It gets me a little worried that these misconceptions about bicycle tubing
can spread even more... I'd like to add to your explanation Bill M., with
something from this ironworker rebar bending perspective, the one that got
Grant confused. If a man bending rebar can steer someone away from
Am I the only one who snickered to himself when he saw the title
belliesandbutts.pdf?
I am, aren't I?
Philip
www.biketinker.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Doug: I think you are getting at GP's point. A lot people hoping to be
serious cyclists or what not convince themselves they need certain tube ratios
or other obscure build details. Who knows? Maybe they will wind up with a
bike that makes them happy. Odds are it is not the tubing spec
I'd be interested to know if the testers swapped wheels on the test frames.
On Friday, September 7, 2012 9:32:57 PM UTC-5, ian connelly wrote:
Everyone who likes (vintage articles about) lugged steel frames and
debates about tubing diameter should read this 1987 article linked via
Bruce
Perhaps, at one extreme we might have a perspective that only bicycle
designers have the knowledge and experience to think about frame tubing,
and the buyer should choose the frame simply on the basis of what the
designer proclaims about about his design intent. At another extreme, we
might
I'm a bit late to this discussion, and just went out and read GP's blog
posting. I thought it was very interesting and pretty much on the mark.
I'd like to offer a data point.
In 1983 I bought a Trek 620, which was billed as a touring bike but was
really a sport-touring bike made with
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:02:24 PM UTC-4, MikeC wrote:
The website is vague regarding tubing thicknesses used. Does anyone know
the exact dimensions? Just interested in data to compare my Hillborne with
other bikes that I have.
Please don't reply with, Doesn't matter, they all
On Friday, September 7, 2012 5:02:56 PM UTC-7, Leslie wrote:
AND, there ya go Straight from Grant Cool!
(I'm assuming everyone gets the RBW emails?)
-L
Grant says:
Talk of frame tubing and stiffness always leads to this: Two tubes of
identical diameter and wall thicknesses will
This makes sense and lines up with my reading on the subject over the
years.. strength vs. stiffness etc. Our frames really are 'springs' in
that they don't go past the yield point. This is why we like steel it
doesn't fail like aluminum does.Thin walled tubing is great for lighter
loads
AND, there ya go Straight from Grant Cool!
(I'm assuming everyone gets the RBW emails?)
-L
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
I am curious, Grant: I ride scandalously narrow tires on my two small wheel
customs and yet I find that they are surprisingly plush over smaller bumps
(6 expansion cracks are another matter). 44 1/2 cm chainstays. Is it the
chainstays that makes such otherwise nasty tires tolerable? (Nasty is
Oh God, not another Planing discussion, argh!
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:35 PM, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote:
I am curious, Grant: I ride scandalously narrow tires on my two small
wheel customs and yet I find that they are surprisingly plush over smaller
bumps (6 expansion cracks are
What makes all this talk of tubes and what does to what to what meaningless
is that no two people are the same ! Not only are bodies different... but
our perceptions and feel for what we wish to experience are vastly
different. So in making a frame ... the one designing it has to go with
This attitude seems a bit too whimsical to me. I agree with Grant that the
minutiae of tubing thicknesses, tensile strengths and butt lengths mean
little apart from the context of the whole frame and its user, but after
all, Grant doesn't build his frames out of just anything.
Patrick resolutely
I have a heretical theory. Thin tires are plush, if you run em soft
that is.
It seems to me that at equal pressure fatter tires ride harder than
skinnier ones.
For example, when I was riding 22c tubulars at 55 or 60 psi going up
the ridge in the local open space they were quite cushy (it takes a
Everyone who likes (vintage articles about) lugged steel frames and debates
about tubing diameter should read this 1987 article linked via Bruce Gordon
(who made both the bikes in the best):
http://www.bgcycles.com/frame-tubing-selection.html
--
You received this message because you are
As both BG GP point out, the art of design has been fine tuned over
decades. The recognizable names making steel frames today have
probably thousands of frames each in their experience. They know what
they're doing. Spend your time on the fun stuff like picking out the
ideal parts for your own
Very true, outside of full custom status the tubing mix means litltle
outside of coffee talk with our friends. I love my bombadil, and I loved
my 531 bikes but I find I can ride the bombadil without worrying about
flexing it to the max under my generous body while still getting a lively
ride.
On
I think it helps you pick the bike that you want. Touring, the Atlantis has
thicker tubes, fast road... the Roadeo has thinner tubes... Bomber trail
bike... the Bombadil has the thickest. You factor in your body weight,
what you want to carry and pick the bike that meets those needs. Diameter
I have luckily never had a failure on a bike but I have to say the bike i
pushed to the max was a Nishiki Cresta that between me and my daughter and
some stuff weighed in at over 300lbs. Cant say it rode like a dream but it
did open my eyes that many bikes back in the day that were billed for
The Waterford and Taiwanese Hillbornes are quickly distinguished by the
appearance difference in the rear dropouts. The Taiwan bikes have forks
made by a Toyo trained fabricator, Waterfords are made locally, but they
look the same. Grant was clear that the quality from either location was
the
Unless you use the heat treated super high end tubing most butted main
tubes are either .8x.5x.8 or .9x.6x.9 in thickness. A frame like the
Hillborne has a slightly lighter mix of tubing than the Atlantis but
heavier than the Hilsen (from the Riv site). I think Grant once wrote that
the
Not sur eif you mean thickness of the tube wall rubber, or what size tires
the tube will work with. If the latter:
If you use the drop down menu on this page it gives specs for each tube
size.
http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/tu.htm
--
You received this message because you are
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:02:24 PM UTC-4, MikeC wrote:
The website is vague regarding tubing thicknesses used. Does anyone know
the exact dimensions? Just interested in data to compare my Hillborne with
other bikes that I have.
It varies. When you have bikes that were built by
As one who routinely seriously over-thinks many things, I recognize
the syndrome. Once again, we are getting carried away. Speculating
here but my un-educated guess is that if one supplier has differenct
sources than another, GP can make any needed adjustments in spec to
the point none of us
Oh. You meant steel tubing thicknesses. Sorry.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/sJK6B9zYN04J.
To post to this group, send email to
OK, at the risk of making myself sound dumb again, but wanting to help if
I can:
If you are talking about the outer dimensions of the tubes, I could measure
my Bleriot tubes and you could have those to compare to the Sam you have.
But I think you are talking about wall thickness/butted
27 matches
Mail list logo
