[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Guess I see the undertube as marketing in this case. Not to keep the bike different than a MCFB but to do something different than Surly, Salsa, or Raleigh. Personally, I see this bike competing more with the Pacer, Casseroll or Port Townsend than a typical off the shelf racing bike. And maybe Soma feels that type of buyer would be more open to an undertube. Again, that's just my opinion. No matter how I look at it, the bike is still too skinny and racy for my tastes. Especially since this year seems to be one of pootling on the bike. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Apr 17, 8:26 pm, CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net wrote: on 4/17/11 11:25 AM, Jeremy Till at jeremy.t...@gmail.com wrote: I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Yeah, I'm actually a bit curious as to how the specific sizing on this bicycle will turn out. I've ridden one, and it was a pretty spritely little beast. http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=431 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/4468312567/ It was a 54(55?), and I'm ~5'11, riding a 58 Quickbeam and a 59 Hilsen. It was a touch small feeling when I first got on it, but worked OK. I'd probably want to try both. As far as the second top tube...man, that feature does seem to divide folks into camps... ;^) There's no appreciable difference in weight, IMO. If you've ever hefted a light tapered tube, you'll know what I mean. And, since the frame _is_ built with lighter tubing and higher clearances (certainly more than the Ramboulliet, which got cited as not needing a 2TT), maybe it does make a difference when the triangles get big and stresses accumulate. I'll reserve judgement until I ride one of them. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Could you take a moment to vote for me? I am entered in a audiobook contest which is initially determined by public voting - if you could go here - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar register on the Bookperk site and vote for my read -http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar- I'd really appreciate it. You can vote one time each day until early May. Vote early, vote often! Thanks! -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
Matt has a good point. And, rack mounts would serve a greater purpose than the 2TT. From: newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:12 AM Subject: [RBW] Re: AMOS update It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- 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. -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't mind the double TT but if you're gonna overbuild it why not just make it more rack/load friendly? It doesn't need to be as sturdy as a Saga but maybe in-between that and their ES sport road bike. On Apr 18, 5:12 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 18, 7:24 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: This is too easy, we all know that the guys looking at $6K carbon bikes are never going to go for rack mounts:) Good Luck! Dude, I doubt people looking at $6k carbon bikes are the target audience for this bike anyway. This bike with it's quill stem, low BB height and standard reach brakes is not targeted for them in any way shape or form. Soma and even Riv with the Roadeo already have better options for that crowd. From what I've seen here in Portland, when racer types are looking for fenderable bikes they lean towards cross bikes or using modified fenders which River City sells, fenders designed for bikes with low clearances. The older racer types do seem to have older steel bikes with better clearances, but we're still talking 700x23 tires with fenders. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
I guess I don't really take Grant's comment that this is the kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten as an assertion that RBW is marketing the bike to that guy. I take it more as a commentary on the fact that many of the guys who buy those bikes would be much better off with a bike like the Amos. Shaun Meehan -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
not to beat a dead horse... but the double top tube road bike is just plain marketing schtick, nothing else. I just got back from a 2 week bike tour in the Yucatan and took many pictures of bikes owned by economically poor locals. Nearly every bike had double top tubes. Ray Lisbon, CT -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Eric I shared your reaction to the 2TT on the San Marcos. A second top tube sounds very much unnecessary and out of place on a 59cm road bike that is sturdy enough for fenders but not racks. I'll keep saving for a Roadeo or a custom (or the next thing I can't live without). On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume ericda...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page: http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/knothole_post/349 I was disappointed to hear this about the second top tube: *It is an expanded frame, meaning the top tube slopes up 6-degrees to assure good comfy highish handlebars even if you buy a bit too small. The first three sizes coming---by late May, we're told, but we are out of that loop---will be 54, 59, and 63. The two bigger have an undertube (second top tube), and the 54 won't. The other sizes are 47 and 51, and they'll come later and will fit 650B wheels.* I've been kind of debating this bike vs. the Rawland Nordavinden (if that one ever happens...), but, I'm sorry, I find this whole second top tube thing just silly, especially on a sporty road bike. No thanks. Eric Dublin, OH -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 17, 8:01 am, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: Me, too. The second top tube is a deal killer. Sorry to be grousy but it's a dumb idea except maybe for cargo bikes. Agree. I can see 650b for smaller size, but the 700c bikes getting a second top tube is too much! I don't get Grant when he says: kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten - really? Guys who are looking at $6K carbon bikes are not going for 650b or double top tubes. Sorry, doesn't work on either count. I guess with a total distribution of only 15 frames/size, they shouldn't have too much trouble selling. Still, I doubt its going to be on anyone's radar who is also looking at $6K carbon bikes. Good Luck! -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room.It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. -Matt -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
