date:20231130

Re: [RBW] Gunnar Crosshairs

2023-11-30 Thread Kieran J

I love that Waterford. My size too! Did you have it made or found it 
second-hand? Do you happen to know the stack/reach on it?

KJ


On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 9:25:08 AM UTC-8 andyree...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Holy smokes, looks like we found similar Waterfords around the same time. 
> Similar frame color too! Now I feel vindicated for this morning's purchase 
> of blue cotton tape to pair with that graphite/champaign color. Looks 
> sharp!  
>
> [image: Image_20231129_112313 (1).jpeg]
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:46:35 PM UTC-6 exliontamer wrote:
>
>> I have a 46/30  with an 11-28 cassette. The brakes are Shimano CX-50s 
>> which I've always had good luck with. I snapped a photo but these are 
>> measured 38s. The chain stays are the only section that's remotely tight. 
>> Maybe room for a 40 or 42? Either way, I usually prefer 32-38 for road so 
>> this is perfect for my purposes. [image: IMG_5104.jpg]
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-6 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> Having owned both a Crosshairs and a Roadini, I think you made the good 
>>> choice. Enjoy it!
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023, exliontamer  wrote:
>>>
 Got this built up & just wanted to share. I was looking for a Roadini 
 but this happened to pop up in my size & the price was too good to resist. 
 Can't speak highly enough about it. Wish I liked the Gunnar "Star Wars" 
 logo more but that's my only complaint. Very happy to have a tiny piece of 
 Waterford history. 
 [image: IMG_5103.jpg]

 -- 

>>> 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/f32218a3-61fb-4e96-be67-13ad7e279e0dn%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>>

-- 
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/cf67e788-ed03-4490-b566-9ce7b416d798n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread Joe Bernard

My low on a 650B bike in Lake County, CA., is 26 x 50. It's useful! 

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:25:54 PM UTC-8 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Greater Bay Area is full of 13-24% grades (which is where Sarah 
> lives). Visitors from other areas (including places like Colorado) 
> frequently drop their jaws when they see what the local touring clubs ride 
> as a matter of course. A 24x36 drivetrain isn't too low a gear here, 
> especially if you're carrying a load. On my triplet, I had a 24x36 and 
> still couldn't climb anything over a 12% grade when carrying panniers. On 
> my single bike I have a 40x51, and just manage to make it up a 30% grade, 
> which required shifting my weight between the rear and front wheels in 
> order to keep both wheels on the ground while grinding away. Here in the 
> greater San Francisco Bay Area, your bike can never be too light, you can 
> never be too wealthy, and you can never have gears too low!
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:13 PM Greg J  wrote:
>
>> @Sarah - maybe the easiest thing is to go on a ride with some local list 
>> members who can give you some ideas while you're actually riding on these 
>> roads.  
>>
>> For example, have you ridden a 24T granny on the road---and if so, with 
>> what rear cog?  A 24 is really very low for the road (but not for dirt), 
>> and a 24T - 32 in the back may be too low to be useful.  A 26 or even a 28 
>> may be a better granny depending on your cassette range.  But as mentioned 
>> already, only you know what works for you.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>

-- 
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/6b7120d3-3f55-4672-b816-e627b7a8b3d7n%40googlegroups.com.

I had that same cracking on a Specialized (Sugino) Flag triple crank, solved
it with some judicious filing, and have been riding it for a couple of decades
since with no further sign of cracking.cheers,Andrew in Sydney

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 09:07:15 AM GMT+11, 'Eric Norris' via RBW
Owners Bunch wrote:

The crack on Campy Record/Super Record spiders was the result of the very
sharp edge at that location. A common fix back in the day was a few minutes’
work with a round file to take the edge off that part of the crankset.
--Eric Norris
campyonly...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy

On Nov 30, 2023, at 1:13 PM, RichS wrote:
As a long time Sugino hidden bolt user I agree the chainring removel/install
process can be onerous. Over a period of time and you develop a technique (like
Bill has kindly shared) I do believe it becomes easier. And, as my wife always
tells me, "patience is a virtue". A useful mantra for much of the bike
tinkering I do. Metal fender installation comes to mind here.
Something not mentioned in this discussion is the quality or consistency of
chainring nuts & bolts. I have sometimes switched out nuts and bolts when the
nut tool isn't making a tight connection. Steel or aluminum? Does that make a
difference? I don't know; I've always used steel.
Best,Rich in ATL
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-5 Nick Payne wrote:

On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 1:11:08 am UTC+11 Bill Lindsay wrote:

The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and we
were supposed to think that look was preferable.
It does minimise the problem that some cranks have/have had where cracking
develops at the join between the crank and adjacent spider arm because of the
acute angle between them. I can remember having to retire a couple of
Campagnolo Super Record cranks that I was racing on back in the 1980s because
cracks had developed at this point. e.g. - This image is from pardo.net, but
it's identical to the cracks I found.

That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such a
hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with it,
and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me. Walking
around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, three with
hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.
Ditto here. There must be half a dozen bikes in our garage using cranks with
the hidden chainring bolt behind the arm, and I've not had any problems
changing chainrings on them.
Nick Payne

--
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/3b631a33-38ec-4dff-8fb2-0bd541c8e1e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread 'Eric Norris' via RBW Owners Bunch

The crack on Campy Record/Super Record spiders was the result of the very sharp 
edge at that location. A common fix back in the day was a few minutes’ work 
with a round file to take the edge off that part of the crankset.

--Eric Norris
campyonly...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

> On Nov 30, 2023, at 1:13 PM, RichS  wrote:
> 
> As a long time Sugino hidden bolt user I agree the chainring removel/install 
> process can be onerous. Over a period of time and you develop a technique 
> (like Bill has kindly shared) I do believe it becomes easier. And, as my wife 
> always tells me, "patience is a virtue". A useful mantra for much of the bike 
> tinkering I do. Metal fender installation comes to mind here.
> 
> Something not mentioned in this discussion is the quality or consistency of 
> chainring nuts & bolts. I have sometimes switched out nuts and bolts when the 
> nut tool isn't making a tight connection. Steel or aluminum? Does that make a 
> difference? I don't know; I've always used steel.
> 
> Best,
> Rich in ATL
> 
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-5 Nick Payne wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 1:11:08 am UTC+11 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and we 
>> were supposed to think that look was preferable.
>> It does minimise the problem that some cranks have/have had where cracking 
>> develops at the join between the crank and adjacent spider arm because of 
>> the acute angle between them. I can remember having to retire a couple of 
>> Campagnolo Super Record cranks that I was racing on back in the 1980s 
>> because cracks had developed at this point. e.g. - This image is from 
>> pardo.net , but it's identical to the cracks I found.
>> 
>>  
>> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such a 
>> hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with it, 
>> and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.  
>> Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, 
>> three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.
>> Ditto here. There must be half a dozen bikes in our garage using cranks with 
>> the hidden chainring bolt behind the arm, and I've not had any problems 
>> changing chainrings on them.
>> 
>> Nick Payne
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/3b631a33-38ec-4dff-8fb2-0bd541c8e1e3n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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/AA0DEB22-4970-4EBF-8868-548CF8CC9D3F%40me.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread 藍俊彪

The Greater Bay Area is full of 13-24% grades (which is where Sarah lives).
Visitors from other areas (including places like Colorado) frequently drop
their jaws when they see what the local touring clubs ride as a matter of
course. A 24x36 drivetrain isn't too low a gear here, especially if you're
carrying a load. On my triplet, I had a 24x36 and still couldn't climb
anything over a 12% grade when carrying panniers. On my single bike I have
a 40x51, and just manage to make it up a 30% grade, which required shifting
my weight between the rear and front wheels in order to keep both wheels on
the ground while grinding away. Here in the greater San Francisco Bay Area,
your bike can never be too light, you can never be too wealthy, and you can
never have gears too low!

