Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Ryan]

Good luck with the build; I understand why you went for this bike...always 
had a soft spot for the early classic Rivs. Can't wait to see the build, 
and, of course, I hope you enjoy many happy miles on it!

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:15:44 PM UTC-6 Adrianna T wrote:

> Thanks everyone who responded and who helped out. I didn’t have the chance 
> to respond to each of you, but I read and appreciated all your messages. 
>
> So today I went back with a trusted bike friend and we did the stand over. 
> Somehow, this bike frame is a fit. Even though I am 5’5, I think my shorter 
> torso helps with the reach. 
>
> I will spend the next couple of weeks building it up with the help of some 
> friends here in San Francisco, who will be helping me pick and locate 
> parts. 
>
> I will update my progress and post the finished product at some point. 
>
> - Adrianna
>
> On Jan 29, 2022, at 4:00 PM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Adrianna
>
> Here are my answers to your questions
>
>  
>
> --Question 1: What is your usual distance from pedal center to top of 
> saddle?
>
> Saddle Height (SH) is measured from the center of the BB spindle to the 
> top of the saddle along the seat tube.   Not to a pedal located to some 
> position in it’s rotation.  
>
>  
>
>  You can adjust the saddle so there is a slight bend in your leg when your 
> on the saddle and the pedal is at 5 o’clock, but it is NOT Saddle Height.  
> Pedal at 5 o’clock typically puts the crank arm parallel to the seat tube.
>
>  
>
> Grant Peterson has stated Saddle Height is related to PBH by  SH = PBH 
> – 10 to 11 cm.  a few times in the Rivendell Readers.   For example, I’m 
> 5’7”, my PBH is 80.6cm and my SH is 70.5cm (set by someone watching pedal 
> on my bike in a trainer).  This difference is 10.1cm, very close to Grant.
>
>  
>
> SO if you your PBH, you can get a good approximation of your SH.
>
>  
>
> A 5’5” person typically uses a 170mm (17cm) crank arm.  Even if you used a 
> 165mm arm, the distance is reduced by only 5mm (0.5cm) which is very small 
> change compared to the 87cm distance from saddle to pedal given my 70cm SH 
> and I use a 17cm crank arm.  Crank arm length is typically a fine tuning 
>  adjustment
>
>  
>
>  
>
> --Question 2: What is your usual top of saddle (at seat tube centerline) 
> and handlebar heights?
>
> BAR HEIGHT is typically referenced to the Top of the Saddle, not to the 
> Ground.  Your bars are in 1 of 3 positions:
>
> Bars BELOW the Saddle by XXcm
>
> Bars EVEN with the Saddle, 0cm difference
>
> Bars ABOVE the Saddle by XXcm
>
>  
>
> I keep my bars EVEN with the Saddle to 1cm BELOW the Saddle, depending on 
> my fitness level.  I find I am comfortable in the drops and prefer the 
> drops vs the brake hoods.
>
>  
>
> 15 to 20 years ago Rivendell recommended bars even with saddle.  Now they 
> say Bars above saddle.   I feel my setting (Even to 1cm Below) are within 
> their recommendations.
>
>  
>
> The lower the bars, your muscles are mor effective, but there is more 
> weight is on your hands and your hands can get numb.  The higher the bars 
> are, less weight on the hands and you are more upright, but your muscles 
> are less effective
>
>  
>
> If I read you diagram correctly, your bars are 3.5” (9cm) BELOW the Saddle 
> (37” – 33.5”).  This is an extremely LOW bar position, typically used by 
> the pros. 
>
>  
>
> -Question 3: What is your usual distance from top of saddle (at seat tube 
> centerline) to handlebar center?
>
> My distance (Saddle where ST would come through to center of the stem 
> clamp) is 60.4cm on my 88 Voyageur (53.3cm STL, 54cm TTL, 74° STA, 71°HTA, 
> 71cm SH) with Bars EVEN with Saddle and 1 7cm stem length.   This along 
> with a drop bar reach of 11.5cm (C-E) puts my back at a 45° or slightly 
> higher position (back angle referenced to the horizontal).
>
>  
>
> This distance plus the Bar REACH results in your back at a certain angle 
> to the horizontal.   Long distances result in LOW back angles and mor 
> weight on your arms and hands,  Short distances result in HIGH back angles, 
> you are more upright and less weight on arms and hands.  15 to 20 years ago 
> Rivendell recommended a 45° back angle.  Now they recommend HIGHER angles, 
> more upright. I am comfortable with 45°, but it’s a personal choice.
>
>  
>
> Additional Info
>
>  
>
> I calculated the distance from Saddle to stem clamp for a 50cm Ramboiulet 
> since it’s STL and TTL matched the Road Standard.  The calculation assumes 
> bars EVEN with Saddle and a horizontal TT.
>
>  
>
> Assumed a 69sm Saddle Height for you based on my 71cm and 5’7” height vs 
> your 5’5”, a 7cm stem length and 26” x 32mm tires (radius = 31.6cm).   Here 
> are the 50cm Ramboilett geo, the STL was increased 1.9cm due to the 2° 
> upsloping TT, and assuming the geo table is Effective TTL
>
>  
>
> STL 51.9cm,  TTL 52cm,  STA 72.5°,  HTA 71°,  BBD 5.5cm,  Rake 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Congratulations on your decision, you should be able to get a stem length 
and bar reach to fit you.

One word of caution, the smaller frame has a short headtube.   This limits 
how far down the stem quill can go in the head tube.  A Nitto Technomic 
(225mm stem quill length) may hit the "bottom" of the head tube before 
reaching the point where the clamp is at same height as the saddle.  This 
has occurred at once in the past on this board.

You can check this with a shorter stem and use the result to determine what 
quill length you need.  You would need to know your Saddle Height or at 
least PBH and subtract 10cm for an approximate saddle height.



