 
39 and the prot-velo Bombas.

jim m
walnut creek, ca

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 1:06:23 PM UTC-8 Marty Gierke, Stewartstown 
PA wrote:

> I may have shared this years ago, but when the idea of a diagatube Hunq 
> was floated out there, I took the liberty of photoshopping the concept 
> based on the double top tube model. That led to a conversation with Grant 
> and a whole bunch of quick iterations for different paint and graphic 
> details. Here is the complete series. You may notice I eventually used the 
> tire graphics to keep track of which was which - I think it ended at #22. I 
> am a rank amateur when it comes to photoshop, but it was close enough at 
> the time. Crazy to look back now and imagine how different it could have 
> been. Have fun browsing the pics! See if you can spot the nifty details 
> like an extra seat tube badge on a couple of them. (I still like that 
> idea.) 
>
> Hunqapillar Concepts 
> 
>
> Marty
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:50:17 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I have that poster signed by Grant and framed.
>>
>>
>> Fair winds,
>>
>> Captain Conway Bennett
>> 239.877.4119 <(239)%20877-4119>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022, 2:23 PM Eric Marth  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm enjoying the discussion, pics and details! 
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a higher-res version of this absurd Hunq poster? 
>>>
>>> [image: 440ebc01ea30bd8ba7f7e5328708bea2--urban-life-bicycle-art.jpg]
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:
>>>
 This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no 
 position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further 
 complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned 
 before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially 
 became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo 
 Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a 
 full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in 
 other 
 words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even 
 when both were MUSA?  

 Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar 
 question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford 
 made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at 
 the 
 time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the 
 two 
 differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order 
 canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I 
 was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne 
 and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially 
 eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really 
 was 
 just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less 
 boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more 
 horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would 
 effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since 
 this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and 
 they 
 just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes 
 and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 
 65cm 
 Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based 
 mega size Rivendell biking needs.

 Brian Cole
 Lawrence NJ

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".  
> I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception 
> that 
> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I 
> was 
> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
> was the 650b earlier option.  
>
> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if 
> the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin 
> and 
> also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>
> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
> 

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Marty Gierke, Stewartstown PA]

I may have shared this years ago, but when the idea of a diagatube Hunq was 
floated out there, I took the liberty of photoshopping the concept based on 
the double top tube model. That led to a conversation with Grant and a 
whole bunch of quick iterations for different paint and graphic details. 
Here is the complete series. You may notice I eventually used the tire 
graphics to keep track of which was which - I think it ended at #22. I am a 
rank amateur when it comes to photoshop, but it was close enough at the 
time. Crazy to look back now and imagine how different it could have been. 
Have fun browsing the pics! See if you can spot the nifty details like an 
extra seat tube badge on a couple of them. (I still like that idea.) 

Hunqapillar Concepts 


Marty

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:50:17 PM UTC-5 captaincon...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I have that poster signed by Grant and framed.
>
>
> Fair winds,
>
> Captain Conway Bennett
> 239.877.4119 <(239)%20877-4119>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022, 2:23 PM Eric Marth  wrote:
>
>> I'm enjoying the discussion, pics and details! 
>>
>> Does anyone have a higher-res version of this absurd Hunq poster? 
>>
>> [image: 440ebc01ea30bd8ba7f7e5328708bea2--urban-life-bicycle-art.jpg]
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:
>>
>>> This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no 
>>> position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further 
>>> complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned 
>>> before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially 
>>> became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo 
>>> Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a 
>>> full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in other 
>>> words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even 
>>> when both were MUSA?  
>>>
>>> Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar 
>>> question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford 
>>> made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at the 
>>> time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the two 
>>> differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order 
>>> canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I 
>>> was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne 
>>> and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially 
>>> eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really was 
>>> just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less 
>>> boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more 
>>> horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would 
>>> effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since 
>>> this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and they 
>>> just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes 
>>> and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 65cm 
>>> Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based 
>>> mega size Rivendell biking needs.
>>>
>>> Brian Cole
>>> Lawrence NJ
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
 given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".  
 I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
 frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
 Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
 manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
 those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
 only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I 
 was 
 of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
 was the 650b earlier option.  

 Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if 
 the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and 
 also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?

 thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
 Jason

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:

> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>
>> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
>> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
>> look different?
>>

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Conway Bennett]

I have that poster signed by Grant and framed.


Fair winds,

Captain Conway Bennett
239.877.4119

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022, 2:23 PM Eric Marth  wrote:

> I'm enjoying the discussion, pics and details!
>
> Does anyone have a higher-res version of this absurd Hunq poster?
>
> [image: 440ebc01ea30bd8ba7f7e5328708bea2--urban-life-bicycle-art.jpg]
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:
>
>> This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no
>> position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further
>> complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned
>> before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially
>> became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo
>> Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a
>> full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in other
>> words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even
>> when both were MUSA?
>>
>> Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar
>> question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford
>> made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at the
>> time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the two
>> differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order
>> canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I
>> was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne
>> and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially
>> eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really was
>> just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less
>> boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more
>> horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would
>> effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since
>> this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and they
>> just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes
>> and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 65cm
>> Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based
>> mega size Rivendell biking needs.
>>
>> Brian Cole
>> Lawrence NJ
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil"
>>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".
>>> I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA
>>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA
>>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the
>>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that
>>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm
>>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was
>>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba
>>> was the 650b earlier option.
>>>
>>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if
>>> the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and
>>> also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>>
>>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>>
 They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo
> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle
> look different?
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image:
>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/8k2ulNQVpUk/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a75a2668-bb74-4cd9-8feb-b09c3fa7f02en%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

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

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Chris L]

I had it on the wall in my office for years.  

I've never heard it mentioned, but one of the early Hunqapillar brochures 
showed three colors they had planned for the heat tube and decals, 
red/maroon, orange and blue, which apparently didn't make the cut.  The 
three Mammoths on the poster seem to reflect those three colors. 

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:23:17 PM UTC-6 eric...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm enjoying the discussion, pics and details! 
>
> Does anyone have a higher-res version of this absurd Hunq poster? 
>
> [image: 440ebc01ea30bd8ba7f7e5328708bea2--urban-life-bicycle-art.jpg]
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:
>
>> This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no 
>> position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further 
>> complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned 
>> before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially 
>> became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo 
>> Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a 
>> full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in other 
>> words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even 
>> when both were MUSA?  
>>
>> Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar 
>> question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford 
>> made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at the 
>> time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the two 
>> differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order 
>> canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I 
>> was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne 
>> and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially 
>> eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really was 
>> just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less 
>> boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more 
>> horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would 
>> effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since 
>> this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and they 
>> just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes 
>> and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 65cm 
>> Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based 
>> mega size Rivendell biking needs.
>>
>> Brian Cole
>> Lawrence NJ
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
>>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
>>>  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
>>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
>>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
>>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
>>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
>>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was 
>>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
>>> was the 650b earlier option.  
>>>
>>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if 
>>> the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and 
>>> also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>>
>>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>>
 They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
> look different?
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/856d2a48-5757-404b-acb7-2745a1a749a0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Eric Marth]

I'm enjoying the discussion, pics and details! 

Does anyone have a higher-res version of this absurd Hunq poster? 

[image: 440ebc01ea30bd8ba7f7e5328708bea2--urban-life-bicycle-art.jpg]

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:

> This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no 
> position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further 
> complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned 
> before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially 
> became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo 
> Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a 
> full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in other 
> words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even 
> when both were MUSA?  
>
> Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar 
> question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford 
> made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at the 
> time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the two 
> differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order 
> canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I 
> was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne 
> and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially 
> eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really was 
> just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less 
> boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more 
> horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would 
> effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since 
> this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and they 
> just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes 
> and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 65cm 
> Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based 
> mega size Rivendell biking needs.
>
> Brian Cole
> Lawrence NJ
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
>>  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was 
>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
>> was the 650b earlier option.  
>>
>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
>> Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
>> if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>
>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>> Jason
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>
>>> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>>
 Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
 angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
 look different?