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:13 PM Greg J  wrote:

> @Sarah - maybe the easiest thing is to go on a ride with some local list
> members who can give you some ideas while you're actually riding on these
> roads.
>
> For example, have you ridden a 24T granny on the road---and if so, with
> what rear cog?  A 24 is really very low for the road (but not for dirt),
> and a 24T - 32 in the back may be too low to be useful.  A 26 or even a 28
> may be a better granny depending on your cassette range.  But as mentioned
> already, only you know what works for you.
>
> Greg
>
>

-- 
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/CAPh0EZ7e-CRnCtCpAOPpXPnRcDd6MWi8EQ_YMOfN54-qhAYsug%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread RichS

As a long time Sugino hidden bolt user I agree the chainring 
removel/install process can be onerous. Over a period of time and you 
develop a technique (like Bill has kindly shared) I do believe it becomes 
easier. And, as my wife always tells me, "patience is a virtue". A useful 
mantra for much of the bike tinkering I do. Metal fender installation comes 
to mind here.

Something not mentioned in this discussion is the quality or consistency of 
chainring nuts & bolts. I have sometimes switched out nuts and bolts when 
the nut tool isn't making a tight connection. Steel or aluminum? Does that 
make a difference? I don't know; I've always used steel.

Best,
Rich in ATL

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:35:21 PM UTC-5 Nick Payne wrote:

> On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 1:11:08 am UTC+11 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and 
> we were supposed to think that look was preferable.
>
> It does minimise the problem that some cranks have/have had where cracking 
> develops at the join between the crank and adjacent spider arm because of 
> the acute angle between them. I can remember having to retire a couple of 
> Campagnolo Super Record cranks that I was racing on back in the 1980s 
> because cracks had developed at this point. e.g. - This image is from 
> pardo.net, but it's identical to the cracks I found.
> [image: Dscn2410_640[1].jpg]
>  
>
> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such 
> a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with 
> it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.  
> Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, 
> three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.
>
> Ditto here. There must be half a dozen bikes in our garage using cranks 
> with the hidden chainring bolt behind the arm, and I've not had any 
> problems changing chainrings on them.
>
> Nick Payne 
>

-- 
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/3b631a33-38ec-4dff-8fb2-0bd541c8e1e3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread Greg J

@Sarah - maybe the easiest thing is to go on a ride with some local list 
members who can give you some ideas while you're actually riding on these 
roads.  

For example, have you ridden a 24T granny on the road---and if so, with 
what rear cog?  A 24 is really very low for the road (but not for dirt), 
and a 24T - 32 in the back may be too low to be useful.  A 26 or even a 28 
may be a better granny depending on your cassette range.  But as mentioned 
already, only you know what works for you.

Greg

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:13:55 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Bike nerd input is heartily welcomed. Gearing has been a challenge for me 
> to understand but from spending hours reading and trying things out I'm 
> starting to understand... thanks to other bike nerds!
>
> The outcome is I will likely be giving a triple a try. The 34 is my 
> favorite chain ring to live in, but I long for the higher and lower gearing 
> when I don't have them. And somehow my brain gets the function of the 
> triple more than trying to understand all the combinations possible with 
> the cassette, and trying to comprehend "gearing math."
>
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 1:45:07 PM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason Fuller wrote:
>>
>> I would echo that triples are pretty nice - not only do you get more 
>> range, but the 10-tooth jumps in the front are a lot less 'disruptive' if 
>> you know what I mean. I find the smaller chainring jump means that when I 
>> hit the base of a hill I can often just drop a chainring and leave the rear 
>> alone, and it is a natural gear reduction .. whereas on the wide-low 
>> double, you would be spinning like crazy if you tried the same thing
>>
>>
>> Excellent point, and one that launches me into bike nerd mode... 
>> apologies in advance if this is too much.
>>
>> The "standard" chainring gap became 16 teeth when "compact double" 50x34 
>> combos became all the rage. That's a 39% jump, the way I measure it 
>> (Ln(50/34)), or about 2.5 times the 15.4% jump from 18 to 21 in back. Now, 
>> if you keep that 16 tooth gap but go down to 40x24, that's a ginormous 51% 
>> jump, which is 3.3x the 18-21 jump. I have a 42x26 on my Waterford ST-22, 
>> and it's definitely jarring to drop to the small ring when you hit a hill, 
>> requiring a bit of advance planning to shift a cog harder in the rear, 
>> first. I spent plenty of time riding half-step gearing, so I'm facile with 
>> double-shifting, but after a couple hundred kms I'm too tired for that. For 
>> my Breadwinner G-Road I went with 44x32, which is a gentle 32% jump. It 
>> means there's more overlap in the gearing, or to put it another way, I'm 
>> not maximizing the total range of the system, but I very much prefer to 
>> make that trade-off. At 41%, the 14-tooth gap on the Silver 42x28's on my 
>> Sams is pretty much the outer limit for me. The Wide-Low (38x24) is a 46% 
>> jump which is pretty high.
>>
>> Ted Durant
>> Milwaukee, WI USA
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/29ca8d44-94c5-4bcf-a6e0-74334d8731b3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Nick Payne

On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 1:11:08 am UTC+11 Bill Lindsay wrote:

The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and
we were supposed to think that look was preferable.

It does minimise the problem that some cranks have/have had where cracking
develops at the join between the crank and adjacent spider arm because of
the acute angle between them. I can remember having to retire a couple of
Campagnolo Super Record cranks that I was racing on back in the 1980s
because cracks had developed at this point. e.g. - This image is from
pardo.net, but it's identical to the cracks I found.
[image: Dscn2410_640[1].jpg]

Ditto here. There must be half a dozen bikes in our garage using cranks
with the hidden chainring bolt behind the arm, and I've not had any
problems changing chainrings on them.

Nick Payne

--
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/527dcd3a-911b-478f-a574-4b96ac49d78en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Bill Lindsay

Most 24T 26T and 28T granny rings are steel.  That's the way Riv does it 
AND Sugino does it by default.  Wear resistance is the motivation, and it 
is twofold.  The smaller diameter ring results in higher chain tension, and 
the smaller tooth count ring means more pressure per tooth.  So it's a 
double whammy.  Aluminum granny rings exist, and they are super light, but 
wear out super fast.  The biggest 74mm granny I've used is a 34, and those 
are aluminum.  