John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:

> Thanks everyone who responded and who helped out. I didn’t have the chance 
> to respond to each of you, but I read and appreciated all your messages. 
>
> So today I went back with a trusted bike friend and we did the stand over. 
> Somehow, this bike frame is a fit. Even though I am 5’5, I think my shorter 
> torso helps with the reach. 
>
> I will spend the next couple of weeks building it up with the help of some 
> friends here in San Francisco, who will be helping me pick and locate 
> parts. 
>
> I will update my progress and post the finished product at some point. 
>
> - Adrianna
>
> On Jan 29, 2022, at 4:00 PM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Adrianna
>
> Here are my answers to your questions
>
>  
>
> --Question 1: What is your usual distance from pedal center to top of 
> saddle?
>
> Saddle Height (SH) is measured from the center of the BB spindle to the 
> top of the saddle along the seat tube.   Not to a pedal located to some 
> position in it’s rotation.  
>
>  
>
>  You can adjust the saddle so there is a slight bend in your leg when your 
> on the saddle and the pedal is at 5 o’clock, but it is NOT Saddle Height.  
> Pedal at 5 o’clock typically puts the crank arm parallel to the seat tube.
>
>  
>
> Grant Peterson has stated Saddle Height is related to PBH by  SH = PBH 
> – 10 to 11 cm.  a few times in the Rivendell Readers.   For example, I’m 
> 5’7”, my PBH is 80.6cm and my SH is 70.5cm (set by someone watching pedal 
> on my bike in a trainer).  This difference is 10.1cm, very close to Grant.
>
>  
>
> SO if you your PBH, you can get a good approximation of your SH.
>
>  
>
> A 5’5” person typically uses a 170mm (17cm) crank arm.  Even if you used a 
> 165mm arm, the distance is reduced by only 5mm (0.5cm) which is very small 
> change compared to the 87cm distance from saddle to pedal given my 70cm SH 
> and I use a 17cm crank arm.  Crank arm length is typically a fine tuning 
>  adjustment
>
>  
>
>  
>
> --Question 2: What is your usual top of saddle (at seat tube centerline) 
> and handlebar heights?
>
> BAR HEIGHT is typically referenced to the Top of the Saddle, not to the 
> Ground.  Your bars are in 1 of 3 positions:
>
> Bars BELOW the Saddle by XXcm
>
> Bars EVEN with the Saddle, 0cm difference
>
> Bars ABOVE the Saddle by XXcm
>
>  
>
> I keep my bars EVEN with the Saddle to 1cm BELOW the Saddle, depending on 
> my fitness level.  I find I am comfortable in the drops and prefer the 
> drops vs the brake hoods.
>
>  
>
> 15 to 20 years ago Rivendell recommended bars even with saddle.  Now they 
> say Bars above saddle.   I feel my setting (Even to 1cm Below) are within 
> their recommendations.
>
>  
>
> The lower the bars, your muscles are mor effective, but there is more 
> weight is on your hands and your hands can get numb.  The higher the bars 
> are, less weight on the hands and you are more upright, but your muscles 
> are less effective
>
>  
>
> If I read you diagram correctly, your bars are 3.5” (9cm) BELOW the Saddle 
> (37” – 33.5”).  This is an extremely LOW bar position, typically used by 
> the pros. 
>
>  
>
> -Question 3: What is your usual distance from top of saddle (at seat tube 
> centerline) to handlebar center?
>
> My distance (Saddle where ST would come through to center of the stem 
> clamp) is 60.4cm on my 88 Voyageur (53.3cm STL, 54cm TTL, 74° STA, 71°HTA, 
> 71cm SH) with Bars EVEN with Saddle and 1 7cm stem length.   This along 
> with a drop bar reach of 11.5cm (C-E) puts my back at a 45° or slightly 
> higher position (back angle referenced to the horizontal).
>
>  
>
> This distance plus the Bar REACH results in your back at a certain angle 
> to the horizontal.   Long distances result in LOW back angles and mor 
> weight on your arms and hands,  Short distances result in HIGH back angles, 
> you are more upright and less weight on arms and hands.  15 to 20 years ago 
> Rivendell recommended a 45° back angle.  Now they recommend HIGHER angles, 
> more upright. I am comfortable with 45°, but it’s a personal choice.
>
>  
>
> Additional Info
>
>  
>
> I calculated the distance from Saddle to stem clamp for a 50cm Ramboiulet 
> since 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Joe Bernard]

Congrats! I can't wait to see it built up, it's such a beautiful frame. 


On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 7:15:44 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Thanks everyone who responded and who helped out. I didn’t have the chance 
> to respond to each of you, but I read and appreciated all your messages. 
>
> So today I went back with a trusted bike friend and we did the stand over. 
> Somehow, this bike frame is a fit. Even though I am 5’5, I think my shorter 
> torso helps with the reach. 
>
> I will spend the next couple of weeks building it up with the help of some 
> friends here in San Francisco, who will be helping me pick and locate 
> parts. 
>
> I will update my progress and post the finished product at some point. 
>
> - Adrianna
>
> On Jan 29, 2022, at 4:00 PM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Adrianna
>
> Here are my answers to your questions
>
>  
>
> --Question 1: What is your usual distance from pedal center to top of 
> saddle?
>
> Saddle Height (SH) is measured from the center of the BB spindle to the 
> top of the saddle along the seat tube.   Not to a pedal located to some 
> position in it’s rotation.  
>
>  
>
>  You can adjust the saddle so there is a slight bend in your leg when your 
> on the saddle and the pedal is at 5 o’clock, but it is NOT Saddle Height.  
> Pedal at 5 o’clock typically puts the crank arm parallel to the seat tube.
>
>  
>
> Grant Peterson has stated Saddle Height is related to PBH by  SH = PBH 
> – 10 to 11 cm.  a few times in the Rivendell Readers.   For example, I’m 
> 5’7”, my PBH is 80.6cm and my SH is 70.5cm (set by someone watching pedal 
> on my bike in a trainer).  This difference is 10.1cm, very close to Grant.
>
>  
>
> SO if you your PBH, you can get a good approximation of your SH.
>
>  
>
> A 5’5” person typically uses a 170mm (17cm) crank arm.  Even if you used a 
> 165mm arm, the distance is reduced by only 5mm (0.5cm) which is very small 
> change compared to the 87cm distance from saddle to pedal given my 70cm SH 
> and I use a 17cm crank arm.  Crank arm length is typically a fine tuning 
>  adjustment
>
>  
>
>  
>
> --Question 2: What is your usual top of saddle (at seat tube centerline) 
> and handlebar heights?
>
> BAR HEIGHT is typically referenced to the Top of the Saddle, not to the 
> Ground.  Your bars are in 1 of 3 positions:
>
> Bars BELOW the Saddle by XXcm
>
> Bars EVEN with the Saddle, 0cm difference
>
> Bars ABOVE the Saddle by XXcm
>
>  
>
> I keep my bars EVEN with the Saddle to 1cm BELOW the Saddle, depending on 
> my fitness level.  I find I am comfortable in the drops and prefer the 
> drops vs the brake hoods.
>
>  
>
> 15 to 20 years ago Rivendell recommended bars even with saddle.  Now they 
> say Bars above saddle.   I feel my setting (Even to 1cm Below) are within 
> their recommendations.
>
>  
>
> The lower the bars, your muscles are mor effective, but there is more 
> weight is on your hands and your hands can get numb.  The higher the bars 
> are, less weight on the hands and you are more upright, but your muscles 
> are less effective
>
>  
>
> If I read you diagram correctly, your bars are 3.5” (9cm) BELOW the Saddle 
> (37” – 33.5”).  This is an extremely LOW bar position, typically used by 
> the pros. 
>
>  
>
> -Question 3: What is your usual distance from top of saddle (at seat tube 
> centerline) to handlebar center?
>
> My distance (Saddle where ST would come through to center of the stem 
> clamp) is 60.4cm on my 88 Voyageur (53.3cm STL, 54cm TTL, 74° STA, 71°HTA, 
> 71cm SH) with Bars EVEN with Saddle and 1 7cm stem length.   This along 
> with a drop bar reach of 11.5cm (C-E) puts my back at a 45° or slightly 
> higher position (back angle referenced to the horizontal).
>
>  
>
> This distance plus the Bar REACH results in your back at a certain angle 
> to the horizontal.   Long distances result in LOW back angles and mor 
> weight on your arms and hands,  Short distances result in HIGH back angles, 
> you are more upright and less weight on arms and hands.  15 to 20 years ago 
> Rivendell recommended a 45° back angle.  Now they recommend HIGHER angles, 
> more upright. I am comfortable with 45°, but it’s a personal choice.
>
>  
>
> Additional Info
>
>  
>
> I calculated the distance from Saddle to stem clamp for a 50cm Ramboiulet 
> since it’s STL and TTL matched the Road Standard.  The calculation assumes 
> bars EVEN with Saddle and a horizontal TT.
>
>  
>
> Assumed a 69sm Saddle Height for you based on my 71cm and 5’7” height vs 
> your 5’5”, a 7cm stem length and 26” x 32mm tires (radius = 31.6cm).   Here 
> are the 50cm Ramboilett geo, the STL was increased 1.9cm due to the 2° 
> upsloping TT, and assuming the geo table is Effective TTL
>
>  
>
> STL 51.9cm,  TTL 52cm,  STA 72.5°,  HTA 71°,  BBD 5.5cm,  Rake 4.25cm
>
>  
>
> Here are the results
>
> Saddle to center of stem clamp,   59.0 cm
>
> Trail,  6.4cm & Flop =2.0cm,  both match the 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Adrianna T]

