I have to agree--the extended seat tube looks (to put it kindly) odd, and
limits ones ability to raise the bars. I recently bought a Rawland Stag
and find it a more agreeable design. (though not without a few issues of
it's own--hey, it's a budget frame)
Steve
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM,
On 11/15/2013 09:10 AM, Steven Frederick wrote:
I have to agree--the extended seat tube looks (to put it kindly) odd,
and limits ones ability to raise the bars.
How can an extended seat tube limit one's ability to raise the
handlebars? Let's suppose you don't like the extended seat tube and
I think he meant that the seat tube extension might limit the size frame
one can fit, and without the extension one might otherwise order the next
size up, getting a higher head tube.
Anton
On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:15:25 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:
How can an extended seat tube
On 11/15/2013 10:49 AM, Anton Tutter wrote:
I think he meant that the seat tube extension might limit the size
frame one can fit,
In other words, can't the saddle low enough?
and without the extension one might otherwise order the next size up,
getting a higher head tube.
I think this
Bill pointed out that it's only 17mm higher Steve in the 65cm. size.
That's not a whole lot more than a classic steel road frame with it's
naturally higher head tube than seat tube.
On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:09:14 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:
On 11/15/2013 10:49 AM, Anton Tutter
I thought the Rivendell perspective was that wheel diameter should be
a direct function of frame size and that a 65 cm frame would have a wheel
diameter somewhat greater than 622 mm if such a thing was (readily)
available. I'm just recalling something I think I once read, perhaps in an
old
I'm abandoning this Soma idea, for me anyway. I still think this is a nice
frame at an outstanding price for those it will fit well. I am curious to
see how Nick likes it.
I called Boulder Bicycle and they really seemed hesitant to say it would
fit. They wanted me to take a bunch of
A shorter (than 180) crank is probably a good call. I 650'd my Riv Road
Standard and its 175 cranks are pretty low now. I've grazed the pavement
once or twice.
I put light loads in a Wald basket on the Mark's rack on front, and I can
load it up to about 10lbs before it starts affecting the
And this conversation is why I enjoy the Riv List in the Winter months.
Lots of talk. Lots of opinions. Here's mine :
We talk and talk and talk about fit and sizing. When it comes down to it,
if you aren't 100% sure on the fit, don't buy it online. I make many
purchases online, but almost
Intention is that this will be my primary randonneuring bike.
On the plus side, my Velo Orange fenders moved right over with no problem
from their current location on an '84 Trek 610. On the minus side, the
Velo Orange Pass Hunter front rack apparently will not fit on this frame so
I guess I
If anybody cares Nitto has a 280mm version of the Technomics quill
available now. That should be more than enough rise for just about any
build.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/internet-bob/qXP5MLcLIFs
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:49:43 AM UTC-8, NickBull wrote:
Garth,
You
I have to say that is a tempting choice for a 650b round town bike. I love
my bombadil but with a stumpjumper and a MB2 I feel I have a lot of overlap
in my stable right now. Would this be considered livelier than a Sam H?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM, NickBull nick.bike.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, can anyone compare this to the Velo Orange Polyvalent MKII?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Peter Morgano uscpeter11...@gmail.comwrote:
I have to say that is a tempting choice for a 650b round town bike. I love
my bombadil but with a stumpjumper and a MB2 I feel I have a lot of overlap
I just looked at the Soma fabrications website and the frame section. The
fact that Mike Kone of Rene Herse/Boulder BIkes is a co-designer for this
frame is definitely a good indication. Mike has been around the randonneur
scene for years, and his own developments at Boulder Bicycle have
Something else to consider for the current production run of the Soma
Randonneur frame set is this caveat from their website:
*NOTE: First production has a error with the fork's crown race interface.
It fits JIS(27.0) 1 threaded headsets, not the more popular ISO (26.4mm).
If you think you are
From the ReneHersestore:
*Please allow about 10 days for your frame to ship - we are just catching
up on prepping them.*
Also - there is discussion about the fork's crown race diameter. When you
purchase the frame from us we machine down the crown race so it is the
typical 26.4 seat
On 11/12/2013 12:04 PM, Tony McG wrote:
From the ReneHersestore:
*Please allow about 10 days for your frame to ship - we are just
catching up on prepping them.
*
Also - there is discussion about the fork's crown race diameter. When
you purchase the frame from us we machine down the crown
I am in the process of building one up. Shorter chainstays should make the
frame more responsive, which is a plus for randonneuring. And since this
frame is designed for front-loading, there's no reason to have long
chainstays for pannier clearance. There is certainly plenty of room in the
I think it looks like a great bike. Wouldn't mind setting one up as a
townie/porteur. Plus it would keep me in the bike a month club!
Cheers,
David
it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:07 AM, NickBull nick.bike.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I am in the
If it's what you* really want*, great ... if not ... let it pass. I'd
gladly pay whatever extra to get what I really want, then nickel and dime
myself with what I do not .
The 65 is more like a 60 or 61 ...lol with a 33.5 standover.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 11/12/2013 12:07 PM, NickBull wrote:
I am in the process of building one up. Shorter chainstays should
make the frame more responsive, which is a plus for randonneuring.