BL in EC

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:06:30 AM UTC-8 George Schick wrote:

> This is an interesting discussion.  Some years ago I bought one of Riv's 
> Sugino triple cranks that they modified into a two-plateau (may I use that 
> word nowadays?) "wide/low," replacing the outer chainring with a chain 
> guard.  I really like the set up and i works perfectly for one of my bike's 
> applications.  So, reading through these threads I had to go take a look at 
> the Sugino crank and noticed that it does, indeed, have a chainring bolt 
> hidden behind the crank arm.  BUT, I noticed another thing: the smallest 
> inner chainring is steel instead of the usual aluminum which got me 
> wondering if Sugino used steel for that chainring because it would be less 
> likely to wear out and need replacement before the outer chainring(s), 
> requiring one to fiddle with that "hidden" bolt. Or if the folks at Riv did 
> that...
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I comprehend that perspective. and it's an evergreen retort to "doing it 
>> right".  You should be able to "do it wrong" and still get optimal 
>> results.  If there is a "right way" to do it, then it's already 
>> disqualified.  I disagree with that perspective, because there's always an 
>> even more wrong way to handle any subassembly.  The old saying goes "Idiot 
>> proof?  They'll just make a bigger idiot".  
>>
>> The fact is that 95% of bicycles made in the last half-century with 
>> multiple chainrings have bolts of this type.  All of them have an 
>> equivalently bad design, right?  This has nothing to do with hidden bolts, 
>> or Silver cranks.  It's every thing except after-market two-headed 
>> chainring bolts like Wolf Tooth makes.  My XTR M985 cranks also came with a 
>> two-headed chainring bolt design.  Folks that hate traditional chainring 
>> bolts will be free to use a two-headed design on their Silver or Silver2 
>> cranks, so they are golden.
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not 
>>> clear or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a 
>>> problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt 
>>> system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. 
>>> And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:39:35 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>>
 Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with 
 anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there 
 and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those 
 hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 

 On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do 
> with the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my 
> opinion you are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings 
> a 
> year, maybe more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there 
> is precisely one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old 
> crankset that was set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set 
> things up correctly you don't need that tool.  If things were set up 
> correctly, you don't need that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 
> times 
> that I do need to touch that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used 
> crankset, set up wrong by the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom 
> is that you can rotate the bolt and the nut part rotates right along with 
> it.  You get to this state by setting things up wrong.  
>
> Here's my set up:
>
> 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a 
> recess on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the 
> bolt is tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it 
> should 
> be bone dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no 
> biggie, 
> whack it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!
>
> 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely 
> and it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on 
> the threads (not threadlocker).

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread Jason Fuller

Another good thing to note on the Albastache, is if you find the lever 
angle doesn't work for you (which was my issue), Velo Orange makes a flat 
bar style lever that works on 23.8mm road bars, including the 'stache.  
Then you'd be able to set them up truly like an Albatross, but have the 
more forward ergonomics 

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 10:47:30 UTC-8 DavidP wrote:

> Hi Sarah - I'm in the process of a road-ish/commuter-ish build using 
> Albastache bars. I've tried moustache bars in the past with the levers in 
> the standard position and never liked them as much as my Albatross bars. So 
> this time I'm moving the levers further back to be more like Albatross in 
> use:
>
> [image: PXL_20231110_194943840-chest-1024.jpg]
>
> [image: PXL_20231110_195003021-chest-profile-1024.jpg]
>
> This gives good access to brakes from the farthest back position and the 
> more forward "on the hoods" position, which are the two positions I use 
> most on my Albatross bar bikes. The forward most "in the hooks" position 
> does require a hand shift to get to the brakes but it's a small one.
>
> So why even use Albastache bars if you're just going to set them up like 
> Albatross bars? A couple of reasons come to mind: 
> 1) Looks - the Albastache are more roadish looking.
> 2) Less rearward extension means a shorter stem can be used than with 
> Albatross bars. I've got a 70mm stem on this bike.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I completely understand wanting your brake levers close at hand. 
>> But keep in mind, as another here has said, that this is one reason for a 
>> short (but tall) stem. 
>> I use this setup for my touring bike too (a Sam) because it allows a 
>> chance to “stretch out” like riding in the drops on drop bars.
>> This is less useful if you are riding on a commute and making many stops, 
>> some unexpected and abrupt.
>> For longer rides, I find I am “at home”  in in my Lazy Boy” on the hoods.
>> This position may not work for you if your body won’t allow it. 
>> You might be better served by Albatross bars. But keep in mind that you 
>> can angle those for a bit more “aero” position on faster group rides.
>> Paul Germain
>> MIDLOTHIAN, Va
>>
>> Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023, 9:33 AM, Sarah Carlson <
>> sarahlik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Paul!
>> Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of your 
>> gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a 
>> vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work 
>> with how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 
>> 24 for hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills 
>> because I just feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great 
>> suggestions! 
>>
>> I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your 
>> set up looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to 
>> ride. The only thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under 
>> my hands and I tend to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd 
>> need to see how it feels to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily 
>> learning what we like tends to involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:
>>
>> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
>> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
>> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
>> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
>> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
>> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
>> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think 
>> the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) 
>> I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
>> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
>> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
>> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
>> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
>> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum 
>> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or 
>> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of 
>> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire 
>> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even 
>> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take 
>> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If 
>> your group rides are entirely on

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread George Schick

This is an interesting discussion.  Some years ago I bought one of Riv's 
Sugino triple cranks that they modified into a two-plateau (may I use that 
word nowadays?) "wide/low," replacing the outer chainring with a chain 
guard.  I really like the set up and i works perfectly for one of my bike's 
applications.  So, reading through these threads I had to go take a look at 
the Sugino crank and noticed that it does, indeed, have a chainring bolt 
hidden behind the crank arm.  BUT, I noticed another thing: the smallest 
inner chainring is steel instead of the usual aluminum which got me 
wondering if Sugino used steel for that chainring because it would be less 
likely to wear out and need replacement before the outer chainring(s), 
requiring one to fiddle with that "hidden" bolt. Or if the folks at Riv did 
that...

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I comprehend that perspective. and it's an evergreen retort to "doing it 
> right".  You should be able to "do it wrong" and still get optimal 
> results.  If there is a "right way" to do it, then it's already 
> disqualified.  I disagree with that perspective, because there's always an 
> even more wrong way to handle any subassembly.  The old saying goes "Idiot 
> proof?  They'll just make a bigger idiot".  
>
> The fact is that 95% of bicycles made in the last half-century with 
> multiple chainrings have bolts of this type.  All of them have an 
> equivalently bad design, right?  This has nothing to do with hidden bolts, 
> or Silver cranks.  It's every thing except after-market two-headed 
> chainring bolts like Wolf Tooth makes.  My XTR M985 cranks also came with a 
> two-headed chainring bolt design.  Folks that hate traditional chainring 
> bolts will be free to use a two-headed design on their Silver or Silver2 
> cranks, so they are golden.
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not 
>> clear or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a 
>> problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt 
>> system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. 
>> And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed.
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:39:35 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with 
>>> anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there 
>>> and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those 
>>> hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do 
 with the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my 
 opinion you are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings 
 a 
 year, maybe more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there 
 is precisely one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old 
 crankset that was set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set 
 things up correctly you don't need that tool.  If things were set up 
 correctly, you don't need that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 
 times 
 that I do need to touch that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used 
 crankset, set up wrong by the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom 
 is that you can rotate the bolt and the nut part rotates right along with 
 it.  You get to this state by setting things up wrong.  