Thanks everyone who responded and who helped out. I didn’t have the chance to 
respond to each of you, but I read and appreciated all your messages. 

So today I went back with a trusted bike friend and we did the stand over. 
Somehow, this bike frame is a fit. Even though I am 5’5, I think my shorter 
torso helps with the reach. 

I will spend the next couple of weeks building it up with the help of some 
friends here in San Francisco, who will be helping me pick and locate parts. 

I will update my progress and post the finished product at some point. 

- Adrianna

> On Jan 29, 2022, at 4:00 PM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Adrianna
> 
> Here are my answers to your questions
> 
>  
> 
> --Question 1: What is your usual distance from pedal center to top of saddle?
> 
> Saddle Height (SH) is measured from the center of the BB spindle to the top 
> of the saddle along the seat tube.   Not to a pedal located to some position 
> in it’s rotation. 
> 
>  
> 
>  You can adjust the saddle so there is a slight bend in your leg when your on 
> the saddle and the pedal is at 5 o’clock, but it is NOT Saddle Height.  Pedal 
> at 5 o’clock typically puts the crank arm parallel to the seat tube.
> 
>  
> 
> Grant Peterson has stated Saddle Height is related to PBH by  SH = PBH – 
> 10 to 11 cm.  a few times in the Rivendell Readers.   For example, I’m 5’7”, 
> my PBH is 80.6cm and my SH is 70.5cm (set by someone watching pedal on my 
> bike in a trainer).  This difference is 10.1cm, very close to Grant.
> 
>  
> 
> SO if you your PBH, you can get a good approximation of your SH.
> 
>  
> 
> A 5’5” person typically uses a 170mm (17cm) crank arm.  Even if you used a 
> 165mm arm, the distance is reduced by only 5mm (0.5cm) which is very small 
> change compared to the 87cm distance from saddle to pedal given my 70cm SH 
> and I use a 17cm crank arm.  Crank arm length is typically a fine tuning  
> adjustment
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --Question 2: What is your usual top of saddle (at seat tube centerline) and 
> handlebar heights?
> 
> BAR HEIGHT is typically referenced to the Top of the Saddle, not to the 
> Ground.  Your bars are in 1 of 3 positions:
> 
> Bars BELOW the Saddle by XXcm
> 
> Bars EVEN with the Saddle, 0cm difference
> 
> Bars ABOVE the Saddle by XXcm
> 
>  
> 
> I keep my bars EVEN with the Saddle to 1cm BELOW the Saddle, depending on my 
> fitness level.  I find I am comfortable in the drops and prefer the drops vs 
> the brake hoods.
> 
>  
> 
> 15 to 20 years ago Rivendell recommended bars even with saddle.  Now they say 
> Bars above saddle.   I feel my setting (Even to 1cm Below) are within their 
> recommendations.
> 
>  
> 
> The lower the bars, your muscles are mor effective, but there is more weight 
> is on your hands and your hands can get numb.  The higher the bars are, less 
> weight on the hands and you are more upright, but your muscles are less 
> effective
> 
>  
> 
> If I read you diagram correctly, your bars are 3.5” (9cm) BELOW the Saddle 
> (37” – 33.5”).  This is an extremely LOW bar position, typically used by the 
> pros.
> 
>  
> 
> -Question 3: What is your usual distance from top of saddle (at seat tube 
> centerline) to handlebar center?
> 
> My distance (Saddle where ST would come through to center of the stem clamp) 
> is 60.4cm on my 88 Voyageur (53.3cm STL, 54cm TTL, 74° STA, 71°HTA, 71cm SH) 
> with Bars EVEN with Saddle and 1 7cm stem length.   This along with a drop 
> bar reach of 11.5cm (C-E) puts my back at a 45° or slightly higher position 
> (back angle referenced to the horizontal).
> 
>  
> 
> This distance plus the Bar REACH results in your back at a certain angle to 
> the horizontal.   Long distances result in LOW back angles and mor weight on 
> your arms and hands,  Short distances result in HIGH back angles, you are 
> more upright and less weight on arms and hands.  15 to 20 years ago Rivendell 
> recommended a 45° back angle.  Now they recommend HIGHER angles, more 
> upright. I am comfortable with 45°, but it’s a personal choice.
> 
>  
> 
> Additional Info
> 
>  
> 
> I calculated the distance from Saddle to stem clamp for a 50cm Ramboiulet 
> since it’s STL and TTL matched the Road Standard.  The calculation assumes 
> bars EVEN with Saddle and a horizontal TT.
> 
>  
> 
> Assumed a 69sm Saddle Height for you based on my 71cm and 5’7” height vs your 
> 5’5”, a 7cm stem length and 26” x 32mm tires (radius = 31.6cm).   Here are 
> the 50cm Ramboilett geo, the STL was increased 1.9cm due to the 2° upsloping 
> TT, and assuming the geo table is Effective TTL
> 
>  
> 
> STL 51.9cm,  TTL 52cm,  STA 72.5°,  HTA 71°,  BBD 5.5cm,  Rake 4.25cm
> 
>  
> 
> Here are the results
> 
> Saddle to center of stem clamp,   59.0 cm
> 
> Trail,  6.4cm & Flop =2.0cm,  both match the geo table
> 
> Front Center,  56.3 cmYou will have 1.3cm of Toe Clip Overlap,  most 
> early Rivendells do
> 
>  
> 
> The minimum Saddle to stem distance 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Adrianna