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:

> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a75a2668-bb74-4cd9-8feb-b09c3fa7f02en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

This is certainly an interesting and complex question and I am in no 
position to provide any answers or guidance but think it's further 
complicated by overall cost changes over time and how it's been mentioned 
before how some of the Tolkien models like Bombadil & Legolas essentially 
became off menu, non-custom customs - wasn't it something like a stock geo 
Nobilette built but non-Joe Bell paint frame so significantly less than a 
full custom and more of a made-to-order with the custom builder... in other 
words, were they ever actually being made in the same exact place, even 
when both were MUSA?  

Years ago before acquiring my 65cm Clem H I actually posed a similar 
question to Will regarding the Waterford made A.Homer Hilsen vs. Waterford 
made 64cm Sam Hillborne, which was the only MUSA made Hillborne size at the 
time, and had me wondering what, if anything, would ultimately make the two 
differ in overall cost/value/performance when considering a made to order 
canti-equipped countrybike with both options going through Waterford.  I 
was just over the recommended pbh range for the production 62cm Hillborne 
and understood going to Waterford for a 64cm Sam would essentially 
eliminate the value gained from the Taiwan production Sam's so I really was 
just looking to verify whether the ultimate difference may more or less 
boil down to a visual one with the sloping Hillborne vs. the more 
horizontal Homer, if overall costs and tubing at that size would 
effectively balance out.  The whole discussion ended up being moot since 
this was in fact right at the time the 64cm Sam was already pulled and they 
just hadn't gotten around the updating the site yet to reflect the changes 
and Riv's recommendation became a 67cm AHH by default.  Of course, the 65cm 
Clem H was also about to be released and ultimately meet my value based 
mega size Rivendell biking needs.

Brian Cole
Lawrence NJ

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" given 
> the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".  I'm 
> assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA frame?  IF 
> so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA Waterford, why/why 
> not?  I figured it was something similar to the manufacturing locations of 
> the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that those two have identical 
> geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm only asking because its 
> often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was of the understanding it 
> was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba was the 650b earlier 
> option.  
>
> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
> Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
> if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>
> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
> Jason
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
>>> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
>>> look different?
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>>>
 [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/54eb8a0a-03bf-43b6-b239-b5b5cf1f3a22n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[J J]

I discussed the history of Hunqapillar pricing in another recent thread 
. 
It started out at $1,500 and incrementally rose to $2,350.

As far as I can ascertain from the Wayback archive, the most the Bombadil 
went for was $3,000. It started out at $2,000.

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:47:21 PM UTC-5 lconley wrote:

> There was an actual additional piece of steel. It looks like a longer lug 
> in paint, but if one of raw, clear coated frames, you can see that is an 
> addition piece of metal.
> [image: bomb2 (2).jpg]
>
> Laing
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:38:07 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Sure thing Laing, so the Bombadil was more ornate with the lug profile? 
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-6 lconley wrote:
>>
>>> For one thing, the Hunqapillar did not have the lower head tube - down 
>>> tube lug extension like the Bombadil.
>>>
>>> Laing
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
 given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
 frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
 Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
 manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
 those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
 only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I 
 was 
 of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
 was the 650b earlier option.  

 Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if 
 the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and 
 also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?

 thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
 Jason

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:

> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>
>> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
>> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
>> look different?
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>>
>>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
>>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9ee596d0-1d4e-445f-8133-a8196e6fa53en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[lconley]

There was an actual additional piece of steel. It looks like a longer lug 
in paint, but if one of raw, clear coated frames, you can see that is an 
addition piece of metal.
[image: bomb2 (2).jpg]

Laing

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:38:07 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sure thing Laing, so the Bombadil was more ornate with the lug profile? 
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-6 lconley wrote:
>
>> For one thing, the Hunqapillar did not have the lower head tube - down 
>> tube lug extension like the Bombadil.
>>
>> Laing
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
>>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
>>>  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
>>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
>>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
>>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
>>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
>>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was 
>>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
>>> was the 650b earlier option.  
>>>
>>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if 
>>> the Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and 
>>> also if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>>
>>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>>
 They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
> look different?
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f9b03274-9b37-4f42-9c66-7114f9aa8447n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Conway Bennett]

Hunqapillars we're $1850 in 2011 when I became aware of them.  I paid $2000 
for a used 650b which was the final iteration.  I feel like it cost $2500 
new.

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-6 lconley wrote:

> For one thing, the Hunqapillar did not have the lower head tube - down 
> tube lug extension like the Bombadil.
>
> Laing
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
>>  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was 
>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
>> was the 650b earlier option.  
>>
>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
>> Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
>> if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>
>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>> Jason
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>
>>> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>>
 Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
 angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
 look different?

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:

> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8afcf388-7d02-4b67-861a-a528e8fcace6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Jason Zakaras]

Sure thing Laing, so the Bombadil was more ornate with the lug profile? 

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-6 lconley wrote:

> For one thing, the Hunqapillar did not have the lower head tube - down 
> tube lug extension like the Bombadil.
>
> Laing
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" 
>> given the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around". 
>>  I'm assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA 
>> frame?  IF so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA 
>> Waterford, why/why not?  I figured it was something similar to the 
>> manufacturing locations of the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that 
>> those two have identical geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm 
>> only asking because its often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was 
>> of the understanding it was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba 
>> was the 650b earlier option.  
>>
>> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
>> Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
>> if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>>
>> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
>> Jason
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>>
>>> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>>
 Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
 angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
 look different?

 On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:

> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5a1dde1a-67fd-4b5f-bb5c-f238163f31ebn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[lconley]

For one thing, the Hunqapillar did not have the lower head tube - down tube 
lug extension like the Bombadil.

Laing

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-5 jasonz...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" given 
> the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".  I'm 
> assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA frame?  IF 
> so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA Waterford, why/why 
> not?  I figured it was something similar to the manufacturing locations of 
> the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that those two have identical 
> geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm only asking because its 
> often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was of the understanding it 
> was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba was the 650b earlier 
> option.  
>
> Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
> Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
> if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?
>
> thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
> Jason
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
>>> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
>>> look different?
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>>>
 [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1a6f82d6-e5fb-49d4-a579-6582f6ad1f44n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Jason Zakaras]

I've often wondered what made the Hunq the "less expensive Bombadil" given 
the tubing being as Grant calls "the most expensive tubes around".  I'm 
assuming it was based on it being MIT and the Bomba being a MUSA frame?  IF 
so, were they equally priced once the Hunq moved to MUSA Waterford, why/why 
not?  I figured it was something similar to the manufacturing locations of 
the Quickbeam/SimpleOne with the exception that those two have identical 
geometry and the Hunq/Bomba are different.  I'm only asking because its 
often referred here as the cheaper bomba, but I was of the understanding it 
was more like the 700c bike (hunq) and the bomba was the 650b earlier 
option.  

Probably a messy way to ask but to clean it up, can anyone tell me if the 
Hunq was actually that much cheaper once it was moved to Wisconsin and also 
if the tubing stayed the same once it was manufactured in the US?

thanks! Love these two bikes and this thread!
Jason

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6 Dick Combs wrote:

> They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:
>
>> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo 
>> angle that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle 
>> look different?
>>
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>>
>>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
>>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4e7cade5-70c2-4662-b080-c3bcd18c60f8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Dick Combs]

They are the same, both the originals that came with the frame

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 11:24:59 AM UTC-5 J J wrote:

> Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo angle 
> that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle look 
> different?
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:
>
>> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
>> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c6c572ae-e12b-4078-9cb6-83dea4cef86dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[J J]

Cool pair of Hunqs! are the forks different? Or is it just the photo angle 
that makes the curve on the fork on the one with the black saddle look 
different?