 Here's my set up:

 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a 
 recess on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the 
 bolt is tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should 
 be bone dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no 
 biggie, 
 whack it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!

 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and 
 it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the 
 threads (not threadlocker).

 3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is 
 tightened.  If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  
 This interface should have a tiny bit of grease.  

 4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then 
 those three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the 
 chainring bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you 
 take it back apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can 
 disassemble it with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks 
 free" when you are loosening, just press it with

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Bill Lindsay

I comprehend that perspective. and it's an evergreen retort to "doing it 
right".  You should be able to "do it wrong" and still get optimal 
results.  If there is a "right way" to do it, then it's already 
disqualified.  I disagree with that perspective, because there's always an 
even more wrong way to handle any subassembly.  The old saying goes "Idiot 
proof?  They'll just make a bigger idiot".  

The fact is that 95% of bicycles made in the last half-century with 
multiple chainrings have bolts of this type.  All of them have an 
equivalently bad design, right?  This has nothing to do with hidden bolts, 
or Silver cranks.  It's every thing except after-market two-headed 
chainring bolts like Wolf Tooth makes.  My XTR M985 cranks also came with a 
two-headed chainring bolt design.  Folks that hate traditional chainring 
bolts will be free to use a two-headed design on their Silver or Silver2 
cranks, so they are golden.

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:

> All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not 
> clear or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a 
> problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt 
> system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. 
> And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed.
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:39:35 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with 
>> anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there 
>> and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those 
>> hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do 
>>> with the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my 
>>> opinion you are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings a 
>>> year, maybe more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there 
>>> is precisely one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old 
>>> crankset that was set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set 
>>> things up correctly you don't need that tool.  If things were set up 
>>> correctly, you don't need that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times 
>>> that I do need to touch that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used 
>>> crankset, set up wrong by the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom 
>>> is that you can rotate the bolt and the nut part rotates right along with 
>>> it.  You get to this state by setting things up wrong.  
>>>
>>> Here's my set up:
>>>
>>> 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a 
>>> recess on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the 
>>> bolt is tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should 
>>> be bone dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, 
>>> whack it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!
>>>
>>> 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and 
>>> it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the 
>>> threads (not threadlocker).
>>>
>>> 3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is 
>>> tightened.  If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  
>>> This interface should have a tiny bit of grease.  
>>>
>>> 4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then 
>>> those three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the 
>>> chainring bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you 
>>> take it back apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can 
>>> disassemble it with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks 
>>> free" when you are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you 
>>> continue loosening the bolt.  
>>>
>>> 5.  The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need 
>>> something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything 
>>> will serve.  A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever 
>>> thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve.  
>>>
>>> That's the entire secret in my view.  The four things I think people 
>>> maybe do wrong are:
>>>
>>> 1. doing any of this work not in a workstand.  This makes every single 
>>> thing 5x more clumsy and awkward
>>> 2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the 
>>> bike.  Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface.  Swapping 
>>> chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward.  If you 
>>> pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand!
>>> 3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is 
>>> supposed to grab
>>> 4. Not putting grease

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Johnny Alien

All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not clear 
or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a 
problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt 
system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. 
And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:39:35 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:

> Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with 
> anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there 
> and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those 
> hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do 
>> with the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my 
>> opinion you are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings a 
>> year, maybe more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there 
>> is precisely one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old 
>> crankset that was set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set 
>> things up correctly you don't need that tool.  If things were set up 
>> correctly, you don't need that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times 
>> that I do need to touch that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used 
>> crankset, set up wrong by the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom 
>> is that you can rotate the bolt and the nut part rotates right along with 
>> it.  You get to this state by setting things up wrong.  
>>
>> Here's my set up:
>>
>> 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a recess 
>> on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the bolt is 
>> tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should be bone 
>> dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, whack 
>> it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!
>>
>> 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and 
>> it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the 
>> threads (not threadlocker).
>>
>> 3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is tightened.  
>> If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  This interface 
>> should have a tiny bit of grease.  
>>
>> 4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then those 
>> three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the chainring 
>> bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you take it back 
>> apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can disassemble it 
>> with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks free" when you 
>> are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you continue 
>> loosening the bolt.  
>>
>> 5.  The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need 
>> something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything 
>> will serve.  A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever 
>> thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve.  
>>
>> That's the entire secret in my view.  The four things I think people 
>> maybe do wrong are:
>>
>> 1. doing any of this work not in a workstand.  This makes every single 
>> thing 5x more clumsy and awkward
>> 2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the bike.  
>> Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface.  Swapping 
>> chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward.  If you 
>> pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand!
>> 3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is 
>> supposed to grab
>> 4. Not putting grease where it does belong: the interfaces that are 
>> supposed to slide
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. 
>>> I think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that 
>>> don't really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem 
>>> free and great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on 
>>> non-hidden arms.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-5 Jock Dewey wrote:
>>>
 Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 
 172.5 I’ll take the misery off your hands. 

 BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: 
 Logic arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?

 Jock

 On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, 
> and we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing 
> better from a

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Joe Bernard

Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with 
anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there 
and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those 
hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do with 
> the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my opinion you 
> are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings a year, maybe 
> more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there is precisely 
> one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old crankset that was 
> set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set things up correctly 
> you don't need that tool.  If things were set up correctly, you don't need 
> that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times that I do need to touch 
> that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used crankset, set up wrong by 
> the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom is that you can rotate the 
> bolt and the nut part rotates right along with it.  You get to this state 
> by setting things up wrong.  
>
> Here's my set up:
>
> 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a recess 
> on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the bolt is 
> tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should be bone 
> dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, whack 
> it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!
>
> 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and 
> it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the 
> threads (not threadlocker).
>
> 3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is tightened.  
> If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  This interface 
> should have a tiny bit of grease.  
>
> 4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then those 
> three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the chainring 
> bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you take it back 
> apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can disassemble it 
> with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks free" when you 
> are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you continue 
> loosening the bolt.  
>
> 5.  The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need 
> something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything 
> will serve.  A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever 
> thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve.  
>
> That's the entire secret in my view.  The four things I think people maybe 
> do wrong are:
>
> 1. doing any of this work not in a workstand.  This makes every single 
> thing 5x more clumsy and awkward
> 2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the bike.  
> Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface.  Swapping 
> chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward.  If you 
> pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand!
> 3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is supposed 
> to grab
> 4. Not putting grease where it does belong: the interfaces that are 
> supposed to slide
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. 
>> I think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that 
>> don't really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem 
>> free and great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on 
>> non-hidden arms.
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-5 Jock Dewey wrote:
>>
>>> Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 
>>> 172.5 I’ll take the misery off your hands. 
>>>
>>> BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic 
>>> arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?
>>>
>>> Jock
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>>>
 The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, 
 and we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing 
 better from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does 
 indeed make it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing 
 things right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other 
 way.  I think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver 
 cranks with a normal 5-arm setup.  