Here are my answers to your questions

 

--Question 1: What is your usual distance from pedal center to top of 
saddle?

Saddle Height (SH) is measured from the center of the BB spindle to the top 
of the saddle along the seat tube.   Not to a pedal located to some 
position in it’s rotation.  

 

 You can adjust the saddle so there is a slight bend in your leg when your 
on the saddle and the pedal is at 5 o’clock, but it is NOT Saddle Height.  
Pedal at 5 o’clock typically puts the crank arm parallel to the seat tube.

 

Grant Peterson has stated Saddle Height is related to PBH by  SH = PBH 
– 10 to 11 cm.  a few times in the Rivendell Readers.   For example, I’m 
5’7”, my PBH is 80.6cm and my SH is 70.5cm (set by someone watching pedal 
on my bike in a trainer).  This difference is 10.1cm, very close to Grant.

 

SO if you your PBH, you can get a good approximation of your SH.

 

A 5’5” person typically uses a 170mm (17cm) crank arm.  Even if you used a 
165mm arm, the distance is reduced by only 5mm (0.5cm) which is very small 
change compared to the 87cm distance from saddle to pedal given my 70cm SH 
and I use a 17cm crank arm.  Crank arm length is typically a fine tuning 
 adjustment

 

 

--Question 2: What is your usual top of saddle (at seat tube centerline) 
and handlebar heights?

BAR HEIGHT is typically referenced to the Top of the Saddle, not to the 
Ground.  Your bars are in 1 of 3 positions:

Bars BELOW the Saddle by XXcm

Bars EVEN with the Saddle, 0cm difference

Bars ABOVE the Saddle by XXcm

 

I keep my bars EVEN with the Saddle to 1cm BELOW the Saddle, depending on 
my fitness level.  I find I am comfortable in the drops and prefer the 
drops vs the brake hoods.

 

15 to 20 years ago Rivendell recommended bars even with saddle.  Now they 
say Bars above saddle.   I feel my setting (Even to 1cm Below) are within 
their recommendations.

 

The lower the bars, your muscles are mor effective, but there is more 
weight is on your hands and your hands can get numb.  The higher the bars 
are, less weight on the hands and you are more upright, but your muscles 
are less effective

 

If I read you diagram correctly, your bars are 3.5” (9cm) BELOW the Saddle 
(37” – 33.5”).  This is an extremely LOW bar position, typically used by 
the pros. 

 

-Question 3: What is your usual distance from top of saddle (at seat tube 
centerline) to handlebar center?

My distance (Saddle where ST would come through to center of the stem 
clamp) is 60.4cm on my 88 Voyageur (53.3cm STL, 54cm TTL, 74° STA, 71°HTA, 
71cm SH) with Bars EVEN with Saddle and 1 7cm stem length.   This along 
with a drop bar reach of 11.5cm (C-E) puts my back at a 45° or slightly 
higher position (back angle referenced to the horizontal).

 

This distance plus the Bar REACH results in your back at a certain angle to 
the horizontal.   Long distances result in LOW back angles and mor weight 
on your arms and hands,  Short distances result in HIGH back angles, you 
are more upright and less weight on arms and hands.  15 to 20 years ago 
Rivendell recommended a 45° back angle.  Now they recommend HIGHER angles, 
more upright. I am comfortable with 45°, but it’s a personal choice.

 

Additional Info

 

I calculated the distance from Saddle to stem clamp for a 50cm Ramboiulet 
since it’s STL and TTL matched the Road Standard.  The calculation assumes 
bars EVEN with Saddle and a horizontal TT.

 

Assumed a 69sm Saddle Height for you based on my 71cm and 5’7” height vs 
your 5’5”, a 7cm stem length and 26” x 32mm tires (radius = 31.6cm).   Here 
are the 50cm Ramboilett geo, the STL was increased 1.9cm due to the 2° 
upsloping TT, and assuming the geo table is Effective TTL

 

STL 51.9cm,  TTL 52cm,  STA 72.5°,  HTA 71°,  BBD 5.5cm,  Rake 4.25cm

 

Here are the results

Saddle to center of stem clamp,   59.0 cm

Trail,  6.4cm & Flop =2.0cm,  both match the geo table

Front Center,  56.3 cmYou will have 1.3cm of Toe Clip Overlap,  most 
early Rivendells do 

 

The minimum Saddle to stem distance would be 57.0 by using a 5cm stem 
(shortest available).

