I confess to being a bit of a grouch about this kind of thing. Can you tell?
But it's not about neo/retro grouchiness. To me, working at a bike shop is a
balance between giving my customers what they want and not letting them do
something that is a bad idea or more trouble than it's worth.
At
Oversized implies that, whatever the paradigm is, *this *one is
different. A single scalar unjustly obsessed upon as if increasing it
opened the door to greatness and performance known only to the gods of
Olympus.
Bike frames seem to me (my personal disclaimer and demonstrated respect for
Classic 531 tubing grew out of 1930's airplane frame construction
material. It was strong and light. For that reason it was good for bikes
too. Thinner wall tubing came along that needed larger diameter to
resist bending. Each tubeset has qualities that make it a better/poorer
choice for a
On 02/20/2014 07:10 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
At the moment, the skinnier tube, low-trail bikes are mostly the domain of custom framebuilders.
For most people, a custom frame is not a realistic option. From that perspective, the formerly
standard diameter tubing doesn't really
I'm sure Boulder is fine, but it's just one option, and it may or may not be
somebody's ideal frame for other reasons. I have encouraged people to look at
the Boulder as an option when they want those features, even though I don't
sell that brand.
--
You received this message because you are
Oscar the Retrogrouch only lives in steel trashcans. No plastic stuff for him!
-Justin
--
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
Bravo, Doug!
That's my story and I'm stickin to it...
I can't wait for someone to adopt the term neo-grouch... *(that is, if it
ain't the latest, it sucks)*...
All in good fun :)
Peace to all grouches worldwide!,
BB
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:47:13 PM UTC-5, dougP wrote:
I just tell
Yep, the oversized description doesn't work anymore these days, when most
bike frames have tube proportions that make them look drawn by a toddler
with a fistful of dull fat crayon. That's why the headsets have
disappeared, too. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that..don't
get me
Yeah, that's a good point too. If you were to refer to an oversized
steel-tubed frame as oversized when it's sitting next to a modern carbon
fiber bike with 3 deep by 1 wided bladed tubes, it REALLY starts to sound
silly. Especially if your audience is a group of 20-something-year-old
roadies.
On 02/19/2014 11:40 AM, grant wrote:
Yep, the oversized description doesn't work anymore these days, when
most bike frames have tube proportions that make them look drawn by a
toddler with a fistful of dull fat crayon. That's why the headsets
have disappeared, too. (I'm not saying there's
Don't the new CF bikes have hidden internal headsets? I think that is one
of the things they do to increase aerodynamics or some crap like that,
haha.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote:
On 02/19/2014 11:40 AM, grant wrote:
Yep, the oversized description
Integrated headsets-- e.g.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/sneak-peek-colnagos-new-epq/159960
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/pro-bike-dominik-roels-team-milram-focus-izalco-team/105472
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:51:58 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:
On 02/19/2014
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote:
On 02/19/2014 11:40 AM, grant wrote:
Yep, the oversized description doesn't work anymore these days, when
most bike frames have tube proportions that make them look drawn by a
toddler with a fistful of dull fat crayon.
On 02/19/2014 12:58 PM, Shaun Meehan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com
mailto:palin...@his.com wrote:
On 02/19/2014 11:40 AM, grant wrote:
Yep, the oversized description doesn't work anymore these
days, when most bike frames have
Being tall, 6'6 and under 200 lbs, Oversize tubing is normal for me. The
larger diameter tubing in my bikes makes for a nice ride compared to my now
long gone old Peugeot that was too small for me.When frames get big there
is more flex and that can make for front end shimmy and other riding
It seems the key is what 'oversized' is compared against. Traditional
diameter tubing doesn't seem undersized for me. But I'm smaller and
lighter.
60cm frames are 'oversized' frames...for some of us.
So 'over' and 'under' seem to have much to do with rider and purpose.
--
You received this
Oversize tubing adds stiffness given comparable wall thickness. So
depending on your size and planned loads you choose the appropriate
stiffness desired.
at 6' and 195ish I find standard diameter 8/5/8 tubing the best for
unloaded riding on the road and smooth dirt trails. For touring I
I meant derision in the sense that retro-grouches always resist new things,
even when the new things have been common and widely accepted for a decade or
two or three. The word oversize in this context is almost never used by
somebody who doesn't have a bias toward older bikes.
--
You
On 02/18/2014 01:34 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
I meant derision in the sense that retro-grouches always resist new things, even when the
new things have been common and widely accepted for a decade or two or three. The word
oversize in this context is almost never used by somebody
Oversized tubing isn't oversized at all to anyone who hasn't been around
bikes for 25-or-so years. To those newer to cycling oversized tubing and
clipless pedals are equally bizarre terms. Both refer to what they've
always seen as the norm.
Anyway, my comment about referring to traditional size
This response is also tongue-in-cheek. tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek.
Since the new fad is for super flexy bikes made from undersized skinny
tubes, who is the retrogrouch in this picture? The young kid who is trying
this new flexible frame idea, having ridden stiff road bikes for the last
I get it. Everything old is new again, to the point where the
retrogrouch is the guy/girl that's refusing to try the new old stuff
because the old stuff is too new-fangled for him or her. Plus ça change and
so forth...
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bill Lindsay tapebu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's long past time to retire retrogrouch. All it ever was
was a term of derision directed at those who were too independent-minded
to fall into a swoon at the mention of any gimcrack marketed as
something new (in a field where little, if anything hasn't already
been tried before at
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote:
I think it's long past time to retire retrogrouch. All it ever was
was a term of derision directed at those who were too independent-minded to
fall into a swoon at the mention of any gimcrack marketed as something
new
I agree and apologize about using the R-word. I don't have anything against
tubing of any diameter. I guess I would caution people not to think it's more
important than it is, but if you can find a frame that meets all your other
targets and also uses smaller size tubing, then go for it, if you
I'm not old enough to be a grouch.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
thill@gmail.com wrote:
I agree and apologize about using the R-word. I don't have anything
against tubing of any diameter. I guess I would caution people not to think
it's more important
Our 1 year old is a grouch right now. Grouchiness is ageless.
Huph! Grin.
With abandon,
Patrick
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:02:24 PM UTC-7, Christopher Chen wrote:
I'm not old enough to be a grouch.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
I'm on board with doing away with the retrogrouch label. The only
drawback is that it would eliminate an easy way of categorizing myself
when trying to relate my preferences to someone who's enthusiastic about a
lot of the whizbang advancements that I have no interest in.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at
On 02/18/2014 05:02 PM, Christopher Chen wrote:
I'm not old enough to be a grouch.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2048789 :-)
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
thill@gmail.com mailto:thill@gmail.com wrote:
I agree and apologize about using the
I would certainly agree on the sturdiness of oversize tubing ruggedness
is a function of material properties... usually meaning heat treated tubing
which has 3 times the dent resistance of plain CroMo used on most
production bikes.
~mike
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:55:18 PM UTC-8,
I just tell 'em ...the 20th century was good to me so that's where I'm
staying... Provides ample wiggle room on lots of issues.
dougP
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:13:32 PM UTC-8, meehan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on board with doing away with the retrogrouch label. The only
drawback is
Back to the thread topic … oversize vs standard or skinny tubes …
I have a variety of mostly Rivendell bikes (Herons, Riv Road, Riv MTB,
Quickbeam, Bleriot Protovelo) generally built with plus-sized tubes, though
the Riv Road has identical 28.6 top and down tubes. And I have a
Terraferma 650B
32 matches
Mail list logo