 That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have 
 such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem 
 with it, and your shared

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Bill Lindsay

Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do with 
the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my opinion you 
are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings a year, maybe 
more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there is precisely 
one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old crankset that was 
set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set things up correctly 
you don't need that tool.  If things were set up correctly, you don't need 
that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times that I do need to touch 
that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used crankset, set up wrong by 
the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom is that you can rotate the 
bolt and the nut part rotates right along with it.  You get to this state 
by setting things up wrong.  

Here's my set up:

1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a recess 
on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the bolt is 
tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should be bone 
dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, whack 
it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!

2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and 
it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the 
threads (not threadlocker).

3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is tightened.  
If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  This interface 
should have a tiny bit of grease.  

4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then those 
three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the chainring 
bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you take it back 
apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can disassemble it 
with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks free" when you 
are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you continue 
loosening the bolt.  

5.  The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need 
something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything 
will serve.  A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever 
thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve.  

That's the entire secret in my view.  The four things I think people maybe 
do wrong are:

1. doing any of this work not in a workstand.  This makes every single 
thing 5x more clumsy and awkward
2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the bike.  
Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface.  Swapping 
chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward.  If you 
pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand!
3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is supposed 
to grab
4. Not putting grease where it does belong: the interfaces that are 
supposed to slide

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. I 
> think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that don't 
> really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem free and 
> great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on 
> non-hidden arms.
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-5 Jock Dewey wrote:
>
>> Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 172.5 
>> I’ll take the misery off your hands. 
>>
>> BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic 
>> arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?
>>
>> Jock
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>>
>>> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, 
>>> and we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing 
>>> better from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does 
>>> indeed make it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing 
>>> things right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other 
>>> way.  I think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver 
>>> cranks with a normal 5-arm setup.  
>>>
>>> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have 
>>> such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem 
>>> with it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for 
>>> me.  Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm 
>>> Ritcheys, three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.  If 
>>> there are any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship 
>>> me your unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know.
>>>
>>> Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* way?  
>>> That would probably be pointless because in general it seems

Re: [RBW] Re: Best way to arrange 2-cog manual shifting for "single speed" disc braked bicycle

2023-11-30 Thread Wesley

Hey Patrick,
Maybe you've already completed your two-speed conversion, but if not, there 
is some useful info in yesterday's Bikesnob 
blog: https://bikesnobnyc.com/2023/11/29/dingle-all-the-way/

The key message is that the Surly single-speed cogs are thicker at the base 
so you could use one for your second cog without needing a spacer. It 
should allow the lockring to fit.
-Wes

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 12:42:39 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Excellent! Thank you! So there is serendipity in that the lockring threads 
> match standard fw threads. Very good to know.
>
> Now I can simply overhaul that cheap ss freehub -- Redline? -- and don't 
> have to spend $$$ for a DOS; *also* I can use the current 32 t ring with 
> an outer, screw-on 15 t cog for a 65" cruising gear and buy a splined ss 17 
> or perhaps even 18 t cog for a 57" or even 54" sand bogging gear -- if, 
> that is, a QR disc rear wheel allows this.
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 9:49 AM Wesley  wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick!
>> I don't remember the hub, and I searched my email for hubs I bought in 
>> 2009 – I was only able to find the one I built into the front wheel. 
>> However! This exercise show something loose in my head and I now recall how 
>> I made the monocog into a two-speed (before whatever I did to add a third 
>> cog). I replaced the locking by a fixed-gear cog. Here's a text diagram:
>>
>> Your current setup has: spokes - spacer - splined cog - lockring
>>
>> Change it to: spokes - splined cog - spacer - threaded cog
>>
>> I hope this helps!
>> -Wes
>>
>> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 9:51:46 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Do you recall the hub you used with the unicycle rim? I seem to recall 
>>> BMX freehubs that had room for 2 cogs.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 9:16 PM Wesley  wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, it looks marginal to get a second cog in there with a narrower 
 spacer. According to Sheldon Brown, 9-speed cogs want a 2.54 mm spacer 
 between the cogs: https://sheldonbrown.com/cribsheet-spacing.html

 I now remember that my monocog became a three speed after I built it a 
 pair of winter wheels (I used a pair of very wide unicycle rims for 
 maximum 
 float). So I probably kept the original when intact and built a new hub 
 into the new wheel. Sorry for not remembering, the bike has been out of my 
 life for about eight years.

 -W
 On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 1:17:17 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Wesley: Sorry, I missed this post in the thread volume.
>
> I'm pretty sure that my Monocog's freehub body takes only 1 cog; see 
> photo with single 3/32" cog and 2.5mm spacer: the splines end right after 
> the spacer.
>
> Am I looking at things right? I hesitate to remove the wheel because 
> getting the tire exactly centered in the chainstays, with 2-3 mm 
> clearance 
> a side and the inevitable tire runout, while also adjusting chain tension 
> is a pain.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Wesley  wrote:
>
>> Hey Patrick,
>> My recollection of my monocog was that the freehub had room for three 
>> cogs. I think there were spacers on the hub that covered up most of the 
>> free hub - remove the locking and you can do adjust the spacers as 
>> necessary. If yours is the same, then you could just keep that wheel and 
>> put the additional cogs onto it.
>>
>> And, in case I wasn't clear in my earlier response, I think there is 
>> plenty of adjustment room in the disc brakes to accommodate the rear 
>> axle 
>> being adjusted in the dropout.
>> -Wes
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:44:19 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting, and after blundering into a few search result 
>>> pages about money markets and currency conversion I got:
>>>
>>> http://www.monebikes.com/read-me/
>>>
>>> But he says nothing about adjustable chainstays,
>>>
>>> Still, he does talk about weird possibilities like 3" tires and drop 
>>> bars, so I must investigate.
>>>
>>> Really, though, to conclude this question, it seems that I can 
>>> either have a very simple bike with disc brakes as long as it's a 
>>> single 
>>> speed, or I can accommodate 2 cogs using some niche, complex 
>>> technology. I 
>>> think I'll either settle for a fixed drivetrain (no rear brake, no 
>>> problem) 
>>> or get off and walk. Rear rim brake not option since I want to use disc 
>>> rims.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 8:44 AM Coal Bee Rye Anne <
>>> lionsrug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I have no personal experience with single speed disc nor 
 Rocker/Slider or any of the existing dropout configurations being 
 discussed 
 other than keeping a mental catalogue and casual interest of such 
 things as

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv thumb shifter mounts or IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc.