 

Based on this, this frame should fit you but you would need to determine 
your PBH, Saddle Height and what Saddle to stem clamp distance you need for 
a good back angle

 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:54:07 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:

> Joe was nice enough to help me mock-up the frame. Some notes:
>
> (I don’t have a bike right now so I don’t actually have the measurements, 
> but will probably ask a friend to help later)
>
> “ Here's a photo of the Rivendell mock-up, without bars anyway.
> I'm including my quick sketch of the frame layout.
> As set up, here are some measurements to ponder:
>
> From pedal center to top of saddle, inline with seat tube (with crank in 
> line with seat tube, not as shown): 34"
> If that Campagnolo seat post was lowered to the transition point from 
> elliptical to round (1.5" lower), 

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Adrianna

 I believe the Road Standard will fit you and if anything the TT may be a 
bit short which can be corrected with a longer stem or drop bars with 
greater reach.  This is based on the following values for:

 Road Standard (RS) 50cm STL and 52cm TTL but the frame angles are not 
provided.   Let’s assume the frame angle are the same the 50cm 
Rambouillet.  This is reasonable since as Saturday Mike pointed out the 
50cm Ram and the RS are both 26” wheels and the Ram would be the closest 
Rivendell to the Road Standard.  Here is a summary of the RS and Ram 
geometries

 RS   ST 50cm  TTL 52cmSTA  Not Known 
   HTA  Not Know 

Ram   ST 50cm  TTL 52cmSTA  
72.5°HTA  71°

 Me and my bike:  I’m 5’7” (close to your 5’5”) and I have a 88 Voyageur 
which fits me well with a 7cm stem, 10.4 cm C-C reach drop bars (Rene Herse 
Radonneur), and bar center at same height as the saddle.  The Voyageur 
geometry is:

88 Voy   ST 21” CT (53.3cm)   TTL 54cmSTA 74°HTA 71°

 If we compare my 88 Voy to the 50cm Ram, only the STA is different and you 
sit further back on the Ram.   The difference is 1.3cm  (50 x (cos74 
-cos72.5)).

 This means I would need a 52.7cm TTL on the Ram to have the same fit as I 
have on the88 Voy.  The Ram has a 52cm TTL, which is less than what I need 
and I would probably use a 1cm longer stem (go from a 7cm stem to a 8cm 
stem) to obtain the same fit as I have on the 88 Voy.

So based on this the 50cm Road Standard would fit you with a 6 to 8 cm stem 
and drop bar with a 10 to 11 cm reach (C-C).

 5cm stems are readily available so you have margin if your arms are 
shorter than normal.

 Stems are available up to 12 cm, so you will always be able to get the 
setm length you need.

 If you used a Nitto Noddle, you would need a 1cm longer stem since the 
Noodle reach is about 1cm shorter than the RH Radonneur.

Hope this helps.   

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/7425b803-e643-42d0-b793-9aa84221b459n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Saturday Mark]

Adrianna,
I would submit that this bike is kinda small for you. Most gals 5'5" are 
more of a traditional size 51/52, and would have a longer top tube. The 
closest recent Riv would be the Rambouillet . Check out sizing specs etc on 
it, the 50 and 52 were the 26" wheel also. Grant would have told you to be 
on a 54. 

Possibly you could make it fit, but .something that fits most gals like 
this would end up with saddle pretty high relative to bars. Maybe good for 
road, but not so mush on gravel/dirt.

I think this is a gorgeous frameset and "worth" the money. To get something 
of this caliber made today would be pushing 3K. 

I would bet on the 125mm spacing being a typo, as 125mm was out of style 
for a long time before that. 

my .02 $




On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-7 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/bbdc0a68-7a49-46d4-a67c-af401dbe1df0n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

The *most important parameter* to consider is "does it fit you"??   Since 
it's a Rivendell, your PBH and the PBH which Grant designed it for should 
answer most of that.  The only other consideration is your Reach vs the 
Road Standard frame angles and TTL.   Reach is typically fine tuned with 
handlebar reach and stem length.

You could easily have the rear spread to 126mm for a 7 speed cassette.  
Trouble is finding a 126 OLD rear hub. The 531 fork may ride slightly 
better than a AHH but it''s doubtful anyone could feel it.

The asking price of this Road Standard is $300 more than a new MIT AHH 
($1450 vs $1750).   Both would need all the parts (the RS throws in a 
headset and a BB, but BB are less than $30 and HS are not expensive), so 
you would be better to get modern 9 speed parts.

Old bikes, while nice, could be a money drain and a headache to find 
parts.  If it was me, I'll go with the MIT AHH, get the parts you want, 
have them build it, and ride it lot.

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/1c303ba5-9616-4db7-b93a-d232541df9f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[E. Ricky Creek]

I would pass on this frame and buy a complete early Trek 520, 620, or 720, 
all of which can be had for $400-$500. There is a 50cm 620 on SF Craigslist 
right now. Then keep an eye out for a Toyo/Waterford Atlantis, which will 
become your forever bike! I had an 88 520 that took 35mm tires and fenders 
without issue. That said, nobody can tell you what your perfect "forever" 
bike will be. I've gone through 20 bikes before settling on 2 perfect 
bicycles (Waterford Hilborne, Waterford Altlantis), and one fun bike 
(Simpleone). 
Also, consider the trauma of getting a bicycle stolen recently and how you 
will treat a bicycle that could easily have $3000 invested in it, plus the 
rarity factor. I'd never want to park that thing outside. 
All that said, if it fits you and you like riding it, then it is the best 
bike for you. To paraphrase Grant from years ago, the best bike is the one 
you ride. 

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:11:37 AM UTC-6 Ian A wrote:

> It's none of my business! But, considering you've had gravel bikes etc. 
> you might find a ~27mm tire rather narrow and perhaps limiting, especially 
> on a 559 wheel. I say this as someone who is very attached to a Marinoni 
> Turismo touring bike that carried me through Central and South America, but 
> I wish the frame and fork would accommodate a wider tire than 34mm with 
> fenders (it's a tight fit under fenders). I'm in the process of setting the 
> Marinoni up for touring again (it has been in a more stripped down 
> configuration), but I also find myself looking for a used Long Haul Trucker 
> that takes 26"x2"+ rubber under fenders.  The problem all started when I 
> bought a Rawland rSogn running 40mm x 650b Hetre tires and was blown away 
> by the benefits of a good quality wider tire. I think 38mm has become my 
> minimum width for any new bike that comes into my life.
>
> IanA Alberta Canada
>
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:43:55 PM UTC-7 Paul Brodek wrote:
>
>> T'were I you I'd want to check out the fit with wheels/tires before 
>> committing. Dealing with parts build/etc is a lot easier post-purchase than 
>> dealing with a sub-optimal fit. There are loads of crappy 26" wheels/tires 
>> you can get for cheap that would work to check fit, but whether seller will 
>> let you put wheels into a pristine frameset may be an issue.
>>
>> I still have issues with the overall value, but I'm not the one that 
>> wants it badly, so my issues don't matter much.
>>
>> But I will say that for the same/similar money, you can get yourself a 
>> brandy-new handbuilt steel frameset in a size/configuration that will fit 
>> you fer sure. It won't be lugged, you'd have to be happy with a tig'd 
>> frame, and it may not ring similar bells and release as heavy an endorphin 
>> dose as a minty vintage Riv. But it may fit better, have better clearances, 
>> and might even ride better. I suspect there are a bunch of builders who 
>> could do this, but I don't have many in my mental Rolodex. I can start with 
>> Jeff Lyon, who's been building since the '70s, and has gotten very 
>> excellent feedback on his entry-level L'avecaise frames:
>>
>> https://www.lyonsport.com/frames-0   [$1,100 for unfiled tig'd frame, 
>> $285 for matching fork]
>>
>> Paul Brodek
>> Hillsdale, NJ USA
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
>>> the Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>>>
>>> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard 
>>> to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>>>
>>> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>>>
>>> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>>>
>>> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>>>
>>> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
>>> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
>>> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>>>
>>> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now 
>>> I am not so sure.
>>>
>>> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
>>> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
>>> about it ;/
>>>
>>

