The Amos...I'm not sure when it'll come out. I hear, from Merry Sales, that it'll be about a month....but I know from experience that it could be three. It won't hit with a big splash anyway---the last I heard, MS was going to bring in only fifteen each of the 54, 59, and 63; and of those fifteen, RIV's buying five each. (The 47, 51 650B models will come later, after another sample.
RIV's role in it is limited to geometry and the undertube. Plus, I approved the tubing. I wanted to make sure the tubes are suitable for the kind of bike it is supposed to be---a sporty road bike. Not a touring/country bike. But it will clear 33.333mm tires with a fender which means about a 36 or 37 without; and it'll have rackmounts on the seat stays for a rack or saddlebag support. Two eyelets on the rear drops, one on the front. Same tubing butts and bellies as the Rambouillet and Hilsen, but a diff brand (Tange Prestige). The undertube is a go/no-go feature for some, I know that, but I don't look at stuff like that and think, "Classic/traditional/classy/ goooood" or "wuzzupwiddat?/bad". As the frame gets bigger, it loses triangulation and the structure that comes so much from that triangulation. The undertube gives turns would otherwise be a rhombus- like shape into more of a triangle. It means a tall dude who needs the triangulation gets some of it back, and so to me, it makes sense. The alternative is much fatter tubes, but I don't like fat tubes. It's an easier way and requires less brazing or welding, but to me (maybe only to me--I don't rule that out), it's the cold-hard-lazy-unattractive way to do that. Depending on the particulars (how fat?), it may be even MORE effective, but I'm not shooting for No. 1 lateral rigidity; just trying to get back some that's lost in the frames with taller head tubes. I agree that a 59cm frame ordinarily may not scream for an undertube, but the 59 Amos has a 6-deg upslope, which gives it the head tube height of about a 65....and yet the top and seat tubes are still 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.8 (butt-belly-butt). The U2b, in this case, helps more than going to 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.9 would. Good point, of course, about it's possible unnecessariness on a bike for fenders but not racks, but on a bike that could conceivably be ridden by a 290-lb rider, a little conservativeness is not a bad thing. Historically--going back to the '70s, touring bikes used 1.0 x 0.7 x 1.0 tubing, big race bikes used 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.9 tubing, and race bikes for light riders used 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.8 tubing. "Record attempt" bikes used 0.7 x 0.4 x 0.7. These days that's all out the door, there are different rules and expectations--and tubes have gotten larger in outside diameter, and some of the metallurgy has changed---but it's still good to see the historical view and to recognize that the reason for the change is more related to marketing and steel's perceived need to compete with unsteels, than because "we know so much more now." Anyway...it seems only 30 U2bers will be around in the foreseeable future, and I'm glad we're getting ten of 'em! Sorry for the long post. As always, I submit it in a good spirit, not to slam the door on further discussion/dissention. G In the end, the contribution the AMOS will make to riders outside of our bubble here, is that it will raise the bars humongously higher; it will allow them to ride tires that are humongously more useful, and it'll let them ride with fenders, which they won't likely be able to fit on whatever other bike the Amos is going neck-and-neck with. BUT...this contribution will be limited by the sad fact that there will be only 30 of them available to the country's 4,200 bike dealers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