2023-11-30 Thread Johnny Alien

For some clarity I was only able to find two left side Sunrace shifters. 
The one right side one I had is nowhere to be found. So if someone has a 
lone Sunrace right side I am still totally open to sending a left side. (If 
that offer helps at all)

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 10:47:08 AM UTC-5 modemm...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> A generous offer from a list member fell through (the parts were lost) - 
> so - anyone else have anything they'd be willing to sell/etc? :)
>
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:04:06 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>
>> Yes, as does any friction shifter ! 
>>
>> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-5 modemm...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Huh! Are they likely to work with my 9 speed drivetrain?
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>>>
 Years ago I bought a set of Sunrace SLM10 thumbshifters along withe 
 some Falcon ones. I've never used them, but you can still buy them retail. 
 They both have ratchets, albeit plastic, but they work just fine. Looking 
 at buyer comments it's about common issues with any thumbshifter, like the 
 shifter needing retightened, or the cables fraying, or "my dog ate my 
 shifters and now they're junk... what crappy shifters, one star !"  People 
 are nuts. 

 $15 shipped https://www.ebay.com/itm/224487667033

 On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 2:42:47 PM UTC-5 modemm...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Anyone? :)
>
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5 Jon Craig wrote:
>
>> Basically looking for a way to get my Silver barend shifters off my 
>> barend! Riv thumb mounts, the IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc etc 
>> etc. 
>> My budget's limited, so I'm hoping someone has something that'll do this 
>> laying around they'll let go cheap!
>
>

-- 
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/5d1a18a0-90bb-41d4-bf87-fb03b5463b42n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Johnny Alien

I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. I 
think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that don't 
really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem free and 
great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on 
non-hidden arms.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-5 Jock Dewey wrote:

> Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 172.5 
> I’ll take the misery off your hands. 
>
> BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic 
> arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?
>
> Jock
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and 
>> we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing better 
>> from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does indeed make 
>> it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing things 
>> right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other way.  I 
>> think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver cranks 
>> with a normal 5-arm setup.  
>>
>> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have 
>> such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem 
>> with it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for 
>> me.  Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm 
>> Ritcheys, three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.  If 
>> there are any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship 
>> me your unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know.
>>
>> Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* way?  
>> That would probably be pointless because in general it seems that those who 
>> have made up their minds that they are terrible seem to have their minds 
>> completely made up.  
>>
>> There is no question that the hidden arm does not make it EASIER to 
>> replace a chainring.  It makes it a tiny bit harder.  I'd put it on par 
>> with tying my shoes.  My BOA shoes are the easiest to install onto my feet 
>> and extract from my feet.  Lace-up shoes are harder to install and harder 
>> to extract than BOA shoes.  That's a fact.  Still, I know how to tie my 
>> shoes, and I do include lace-up shoes in my closet.  I imagine it would be 
>> logical to boycott lace-up shoes and label shoelaces as the worst thing 
>> ever, and limit oneself to strictly BOA shoes (and slip-ons).  That would 
>> be a principled stance.  From my perspective, it's a baby and bathwater 
>> situation.  
>>
>> My guess is that there are three reasons Rivendell designed the Silver 
>> cranks with normal 5-arms:
>>
>> 1. their customers vocally complain about the hidden arm
>> 2. there is no performance benefit to the hidden arm
>> 3. the post-forging machining steps are more complicated and costly with 
>> the hidden arm
>>
>> There's no reason to make an already expensive product even more 
>> expensive by adding a valueless feature that your customers will bellyache 
>> about.  
>>
>> I've got guesses at how and why people struggle with the hidden arm, and 
>> it's probably a combination of 4 things.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> *by right, I mean the way that was obvious and self-evident when I first 
>> ran across them in the late 1980s, but it seems what was obvious and self 
>> evident to me is not universal.  
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>>  "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."
>>>
>>> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the 
>>> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring 
>>> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a 
>>> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain 
>>> in the patooty. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote:
>>>
 Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino 
 AT cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the 
 upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell 
 didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain 
 to deal with. 

 Thanks,

 Reginald Alexis  

 On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at 
> Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same 
> time, 
> so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 
>
> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 
> crankset.  Looks pretty cool!
>
> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
 -- 
>>

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv thumb shifter mounts or IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc.

2023-11-30 Thread Jon Craig (Vendraen)

A generous offer from a list member fell through (the parts were lost) - so 
- anyone else have anything they'd be willing to sell/etc? :)

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:04:06 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:

> Yes, as does any friction shifter ! 
>
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-5 modemm...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Huh! Are they likely to work with my 9 speed drivetrain?
>>
>> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:12:43 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote:
>>
>>> Years ago I bought a set of Sunrace SLM10 thumbshifters along withe some 
>>> Falcon ones. I've never used them, but you can still buy them retail. They 
>>> both have ratchets, albeit plastic, but they work just fine. Looking at 
>>> buyer comments it's about common issues with any thumbshifter, like the 
>>> shifter needing retightened, or the cables fraying, or "my dog ate my 
>>> shifters and now they're junk... what crappy shifters, one star !"  People 
>>> are nuts. 
>>>
>>> $15 shipped https://www.ebay.com/itm/224487667033
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 2:42:47 PM UTC-5 modemm...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Anyone? :)

 On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5 Jon Craig wrote:

> Basically looking for a way to get my Silver barend shifters off my 
> barend! Riv thumb mounts, the IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc etc etc. 
> My budget's limited, so I'm hoping someone has something that'll do this 
> laying around they'll let go cheap!



-- 
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/53009687-a87c-4fc2-8889-c4e05d3f31f3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread 'Paul Germain' via RBW Owners Bunch

Sarah, I completely understand wanting your brake levers close at hand. But
keep in mind, as another here has said, that this is one reason for a short
(but tall) stem. I use this setup for my touring bike too (a Sam) because it
allows a chance to “stretch out” like riding in the drops on drop bars.This is
less useful if you are riding on a commute and making many stops, some
unexpected and abrupt.For longer rides, I find I am “at home” in in my Lazy
Boy” on the hoods.This position may not work for you if your body won’t allow
it. You might be better served by Albatross bars. But keep in mind that you can
angle those for a bit more “aero” position on faster group rides.Paul
GermainMIDLOTHIAN, Va

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

On Thursday, November 30, 2023, 9:33 AM, Sarah Carlson
wrote:

Hey Paul!Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of
your gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a
vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work with
how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 24 for
hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills because I just
feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great suggestions!