-- 
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/f2090c4a-8803-45fb-92dd-b9a4b6e837b4n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Ian A]

It's none of my business! But, considering you've had gravel bikes etc. you 
might find a ~27mm tire rather narrow and perhaps limiting, especially on a 
559 wheel. I say this as someone who is very attached to a Marinoni Turismo 
touring bike that carried me through Central and South America, but I wish 
the frame and fork would accommodate a wider tire than 34mm with fenders 
(it's a tight fit under fenders). I'm in the process of setting the 
Marinoni up for touring again (it has been in a more stripped down 
configuration), but I also find myself looking for a used Long Haul Trucker 
that takes 26"x2"+ rubber under fenders.  The problem all started when I 
bought a Rawland rSogn running 40mm x 650b Hetre tires and was blown away 
by the benefits of a good quality wider tire. I think 38mm has become my 
minimum width for any new bike that comes into my life.

IanA Alberta Canada

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 10:43:55 PM UTC-7 Paul Brodek wrote:

> T'were I you I'd want to check out the fit with wheels/tires before 
> committing. Dealing with parts build/etc is a lot easier post-purchase than 
> dealing with a sub-optimal fit. There are loads of crappy 26" wheels/tires 
> you can get for cheap that would work to check fit, but whether seller will 
> let you put wheels into a pristine frameset may be an issue.
>
> I still have issues with the overall value, but I'm not the one that wants 
> it badly, so my issues don't matter much.
>
> But I will say that for the same/similar money, you can get yourself a 
> brandy-new handbuilt steel frameset in a size/configuration that will fit 
> you fer sure. It won't be lugged, you'd have to be happy with a tig'd 
> frame, and it may not ring similar bells and release as heavy an endorphin 
> dose as a minty vintage Riv. But it may fit better, have better clearances, 
> and might even ride better. I suspect there are a bunch of builders who 
> could do this, but I don't have many in my mental Rolodex. I can start with 
> Jeff Lyon, who's been building since the '70s, and has gotten very 
> excellent feedback on his entry-level L'avecaise frames:
>
> https://www.lyonsport.com/frames-0   [$1,100 for unfiled tig'd frame, 
> $285 for matching fork]
>
> Paul Brodek
> Hillsdale, NJ USA
>
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
>> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>>
>> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
>> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>>
>> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>>
>> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>>
>> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>>
>> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
>> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
>> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>>
>> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now 
>> I am not so sure.
>>
>> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
>> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
>> about it ;/
>>
>

-- 
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/7aae93b9-f0ee-4095-a981-4e5e330eaf03n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Paul Brodek]

T'were I you I'd want to check out the fit with wheels/tires before 
committing. Dealing with parts build/etc is a lot easier post-purchase than 
dealing with a sub-optimal fit. There are loads of crappy 26" wheels/tires 
you can get for cheap that would work to check fit, but whether seller will 
let you put wheels into a pristine frameset may be an issue.

I still have issues with the overall value, but I'm not the one that wants 
it badly, so my issues don't matter much.

But I will say that for the same/similar money, you can get yourself a 
brandy-new handbuilt steel frameset in a size/configuration that will fit 
you fer sure. It won't be lugged, you'd have to be happy with a tig'd 
frame, and it may not ring similar bells and release as heavy an endorphin 
dose as a minty vintage Riv. But it may fit better, have better clearances, 
and might even ride better. I suspect there are a bunch of builders who 
could do this, but I don't have many in my mental Rolodex. I can start with 
Jeff Lyon, who's been building since the '70s, and has gotten very 
excellent feedback on his entry-level L'avecaise frames:

https://www.lyonsport.com/frames-0   [$1,100 for unfiled tig'd frame, $285 
for matching fork]

Paul Brodek
Hillsdale, NJ USA


On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-5 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/12367064-d0df-447d-a168-21067fa5da89n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Ryan]

I might be biased here , but I think the issue of flat bars being cramped 
could be addressed by Moustache bars , which if well set-up gives you more 
hand positions. I AM biased though...93 X0-1, 1997 AR and 73 Peugeot PX-10 
all have Moustache bars and my mixte might go there too. 

I'm a little under 5'7'' , short torso and longish legs and arms 69 
year-old woman...and I love Rivendells or else I wouldn't own 3 of them. As 
for 26'' wheels for a bike of this quality , I'd spring for a custom 
wheelset built to the 130 spec if money isn't an issue ...but it is the 
bare frame so the built-up bike is heading to 4K+ territory and it sounds 
like your heart wants what it wants...

My .002
Ryan in Winnipeg
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-6 Greg J wrote:

> I think the size is in the ballpark, and there's some room for adjustment 
> once you've built it up.  It may be a hair on the small size (especially 
> for the Riv aesthetic of fistful of seat post), but you can probably make 
> it work.  Sorry to hear about your stolen bike, but if you have the 
> geometry for that model, then you'd have a basis for comparison.
>
> On the top tube issue, road bikes (like this one) are designed for use 
> with drop bars, so they tend to have shorter top tubes than if designed for 
> flat bars.  That said, this should be a wash for you since you say you have 
> a short torso.  
>
> Good luck, and let us know what you decide!
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 1:42:21 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> I see you already know the Elk Pass tires.
>>
>> Here's Natsuko's bike in pass hunter format.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:12 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adrianna, 
>>>
>>> This is my comment from your original thread:
>>>
>>> I've been staring at that frame for weeks, it's gorgeous! At 5'-6"-ish 
>>> it's too small for me, I'll bet a 50 × 52cm would be perfect for you, 
>>> especially with drops or Moustache/Albastache bars. 
>>>
>>> My guess - cuz that's all we can do here without you being able to size 
>>> it with wheels and bars on, which I agree is frustrating - is the reach 
>>> would be on the cramped side with flat bars. A super long stem might solve 
>>> that though. 
>>>
>>> Joe Bernard
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>>>
 Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.

