I am wondering if Riv will create a "deciding between the Bomba and Hunqa" document like they did for the Sam and Homer. At first blush I am not sure why I would choose one over the other unless I really wanted 650bs (Bomba) instead of 700c (Hunaq) but functionally they seem to be the same- maybe I am missing something?
Not that it matters much I will be trying to decide between a Sam and a AMOS at some point. Any way you go I am sure you'd come up with bike you would love. R On Feb 9, 12:21 pm, newenglandbike <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the second top-tube makes more sense when you think about it > in the context of the 'expanded' geometry. Because the top-tube > rises the way it does, the headtube for a given size is 5-6cm taller > than it would be otherwise. So for a 62cm frame, you're looking at > an equivalent headtube length to that of a 67-68cm horizontal-tt > frame. > > Also many properly assembled single-tt frames, ridden in the manner in > which they were intended, have met their demise- by accident. I > mean, how many bent forks and buckled down/top tubes have you seen? > They are usually the result of crashes, which happen all the time when > a bike is being ridden in the manner in which it is intended (i.e. > rider is human). There's tons of graveyard bikes out there with just > those symptoms. > > I like the two top-tubes, but then again i'm partial because i love my > bombadil. And as far as overlapping functionality with the the > Atlantis and Bombadil, the differences are outlined in the flyer. > Plus there's a difference in price. Personally, I think it's great > that Rivendell is adding to their touring/offroad line-up. Last > year they added the Roadeo, which as far as I know has the lightweight > category pretty well sewn-up. > > On Feb 9, 2:40 pm, Ron MH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I guess I'm confused. Why cover the same ( or so nearly the same that > > the differences become meaningless) territory with three different > > models (Atlantis, Bombadil, Hunqapillar)? > > > Also, why a second top tube at all? I understand that a second tube > > would make a very (Very) large frame more stable. But, beyond that, > > what's the utility in a second top tube? Has anyone here ever heard of > > a rash of properly assembled bicycle frames, ridden in conditions they > > are meant for (i.e. stouter tubing for touring or mountain bikes makes > > sense) break because a second to tube wasn't employed? > > > I'm open to enlightenment - nirvana even. ;-) > > > Ron > > > On Feb 8, 9:04 pm, Esteban <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I like how, similar to the Bomba and Atlantis, this bike covers the > > > outer edges of "all rounder" territory: heavy duty touring, > > > singletrack, and robust commuting. A winner, for sure. > > > > Esteban > > > San Diego, Calif > > > > On Feb 8, 8:42 pm, Michael_S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > yes, 2.2 knobbies if you please... a real dirt machine and with 40mm > > > > Schwalbes a killer touring rig! Even in Elephant color! > > > > > another home run for RBW. > > > > > Mikey > > > > SoCal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