I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your set up
looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to ride. The only
thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under my hands and I tend
to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd need to see how it feels
to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily learning what we like tends to
involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!
Sarah

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:

Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple chainrings
and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 crankset. Also,
the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm Nitto Dirt Drop stem.
My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers the best of both worlds for
me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the more upright Albatross bar on my
single speed daily ride.I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners
who don't think the way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for
you, too?) I would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have
different pain thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper
to leave the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway.
Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains are
rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.I find my Homer Hilsen is
the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum of bag capacity, I can carry a
sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or vest, etc. Most every need for a day
ride, which would include tools of course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is
unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame
handles dirt roads well, even on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with
longer chain stays may take wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping
point to tire width. If your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm
tires should be the sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling
weight of wider.I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably
livelier, especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day
on the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all
know that is a very personal preference.) My Hilsen set up this way for me is
a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with
others.https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
Paul GermainMidlothian, Va.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:

Did someone say PIE??! 不

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com wrote:

Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone told me
that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding since I've been
out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and see how it goes! I
do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 12 x 36. Gravity is
inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to fuel my engine with
pie so I am looking forward to the 24!

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:

If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a lower
gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.
You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, etc. as
a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your “3 cassettes
on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 Ibis Mojo
“Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread John Dewey

Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 172.5
I’ll take the misery off your hands.

BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic
arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?

Jock

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and
> we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing better
> from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does indeed make
> it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing things
> right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other way.  I
> think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver cranks
> with a normal 5-arm setup.
>
> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such
> a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with
> it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.
> Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys,
> three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.  If there are
> any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship me your
> unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know.
>
> Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* way?
> That would probably be pointless because in general it seems that those who
> have made up their minds that they are terrible seem to have their minds
> completely made up.
>
> There is no question that the hidden arm does not make it EASIER to
> replace a chainring.  It makes it a tiny bit harder.  I'd put it on par
> with tying my shoes.  My BOA shoes are the easiest to install onto my feet
> and extract from my feet.  Lace-up shoes are harder to install and harder
> to extract than BOA shoes.  That's a fact.  Still, I know how to tie my
> shoes, and I do include lace-up shoes in my closet.  I imagine it would be
> logical to boycott lace-up shoes and label shoelaces as the worst thing
> ever, and limit oneself to strictly BOA shoes (and slip-ons).  That would
> be a principled stance.  From my perspective, it's a baby and bathwater
> situation.
>
> My guess is that there are three reasons Rivendell designed the Silver
> cranks with normal 5-arms:
>
> 1. their customers vocally complain about the hidden arm
> 2. there is no performance benefit to the hidden arm
> 3. the post-forging machining steps are more complicated and costly with
> the hidden arm
>
> There's no reason to make an already expensive product even more expensive
> by adding a valueless feature that your customers will bellyache about.
>
> I've got guesses at how and why people struggle with the hidden arm, and
> it's probably a combination of 4 things.
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> *by right, I mean the way that was obvious and self-evident when I first
> ran across them in the late 1980s, but it seems what was obvious and self
> evident to me is not universal.
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>>  "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."
>>
>> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the
>> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring
>> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a
>> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain
>> in the patooty.
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote:
>>
>>> Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino AT
>>> cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the
>>> upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell
>>> didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain
>>> to deal with.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Reginald Alexis
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at
 Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time,
 so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine.

 Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset.
 Looks pretty cool!

 https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA

>>> --
> 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/811af3a8-ddb6-4271-af46-0d49f6059e7dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

2023-11-30 Thread Sarah Carlson

Hey Paul!
Thank you for sharing pictures of your set up, and an explanation of your 
gearing... I like what you have going here, my teen would say, "It's a 
vibe." I like the range of gears you have and I feel like that would work 
with how I ride. 36 seems like a sweet spot to ride in, while also having a 
24 for hills, and a 46 which gives options when I am coming down hills 
because I just feel ungrounded when I'm totally spinning down hills. Great 
suggestions! 

I'm going to have to test ride an Albastache bar somewhere, because your 
set up looks like a good possibility to be compatible for how I like to 
ride. The only thing is I know I like to have my break levers right under 
my hands and I tend to ride with my hands on the swept back part... so I'd 
need to see how it feels to keep my hands up front like that. Luckily 
learning what we like tends to involve riding and be fun so I'm up for it!

Sarah

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:39:10 PM UTC-8 Bikie#4646 wrote:

> Sarah, I would like to ditto the other recommendations for triple 
> chainrings and a smaller cogset. I use a 9-speed 12/27 paired to 46/36/24 
> crankset. Also, the Albastache / Mustache handlebars, paired to an 80mm 
> Nitto Dirt Drop stem. My Mustache bars with a slight tilt downward offers 
> the best of both worlds for me. It fits between my drop bar bike and the 
> more upright Albatross bar on my single speed daily ride.
> I'm at a point in life where I have no riding partners who don't think the 
> way I do about group riding. (Which might be a new goal for you, too?) I 
> would call it "spirited" but not competitive. We all have different pain 
> thresholds and capabilities but everyone would think it improper to leave 
> the others in the dust. Often the ride includes a bagged lunch midway. 
> Even my rides which are not in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
> are rarely over 40 miles, but a good workout nonetheless.
> I find my Homer Hilsen is the perfect bike for this. With a near-minimum 
> of bag capacity, I can carry a sandwich and even a lightweight jacket or 
> vest, etc. Most every need for a day ride, which would include tools of 
> course. Much of what I do on the Hilsen is unpaved and hilly. The 38mm tire 
> capacity (with fenders) of my 2013 (?) frame handles dirt roads well, even 
> on slippery downhills. The new Hilsens with longer chain stays may take 
> wider tires yet, but I suspect there is a tipping point to tire width. If 
> your group rides are entirely on pavement, 35-38mm tires should be the 
> sweet spot for you and you won't need the excess rolling weight of wider.
> I use a Sam Hillborne for touring and the Hilsen is noticeably livelier, 
> especially without the touring racks. Since I am not spending all day on 
> the bike, I can get away with a lighter, more narrow saddle. (But we all 
> know that is a very personal preference.)  My Hilsen set up this way for me 
> is a confidence-builder and my favorite bike for adventure rides with 
> others.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy-paul/52784257986/in/album-72177720307152181/
> Paul Germain
> Midlothian, Va.
> [image: IMG_7763.jpeg]
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:28:46 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> Did someone say PIE??! 不
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 6:11:51 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, going down hills in the 42 I am still spinning but then someone 
>>> told me that is normal... I guess I am learning new things about riding 
>>> since I've been out with a group. I'm going to do a triple on this one and 
>>> see how it goes! I do like the sound of your set up with the 24-35-43 with 
>>> 12 x 36. Gravity is inconvenient for me a lot these days because I like to 
>>> fuel my engine with pie so I am looking forward to the 24! 
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-8 Drew Saunders wrote:
>>>
 If you say you live in your 34, but sometimes spin out, while wanting a 
 lower gear as well, then a triple is a good choice.

 You can set up the common 74/110 triple, like the Silver, Soma Clipper, 
 etc. as a 24-34-44, and pair that with a 12-36 in the rear and have your 
 “3 
 cassettes on one bike” gearing. I use a 24-35-43 with a 12-36 on my 1998 
 Ibis Mojo “Mountain Bike that has become a Gravel Bike.” I use the 43 on 
 pavement, the 35 on almost all my off road riding, and the 24 when gravity 
 becomes inconvenient. Based on my riding, a 2x10 or 11 makes more sense, 
 but I’m cheap and lazy, so I’ll stick with the triple for some time.