And since this frame is designed for front-loading, there's no reason
to have long chainstays for pannier clearance.
That is great, Nick! What are you planning on using it for? Send some
pics when you're done!
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, NickBull nick.bike.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I am in the process of building one up. Shorter chainstays should make
the frame more responsive, which is a plus for
Why do you say it's more like a 60 or 61? Don't really care about
standover to tell you the truth, just want a comfortable, well balanced
ride.
To give some idea of where I am with another bike, I am 6'7 and my Burley
tandem is a 23/21. Not exactly ideal, but it works out pretty good in
us would be the Rene Herse Store
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:06:49 AM UTC-6, Steve Palincsar wrote:
On 11/12/2013 12:04 PM, Tony McG wrote:
From the ReneHersestore:
*Please allow about 10 days for your frame to ship - we are just catching
up on prepping them. *
Also - there
They've simply made the seat tube overly long, but the top of the head tube
itself is well lower than the top of the ST. If you like lower bars,
that'll be great. If you want higher bars without lots of spacers or
extenders , not so great. Back to using a long quill adapter on a brand new
If you don't mind the loss associated with reselling it if it doesn't work
out, then go for it! Like you, I have a complete 650B build kit laying
around, so I could set one up for myself for under $600 total, and I love
doing builds, so for me the risk would be tiny. It sounds like you are
On 11/12/2013 02:08 PM, Garth wrote:
They've simply made the seat tube overly long, but the top of the head
tube itself is well lower than the top of the ST. If you like lower
bars, that'll be great. If you want higher bars without lots of
spacers or extenders , not so great.
That does
Pretty clear by any stretch of the imagination ...lol. . Much taller than
average ST height and* taller than the top of the Head Tube*.
(I'm not referring to the top of the uncut steering tube)
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:26:00 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:
On 11/12/2013 02:08 PM,
On 11/12/2013 02:34 PM, Garth wrote:
Pretty clear by any stretch of the imagination ...lol. . Much taller
than average ST height and_taller than the top of the Head Tube_.
(I'm not referring to the top of the uncut steering tube)
That is hardly a cut-down head tube. In fact, it's a rather
Steve ...I'm not going to continue because this could go on endlessly
point-counter point-etc-etc.. This is matter of *perspective*, and I have
mine, you yours, and we simply cannot see the same thing the same way no
matter how many words or drawings.
The orignal question was what's not to
It's a threaded quill on the Soma, so no spacers.
I have one of those 225mm Nittos sitting around. If that's not long enough
to make the handlebars level with the seat, then the bike is not
acceptable. That's what I'm trying to work out in my mind. I will wait to
talk to Boulder Cycles before
Jim,
I'm 5 inches shorter than you and have a 61cm GR, which I choose over the
63cm trying to avoid a too-long reach. In hindsight, a 63cm would've been a
better fit for me. I have more seatpost and stem showing than I think the
style police would allow and I think I still want my saddle higher.
Jim some Riv frames are assembled with spacers in a threaded headset
stack to get some extra bar height with a traditional -17 degree stem.
They've done this a long time, especially with the frames prior to the 6
degree sloping TT.
The 64 Sam would suit you great. Also being tall, I've
I was looking forward to the Soma as well but decided to go with a
Rawland Stag because of the lighter tubing spec and a much nicer bend in
the fork. The Soma Grand Randonneur is stouter in it's build which is fine
as Soma wanted that feature but I am on the light side and wanted something
Jim,
I'm late to this, but as a data point: I have a PBH of 100 cm I would not
expect to get the bars anywhere near high enough with that Soma frame and a
Tallux stem. High enough for me means at least saddle height or higher. To
illustrate: I have a 66 cm Peugeot frame with a level top tube.
On 11/12/2013 03:08 PM, Garth wrote:
Steve ...I'm not going to continue because this could go on endlessly
point-counter point-etc-etc.. This is matter of *perspective*, and I
have mine, you yours, and we simply cannot see the same thing the same
way no matter how many words or drawings.
No,
Steve I say this with light heart You're missing the point I
made. It's not that it does not have a liberal HT extension. The point I
made was that relative to the ST top , the frame appears to have *less *ST-HT
differential height , making it's no better, if not worse than a
On 11/12/2013 05:13 PM, Garth wrote:
Steve I say this with light heart You're missing the point
I made. It's not that it does not have a liberal HT extension. The
point I made was that relative to the ST top , the frame appears to
have *less *ST-HT differential height , making
The seat post clamp is further from the cluster because there's less chance
of heat distortion at the clamping point. We've seen issues in the past
with integrated binders that didn't clamp down properly as a result of
this. If you have adequate standover it shouldn't have an affect your
Guys,
Sorry to stick my oar in but it seems to me that the question is how the
seat tube (frame size) is measured.
If it's measured all the way to the top of the seat tube where the seatpost
clamp is, then the HT extension will be (roughly!!!) cancelled out by the
seat tube extension, and the
There are names for both of these measurements and their position in space
is not ambiguous. You don't need to rotate photographs or draw lines on
anything. You do need to look at the numbers and trust that Boulder is
publishing accurate numbers. I do trust them, but it never hurts to
41 matches
Mail list logo
