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.

Reply via email to