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:56:43 AM UTC-5 Dick Combs wrote:

> [image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
> 7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7ceba5ab-8985-4c0b-be14-e11de68a0220n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Dick Combs]

[image: 61977D70-55E2-4782-A93A-A8333171AFD6.jpeg][image: 
7A5D4923-2037-4ACB-81D6-3091B473A0FB.jpeg]My two Hunqs

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9e90cb22-a384-474d-bdd7-f6970139f44dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Bombadil and Hunqapillar origins: The definitive thread

[Luke Hendrickson]

I have a freehub that has a 7-speed and can take an 11/12 without a spacer. 
Idk what John meant when he said that… maybe CK is different. 

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 4:22:59 PM UTC-8 Andrew Letton wrote:

> I'll add a link to some photos of my original order 2TT 60cm Bombadil:
> 2009 Rivendell Bombadil 
>
> 2009 Rivendell Bombadil
>
> Explore this photo album by letton on Flickr!
> 
> Most of the photos are from the original build in 2009, but the last two 
> show a recent iteration here in Australia, complete with Towel Rack bars 
> and Gravity dropper post.
>
> On my most recent bikepacking trip, I found myself the oldest, heaviest, 
> least-fit rider on the heaviest, most-overpacked bike, so in an effort to 
> keep my friends from having to wait for me at the top of every hill, I'm in 
> the process of reconfiguring it yet again with more of a bikepacking theme: 
> half frame bag, fork bags, handlebar roll, and long, narrow Ortlieb drybag 
> strapped a Nitto R14 rack (so I can still use the dropper). With the 
> smaller bags, I'll be less able to pack as many kitchen sinks. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew...north of Sydney
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 02:16:17 AM GMT+11, Eric Marth <
> eric...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
> It seems the Bombadil and Hunqapillar frames are beloved. They're stout, 
> beautiful, and sometimes have intricate additional tubes and lugs. While 
> I've done a lot of reading about Rivendell I was a bit unclear on the 
> origins and intended uses of these frames. 
>
> I wanted to start a thread where we could share and dump info about these 
> bikes along with pictures of builds. 
>
> Joe and Jim were helpful in laying out a bit of background in another 
> thread 
> , 
> there's 
> some great info there. 
>
> The original Hunqapillar catalog is up here: 
> http://notfine.com/rivendell/Brochures/Rivendell%20Frames%20Hunqapillar.pdf
>
> The first mention I can find of the Bombadil is in RR 41, sometime in 
> 2009. Excerpted pages attached. As a few members might recall I am very 
> into raw frames with brass spilling out of the lugs! I know that many 
> Bombadil owners have had their frames repainted like Jason Fuller, whose 
> absolute stunner shows up here from time to time. By the way, the picture 
> below is one of my very favorite Rivendell images. 
>
> [image: Jason Bombadil green.jpg]
>
> There's also the butter-banana Bombadil that recently sold on eBay. I 
> believe that one was purchased by John Watson of the Radavist (and he's got 
> a Hunq) so we might see some nice pics of that bike sometime soon. 
>
> [image: s-l1600-2.jpg]
>
> And speaking of, here's John's Hunqapillar, more images and write-up here 
> .
>
> [image: Johns-Rivendell-Hunqapillar-29er-Klunker-76.jpg] 
>
> Are both of these frame names borrowing from Tolkien? I understand RBW had 
> to stop using Tolkien names. 
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9d44c9c9-01b9-4cd9-baff-f2299f52fb39n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c5266bed-9896-47e0-8748-5b348af16f3an%40googlegroups.com.