 On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:24:42 AM UTC-8 sarahlik...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> This is gearing math I can understand... there is a Papa bear, and 
> Mama bear, and a Baby bear... and something that will be just right for 
> everyone!
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:55:19 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> IMO redundant gears are more of a

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Garth

FWIW, the most effective tool for the slotted side of crank bolts that I've 
used is the dual function Pedro's "Chain Checker Plus II", mostly because 
it's considerably longer than all those tiny things which are only good for 
scraping knuckles. It's easier to keep in place while tightening. It's also 
the best chain checking tool I've used as it uses three points on the chain 
in a specific orderly method, 1,2,3 as shown on the tool.  

It's rather odd than few have ever addressed the chainring tightening tool 
and made one that was truly excellent. Mostly, make it so it firmly fits 
and stays in the slot and isn't so sloppy. The Park one sold today is no 
different than the Sugino I bought in 1980. 

While I get some my want the Silver Riv crank because it says Riv on it, 
there have always been more available than a superficial internet search 
may offer. 
Andel in Taiwan has quite a large variety of cranks, more than anyone I can 
think of. 

Since I use 150mm cranks the Riv models don't apply for my use. For a 
110/74 triple(or double) I ordered 3 sets directly from Andel in Taiwan, 
the silver RSC6-317 model. I forgot how much the arms were off hand, I 
think with shipping it was around $280ish for the three. You have to use 
their "Inquiry" form to contact a real person who will discuss with you 
what exactly you want and the cost. They'll check their inventory and give 
a yea or nay. I was going to get rings too but they didn't have exactly 
what I wanted so I opted for just the arms. In the US these arms are sold 
as Dimension Cross cranks(black) and they also were the stock arms(silver) 
of Surly LHT for a long time. Regular arm pattern, no hidden nonsense. The 
tread width is little wider than a Sugino. For years I thought I had to 
have a narrow tread crank(because so and so said so), without ever 
questioning the validity, the universality of the claim. Turns out in 
actuality the 170mm tread width of the Andel as a triple is great, and I 
have a relatively narrow pelvic structure for my height. 

For 110 doubles the Origin8 arms are terrific, though they've gone up to 
the skyrocket high price of $71 hah hah ! 

Andel just happens to make Riv's crank arms to their spec. Andel is to 
crank arms what Velo is to saddles, many of the house brand cranks are made 
by Andel. 

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 7:54:19 AM UTC-5 ascpgh wrote:

> Johnny wrote:* "I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the 
> worst." *
>
> Unless you sell the higher margin crank hardware tools as a specific 
> pursuit. 
>
> While in possession of hidden arm hardware cranks I think I bought a new 
> tool every three months believing the next had to be better than the 
> previous. Profits from all those tools may have exceeded that of the cranks 
> themselves. 
>
> Andy Cheatham
> Pittsburgh
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the worst.
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:27:41 AM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>>  "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."
>>>
>>> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the 
>>> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring 
>>> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a 
>>> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain 
>>> in the patooty. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote:
>>>
 Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino 
 AT cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the 
 upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell 
 didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain 
 to deal with. 

 Thanks,

 Reginald Alexis  

 On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at 
> Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same 
> time, 
> so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 
>
> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset. 
>  Looks pretty cool!
>
> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>

-- 
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/92594cef-71f3-4a88-9f19-b030c10ab729n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread Bill Lindsay

The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and 
we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing better 
from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does indeed make 
it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing things 
right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other way.  I 
think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver cranks 
with a normal 5-arm setup.  

That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such 
a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with 
it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.  
Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, 
three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.  If there are 
any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship me your 
unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know.

Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* way?  
That would probably be pointless because in general it seems that those who 
have made up their minds that they are terrible seem to have their minds 
completely made up.  

There is no question that the hidden arm does not make it EASIER to replace 
a chainring.  It makes it a tiny bit harder.  I'd put it on par with tying 
my shoes.  My BOA shoes are the easiest to install onto my feet and extract 
from my feet.  Lace-up shoes are harder to install and harder to extract 
than BOA shoes.  That's a fact.  Still, I know how to tie my shoes, and I 
do include lace-up shoes in my closet.  I imagine it would be logical to 
boycott lace-up shoes and label shoelaces as the worst thing ever, and 
limit oneself to strictly BOA shoes (and slip-ons).  That would be a 
principled stance.  From my perspective, it's a baby and bathwater 
situation.  

My guess is that there are three reasons Rivendell designed the Silver 
cranks with normal 5-arms:

1. their customers vocally complain about the hidden arm
2. there is no performance benefit to the hidden arm
3. the post-forging machining steps are more complicated and costly with 
the hidden arm

There's no reason to make an already expensive product even more expensive 
by adding a valueless feature that your customers will bellyache about.  

I've got guesses at how and why people struggle with the hidden arm, and 
it's probably a combination of 4 things.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

*by right, I mean the way that was obvious and self-evident when I first 
ran across them in the late 1980s, but it seems what was obvious and self 
evident to me is not universal.  
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:

>  "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."
>
> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the 
> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring 
> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a 
> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain 
> in the patooty. 
>
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote:
>
>> Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino AT 
>> cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the 
>> upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell 
>> didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain 
>> to deal with. 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Reginald Alexis  
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at 
>>> Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time, 
>>> so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 
>>>
>>> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset. 
>>>  Looks pretty cool!
>>>
>>> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>

-- 
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/811af3a8-ddb6-4271-af46-0d49f6059e7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

2023-11-30 Thread ascpgh

Johnny wrote:* "I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the 
worst." *

Unless you sell the higher margin crank hardware tools as a specific 
pursuit. 

While in possession of hidden arm hardware cranks I think I bought a new 
tool every three months believing the next had to be better than the 
previous. Profits from all those tools may have exceeded that of the cranks 
themselves. 

Andy Cheatham
Pittsburgh

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the worst.
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 2:27:41 AM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>>  "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."
>>
>> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the 
>> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring 
>> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a 
>> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain 
>> in the patooty. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote:
>>
>>> Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino AT 
>>> cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the 
>>> upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell 
>>> didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain 
>>> to deal with. 
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Reginald Alexis  
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at 
 Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time, 
 so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 

 Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset. 
  Looks pretty cool!

 https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA

>>>

-- 
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/5ab9eba5-5f66-495e-ad95-e946367566f4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Gunnar Crosshairs

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

Re: [RBW] Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[RBW] Re: A Homer Hill build....

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] Re: Best way to arrange 2-cog manual shifting for "single speed" disc braked bicycle

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv thumb shifter mounts or IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc.

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[RBW] Re: WTB Riv thumb shifter mounts or IRD PowerRatchet brake levers, etc.

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

Re: [RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

Re: [RBW] A Homer Hill build....

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

[RBW] Re: Silver2 cranks!

25 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information