I realize this is just a fun thought-exercise, but I think I can confidently say that they wouldn't even consider the idea. The reason being that Grant has made it clear that he doesn't like the proportions of small wheels on a big frame - even when "small" means 26"/559 wheels. I'd guess that he's had several thousand requests to re-make 26" All-Rounders and has, as far as I can tell, refused. Even the Saluki/Hilsen frames in the larger sizes went from 650b to 700c, so his preference now seems to be to use as large a wheel as can fit. That doesn't mean that 559 and 650b aren't preferable for smaller frames built for smaller riders, but it's a whole different equation, now that 700c tires are so readily available in large volume casings, than it was when the X0-1, All-Rounder and Saluki were first designed.
As one of the vocal small-wheel prostheletizers, I once looked at those VO mini-velos with some interest and curiosity. After studying the geometry, it turned out they weren't nearly big enough, despite looking so huge. (My rivendell roadish-bikes are roughly 60cm st with 59cm tt, so not even extra large by any means. The VOs capped-out at the equivalent of about a 56cm-ish frame, if I recall correctly.) So I think that even they looked at it and decided that larger frames would look too ridiculous to bother. On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:11:19 PM UTC-7 lconley wrote: > I was not thinking that it would be "mini". I was thinking that you could > get the advantages of the long chain stays, long top tube and long > wheelbase, in the overall length of a "normal" non-Riv bike. It would then > be more usable when transporting on public transportation and easier to > navigate a tight stairwell or tight living quarters with. It wouldn't be so > wide on a back of the car bike rack. It would fit more easily inside my > Element. I have zero expectation that Riv would actually do one. Riv > obviously doesn't have a stack of unused, long steering tube 20" wheel > forks sitting around to do a run of Rosco Bubbes with. One a the few > persistent complaints that I hear about Rivendells on this site is about > the overall length and the possibly mis-named Mini-velo concept might cure > that without a lot of other compromises. Just the rambling thoughts of an > old gear-head. > > Laing > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:51:02 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote: > >> I think it would be an interesting exercise and in the current "they all >> sell out" climate Riv would probably do ok with one, but you'd have to >> convince Grant there's a reason to own one. I had a VO Neutrino for a >> while, which I bought online, and was quite surprised to discover how >> not-all-that-mini it was. I'm not convinced a 20-inch-wheel Riv with long >> stays and a long toptube is going to be notably more compact than one with >> 26 or 27.5. Now if he wanted to do it with separators to break it in half >> like a Moulton, I'm in! >> >> Joe Bernard >> >> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:02:51 AM UTC-8 lconley wrote: >> >>> I have wondered what a Rivendell version of a mini-velo would be like. A >>> mini velo is a small tired, non-folding but full size bike like the VO >>> Neutrino, BikesDirect also had one some years back. You could have the long >>> Riv wheelbase and ride, without the actual total bike length being any >>> longer that a "normal" bike. And, of course the low top tube. >>> I do have a folding Bike Friday and a VO Neutrino. Too heavy for the >>> Bike Friday now, but the Neutrino seems stout enough. >>> >>> Laing >>> >> -- 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/3251aa78-c744-415b-b536-d04557c6a6f3n%40googlegroups.com.