 The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is 
 too small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and 
 reach, and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can 
 help 
 me understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
 don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 

 Types of rides I like: 

 - bikepacking
 - mostly road with 20% gravel

 I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.

 If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up 
 with flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term 
 project to get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time 
 building, and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of 
 the frame, given the cause and rarity. 

 But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to 
 see it yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, 
 that felt hard to gauge.

 With the current info above, what do you all think?  


 On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:

> Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's 
> whether you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- 
> as mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a 
> good cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this 
> size); (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the 
> lightest bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end 
> road tires for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a 
> neutral way.  Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some 
> trails.
>
> I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
> Waterford site), if that matters.
>
> But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
> this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And 
> what 
> do you like about it?
>
> Greg
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
>> the Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>>
>> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's 
>> hard to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>>
>> So 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Greg J]

I think the size is in the ballpark, and there's some room for adjustment 
once you've built it up.  It may be a hair on the small size (especially 
for the Riv aesthetic of fistful of seat post), but you can probably make 
it work.  Sorry to hear about your stolen bike, but if you have the 
geometry for that model, then you'd have a basis for comparison.

On the top tube issue, road bikes (like this one) are designed for use with 
drop bars, so they tend to have shorter top tubes than if designed for flat 
bars.  That said, this should be a wash for you since you say you have a 
short torso.  

Good luck, and let us know what you decide!

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 1:42:21 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> I see you already know the Elk Pass tires.
>
> Here's Natsuko's bike in pass hunter format.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:12 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrianna, 
>>
>> This is my comment from your original thread:
>>
>> I've been staring at that frame for weeks, it's gorgeous! At 5'-6"-ish 
>> it's too small for me, I'll bet a 50 × 52cm would be perfect for you, 
>> especially with drops or Moustache/Albastache bars. 
>>
>> My guess - cuz that's all we can do here without you being able to size 
>> it with wheels and bars on, which I agree is frustrating - is the reach 
>> would be on the cramped side with flat bars. A super long stem might solve 
>> that though. 
>>
>> Joe Bernard
>>
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>
>>> The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is 
>>> too small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and 
>>> reach, and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can help 
>>> me understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
>>> don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 
>>>
>>> Types of rides I like: 
>>>
>>> - bikepacking
>>> - mostly road with 20% gravel
>>>
>>> I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.
>>>
>>> If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up 
>>> with flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term 
>>> project to get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time 
>>> building, and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of 
>>> the frame, given the cause and rarity. 
>>>
>>> But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to see 
>>> it yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, that 
>>> felt hard to gauge.
>>>
>>> With the current info above, what do you all think?  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:
>>>
 Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether 
 you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as 
 mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good 
 cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); 
 (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest 
 bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road 
 tires 
 for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way.  
 Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.

 I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
 Waterford site), if that matters.

 But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
 this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And 
 what 
 do you like about it?

 Greg

 On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
> the Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard 
> to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears 
> the frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires 
> would be 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, 
> now I am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I 
> still want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be 
> objective about it ;/
>
 -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop 

Re: [RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Adrianna T]

That is a gorgeous bike! If all goes well, you'll see my build pics / 
progress in the coming weeks. Thanks for chiming in.

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 1:42:21 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> I see you already know the Elk Pass tires.
>
> Here's Natsuko's bike in pass hunter format.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:12 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrianna, 
>>
>> This is my comment from your original thread:
>>
>> I've been staring at that frame for weeks, it's gorgeous! At 5'-6"-ish 
>> it's too small for me, I'll bet a 50 × 52cm would be perfect for you, 
>> especially with drops or Moustache/Albastache bars. 
>>
>> My guess - cuz that's all we can do here without you being able to size 
>> it with wheels and bars on, which I agree is frustrating - is the reach 
>> would be on the cramped side with flat bars. A super long stem might solve 
>> that though. 
>>
>> Joe Bernard
>>
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.
>>>
>>> The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is 
>>> too small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and 
>>> reach, and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can help 
>>> me understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
>>> don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 
>>>
>>> Types of rides I like: 
>>>
>>> - bikepacking
>>> - mostly road with 20% gravel
>>>
>>> I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.
>>>
>>> If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up 
>>> with flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term 
>>> project to get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time 
>>> building, and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of 
>>> the frame, given the cause and rarity. 
>>>
>>> But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to see 
>>> it yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, that 
>>> felt hard to gauge.
>>>
>>> With the current info above, what do you all think?  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:
>>>
 Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether 
 you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as 
 mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good 
 cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); 
 (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest 
 bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road 
 tires 
 for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way.  
 Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.

 I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
 Waterford site), if that matters.

 But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
 this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And 
 what 
 do you like about it?

 Greg

 On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
> the Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard 
> to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears 
> the frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires 
> would be 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, 
> now I am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I 
> still want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be 
> objective about it ;/
>
 -- 
>>
> 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/2d6e348e-7ae4-42f3-a28b-acb60fda9f9en%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo 

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Adrianna T]

Thanks Joe.

Let's see if I take this plunge. :)

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 1:12:06 PM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:

> Hi Adrianna, 
>
> This is my comment from your original thread:
>
> I've been staring at that frame for weeks, it's gorgeous! At 5'-6"-ish 
> it's too small for me, I'll bet a 50 × 52cm would be perfect for you, 
> especially with drops or Moustache/Albastache bars. 
>
> My guess - cuz that's all we can do here without you being able to size it 
> with wheels and bars on, which I agree is frustrating - is the reach would 
> be on the cramped side with flat bars. A super long stem might solve that 
> though. 
>
> Joe Bernard
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.
>>
>> The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is 
>> too small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and 
>> reach, and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can help 
>> me understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
>> don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 
>>
>> Types of rides I like: 
>>
>> - bikepacking
>> - mostly road with 20% gravel
>>
>> I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.
>>
>> If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up 
>> with flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term 
>> project to get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time 
>> building, and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of 
>> the frame, given the cause and rarity. 
>>
>> But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to see 
>> it yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, that 
>> felt hard to gauge.
>>
>> With the current info above, what do you all think?  
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether 
>>> you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as 
>>> mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good 
>>> cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); 
>>> (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest 
>>> bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road tires 
>>> for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way. 
>>>  Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
>>> Waterford site), if that matters.
>>>
>>> But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
>>> this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And what 
>>> do you like about it?
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
 the Riv Road Standard bike frame.

 Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard 
 to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.

 So further details are posted her (on my personal page):


 https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44

 Joe also called Grant and provided this update:

 " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears 
 the frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires 
 would be 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."

 My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, 
 now I am not so sure.

 Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
 want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
 about it ;/

>>>

-- 
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/c8f9e162-ca62-4957-8bb0-17a6f48dc8dan%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Joe Bernard]

Hi Adrianna, 

This is my comment from your original thread:

I've been staring at that frame for weeks, it's gorgeous! At 5'-6"-ish it's 
too small for me, I'll bet a 50 × 52cm would be perfect for you, especially 
with drops or Moustache/Albastache bars. 

My guess - cuz that's all we can do here without you being able to size it 
with wheels and bars on, which I agree is frustrating - is the reach would 
be on the cramped side with flat bars. A super long stem might solve that 
though. 

Joe Bernard

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:52:51 PM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.
>
> The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is 
> too small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and 
> reach, and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can help 
> me understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
> don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 
>
> Types of rides I like: 
>
> - bikepacking
> - mostly road with 20% gravel
>
> I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.
>
> If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up 
> with flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term 
> project to get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time 
> building, and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of 
> the frame, given the cause and rarity. 
>
> But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to see 
> it yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, that 
> felt hard to gauge.
>
> With the current info above, what do you all think?  
>
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether 
>> you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as 
>> mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good 
>> cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); 
>> (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest 
>> bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road tires 
>> for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way. 
>>  Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
>> Waterford site), if that matters.
>>
>> But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
>> this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And what 
>> do you like about it?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want 
>>> the Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>>>
>>> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard 
>>> to tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>>>
>>> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>>>
>>> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>>>
>>> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>>>
>>> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
>>> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
>>> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>>>
>>> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now 
>>> I am not so sure.
>>>
>>> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
>>> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
>>> about it ;/
>>>
>>

-- 
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/2d6e348e-7ae4-42f3-a28b-acb60fda9f9en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Adrianna T]

Hi Joe, Greg, thanks for your thoughts.

The main thing is that I'm having trouble understanding whether this is too 
small, or just right for me (I'm 5'5, I would say short torso and reach, 
and regular legs). That's what I hope someone on this group can help me 
understand. I understand it's not an exact science, but in this case I 
don't even know if I'm in the right wheel house. 

Types of rides I like: 

- bikepacking
- mostly road with 20% gravel

I currently ride a modern gravel bike but that just got stolen.

If this is *possibly* the right size for me, I will probably set it up with 
flat bars and 26" by 1.25" Elk Pass tires. It'll be a long term project to 
get this set up as a 'forever bike', a bike that I'd spend time building, 
and hopefully ride for a long time. I am fine with the price of the frame, 
given the cause and rarity. 

But I don't know at all whether or not it's even possible. I went to see it 
yesterday and stood over it, but without anything attached to it, that felt 
hard to gauge.

With the current info above, what do you all think?  


On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:41:38 PM UTC-8 Greg J wrote:

> Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether 
> you should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as 
> mentioned before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good 
> cause and also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); 
> (2) it's a nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest 
> bike, and limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road tires 
> for 26 x 1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way. 
>  Plenty versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.
>
> I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
> Waterford site), if that matters.
>
> But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use 
> this for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And what 
> do you like about it?
>
> Greg
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
>> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>>
>> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
>> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>>
>> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>>
>> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>>
>> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>>
>> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
>> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
>> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>>
>> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now 
>> I am not so sure.
>>
>> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
>> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
>> about it ;/
>>
>

-- 
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/3ecfe9e1-d4a4-4f15-b7d3-19a885d7b28en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Greg J]

Hi Adrianna - what do you want to know from the group?  If it's whether you 
should buy it or not, that's really for you to decide, but -- as mentioned 
before -- (1) the price is on the high end (but it's for a good cause and 
also, these don't come around often, especially in this size); (2) it's a 
nice frame that probably rides very well.  Not the lightest bike, and 
limited tire selection (there are not as many high-end road tires for 26 x 
1.5 as for 700c), but I'm sure it handles well in a neutral way.  Plenty 
versatile for all types of road riding and some trails.

I'm pretty sure you can get the year from the serial number (from the 
Waterford site), if that matters.

But really, what are you looking for?  What type of rides will you use this 
for?  What do you currently ride?  How will you build it up?  And what do 
you like about it?

Greg

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/1734bd1f-a6da-485f-9578-991c14b708ebn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Updates on, and further questions regarding the Riv Road Standard 1995

[Joe Bernard]

I think it's beautiful, which counts for a lot with me..I love the color 
and have an affinity for the older frames without creamy details. But it's 
a road bike with road rear spacing that you're going to have to have 26" 
wheels built for, you're going to have a very hard time finding a set 
already built that isn't 135 spacing. And it's overpriced no matter how 
much we all might appreciate supporting the museum. 

I won't tell you what choice to make but I think you can see what I would 
do..

Joe Bernard

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-8 Adrianna T wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I went to see Joe B at the Marin Museum of Bicycling to see if I want the 
> Riv Road Standard bike frame.
>
> Details were somewhat unclear and as this group pointed out, it's hard to 
> tell size and fit when the bike is not built up.
>
> So further details are posted her (on my personal page):
>
> https://skinnylatte.notion.site/Riv-Bike-e56ddf417ee54e788e3a445eafc46f44
>
> Joe also called Grant and provided this update:
>
> " After talking with Grant, and trying a few more wheels, it appears the 
> frameset is for 26x1.4" wheels (MTB, 559 bead seat size). So tires would be 
> 35mm max, 32mm more like it. "Pre-1999 for sure," says Grant."
>
> My main question is: I previously thought this might be *just nice*, now I 
> am not so sure.
>
> Anyone see anything interesting about the new information here? I still 
> want it very badly of course, and that's maybe why I can't be objective 
> about it ;/
>

-- 
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/6da26b1f-52c3-4bfa-b815-79424ae50ebbn%40googlegroups.com.