Nailed it. On 4/17/11, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: bfd I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's their bike. Grant 'specifically' said that those folks who did buy a $6000 road bike should have bought a bike like the San Marcos. Somebody with as much experience reading Grant's postings as you do know what Grant means by that. He means that folks who buy plastic 16lb bikes should be buying 20lb steel bikes. That's a lot different than saying Hey, you bike shoppers! After you test ride that Cervelo and that Madone, come check out this undertube! That would be ridiculous, but that's not what Grant said, that's what you said. Merry Sales paid Grant for a design. Grant supplied one. None of the prototype photos have the second TT, so I suspect Merry Sales/Soma made the decision to add it. There's no way Grant called Merry Sales and said I've done the calculations and the bigger two sizes MUST have a 2TT! I'd bet a dollar that it's a fashion-driven decision, and the tiny production run makes it sound like a loss-leader, which bums me out on several levels besides the lousy idea of a 2TT on a road bike. good luck! Me, I love the 2TT on my parallel Bombadil, and I'm glad my 56cm Hillborne doesn't have one. On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room.It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Unfortunately, probably not in the cards for me financially anytime soon. Although maybe i can do a frame on layaway. On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume ericda...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page: http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/knothole_post/349 I was disappointed to hear this about the second top tube: *It is an expanded frame, meaning the top tube slopes up 6-degrees to assure good comfy highish handlebars even if you buy a bit too small. The first three sizes coming---by late May, we're told, but we are out of that loop---will be 54, 59, and 63. The two bigger have an undertube (second top tube), and the 54 won't. The other sizes are 47 and 51, and they'll come later and will fit 650B wheels.* I've been kind of debating this bike vs. the Rawland Nordavinden (if that one ever happens...), but, I'm sorry, I find this whole second top tube thing just silly, especially on a sporty road bike. No thanks. Eric Dublin, OH -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the cream head tube. On Apr 17, 11:10 am, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: Nailed it. On 4/17/11, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: bfd I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's their bike. Grant 'specifically' said that those folks who did buy a $6000 road bike should have bought a bike like the San Marcos. Somebody with as much experience reading Grant's postings as you do know what Grant means by that. He means that folks who buy plastic 16lb bikes should be buying 20lb steel bikes. That's a lot different than saying Hey, you bike shoppers! After you test ride that Cervelo and that Madone, come check out this undertube! That would be ridiculous, but that's not what Grant said, that's what you said. Merry Sales paid Grant for a design. Grant supplied one. None of the prototype photos have the second TT, so I suspect Merry Sales/Soma made the decision to add it. There's no way Grant called Merry Sales and said I've done the calculations and the bigger two sizes MUST have a 2TT! I'd bet a dollar that it's a fashion-driven decision, and the tiny production run makes it sound like a loss-leader, which bums me out on several levels besides the lousy idea of a 2TT on a road bike. good luck! Me, I love the 2TT on my parallel Bombadil, and I'm glad my 56cm Hillborne doesn't have one. On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:40 -0700, rob markwardt wrote: The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the cream head tube. +1 -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. Philip Philip Williamson www.biketinker.com On Apr 17, 10:47 am, Ron MH visio...@gmail.com wrote: It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. 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-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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
And for me, I lurv the double TT on the Bombadil and larger Hilsens, but don't like the diagnatube of the Hunqapillar. But either on a road bike seem overkill. Luckily we can vote with our wallets and get a Roadeo, or a Hilsen or an Atlantis :-) On 4/17/11, Bruce fullylug...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. 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-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. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
not to beat a dead horse... but the double top tube road bike is just plain marketing schtick, nothing else. For me I would have bought a Hunquapillar if the 54 had the diagonal tube. I think that is a classic look and make sense for a camping/ rough stuff bike. ~Mike On Apr 17, 4:42 pm, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: And for me, I lurv the double TT on the Bombadil and larger Hilsens, but don't like the diagnatube of the Hunqapillar. But either on a road bike seem overkill. Luckily we can vote with our wallets and get a Roadeo, or a Hilsen or an Atlantis :-) On 4/17/11, Bruce fullylug...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. 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-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. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS- 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.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
What no one is talking about yet is how it will be built out, component-wise. Sure, some will go the full-Riv route - Nitto noodles, bar-end shifters, Sugino triple, B17 saddle, etc., at least those who read this list and buy it frame-only from Riv if it's sold that way. I can see many shops who sell it as a Soma will do so with a full Shimano 105 build, or maybe a SRAM Apex build, and that many of the buyers will not know who Grant Petersen is, think Bridgestone has only and always made car tires, and think Rivendell is some fantasy kingdom of sorts. If the double top tube turns out to be a dud, Soma will drop it in a heartbeat and go with singles. Maybe change the color a little or a lot too. Wait and see. On Apr 17, 1:47 pm, Ron MH visio...@gmail.com wrote: It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
on 4/17/11 11:25 AM, Jeremy Till at jeremy.t...@gmail.com wrote: I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Yeah, I'm actually a bit curious as to how the specific sizing on this bicycle will turn out. I've ridden one, and it was a pretty spritely little beast. http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=431 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/4468312567/ It was a 54(55?), and I'm ~5'11, riding a 58 Quickbeam and a 59 Hilsen. It was a touch small feeling when I first got on it, but worked OK. I'd probably want to try both. As far as the second top tube...man, that feature does seem to divide folks into camps... ;^) There's no appreciable difference in weight, IMO. If you've ever hefted a light tapered tube, you'll know what I mean. And, since the frame _is_ built with lighter tubing and higher clearances (certainly more than the Ramboulliet, which got cited as not needing a 2TT), maybe it does make a difference when the triangles get big and stresses accumulate. I'll reserve judgement until I ride one of them. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Could you take a moment to vote for me? I am entered in a audiobook contest which is initially determined by public voting - if you could go here - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar register on the Bookperk site and vote for my read - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar - I'd really appreciate it. You can vote one time each day until early May. Vote early, vote often! Thanks! -- 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.
