I'm not sure that's correct. The early Waterford Rivs (like the one I used to have) used an Everest bb shell. Although I can't remember whether that's the exact model. The "rivendell" branded shells came later.
As for the sizing, I had a 54 c-t, and this one looks about the same, or maybe a cm bigger. The 54 had a 55 c-c top tube. Greg On Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:06:27 AM UTC-7, Fullylugged wrote: > > And while not mentioned in the repairs, the BB shell appears incorrect. > Still and all, it might build up nicely. > > Sent from my Kindle Fire > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Bill M." <bmenn...@comcast.net> > *Sent:* Sat Jun 23 19:38:30 CDT 2012 > *To:* rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [RBW] Re: WTB: Rivendell road-style bike for 82 PBH. > Rambouillet, Road, Homer, Roadeo, Bleriot, etc. > > My '95 Road Standard is a 56 measured center to top (about 54 center to > center), and has a 57 top tube. This frame is maybe 2 cm smaller, the head > lugs nearly touch and there's no room for a pump peg, so I'd say 54 center > to top. My head tube is 14 cm, but the one in the listing lacks the > extension above the upper head lug, so an 11 cm head tube adds up. It has > enough headset spacers to make up for the missing extension. If the top > tube is really 57, it may have been a custom geometry. Or it got changed > when the frame was rebuilt. > > I think it's unlikely that the replacement front end has the original 753 > tubing. Riv's 753 tubes were drawn to Grant's specifications with thicker > walls and longer butts than a standard 753 set, and by 2003 even standard > 753 was obsolete. It could have 853 tubes, or True Temper. Fork blades, > probably whatever Waterford was using at the time, probably not 531. At > least it still has the pretty lugs and head badge. > > Picky detail - note that in picture 21, the Simplex binder bolt is not > installed correctly. The flats should be vertical, so the nut sits fully > inside the lug. > > Bill > > On Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:19:52 PM UTC-7, Aaron Thomas wrote: >> >> That's a really nice frame too. I wonder about the accuracy of the >> seller's description. A 57 cm top tube on a 54 frame doesn't compute to me. >> But I could be wrong. >> >> I have a PBH similar to the original poster's and a 57 top tube would be >> way too long for me. >> >> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:07:37 PM UTC-7, Fullylugged wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps this 54 might work? >>> >>> >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200779652699&ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:US:1123 >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Brian Campbell >>> <bdcampbel...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Mis-read. Sorry! Still a sweet bike. It is my size, that is why I keep >>>> thinking about it! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:02:03 PM UTC-4, Aaron Thomas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's a sweet looking Road Standard. But a 59cm is way too big for an >>>>> 82 cm PBH. For 82, you're talking about a frame in the 53-55 cm range. >>>>> >>>>> O >>>>> >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/L1BxeegVqaoJ. > 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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/TC9ZUYW5Z80J. 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.
