Ah, but there's always room in nature for a mutation to occur once in a while... I just hope it would never be referred to as "Monster Cross"... (no offense, B)... no, this would have to be it's own species... like Gimli himself, a "badass dwarf"...
Wiith recklessness, BB On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:43:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > I love the passion and optimism! That said, I'm going to go out on a limb > here and predict that this direct decendant of a roadish singlespeed won't > end up being a geared and disk-brake equipped monstercross. LOL. But who > knows? Certainly not me. > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:23:26 PM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >> Precisely! Perhaps we have two lists of committed to bikes? Gimli, I like >> it. G.O. , Gimli's initials (presuming he can trace his lineage back to the >> Oakenshields), for copyright reasons? Though I was thinking more along the >> lines of Surly's new ECR. Not outlandishly oversized tires, but enough for >> snow and very challenging trails. Geared would be ideal, but perhaps >> simple, beefy gearing in the back with as wide a range as possible (are >> good 5-6 speeds still available?). For winter, disk brakes would indeed be >> ideal. If Grant would consider such an outlandish thing, we're already >> 1/10th of the way there, with three of us! Grin. >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:09:26 PM UTC-7, Montclair BobbyB wrote: >>> >>> Ah, and if you could only name it "Gimli"... I was thinking something >>> like a Surly Pugsley (or more specifically, the 29er Krampus, with its 3 >>> inch tires), but thought that might be too audacious an idea. IF Grant >>> would ever consider such a beast, I hope he would also strongly consider >>> giving it disc brakes and curved fork blades, not something you see very >>> often (other than the Willits Wow fork)... that would certainly turn heads >>> and make for an awesome ride... >>> >>> BB >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:40:50 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: >>>> >>>> I would be amazingly interested in a rough and tumble fattier (3") bike >>>> with low gearing (at least as low as my current gearing can go, so >>>> smallest >>>> chainring to 32 (but ideally 36, then swap rear cog and shift front for my >>>> "fast" riding option) for snow and trail, mountain riding. If this >>>> miraculously becomes that, I'm absolutely in. >>>> >>>> With abandon, >>>> Patrick >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:28:12 AM UTC-7, Cyclofiend Jim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I guess this is a type of Entmoot - we're discussing features on a >>>>> bike that might not be built, but one which is the evolution of the >>>>> Quickbeam and SimpleOne. The impetus for this thread has branched from >>>>> Grant Petersen's comments in this thread - >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rbw-owners-bunch/QhzO4CFyz1U- in >>>>> which I was volunteered to wrangle discussion of and interest in the >>>>> project. >>>>> >>>>> Basically, if 30 individuals are interested in committing, this could >>>>> come to pass. No promises, of course. >>>>> >>>>> Here are the guidelines for this thread: >>>>> - State clearly what you would like to see. >>>>> - Give a specific reason why. >>>>> >>>>> Since this is a Brainstorming thread, let's keep the focus on >>>>> encouraging creative thought: >>>>> - No negative comments. If you think an idea is stupid, bite your >>>>> tongue (or quell your keyboard) and come up with a better one. >>>>> - No discussion about whether something would or would not work. Each >>>>> idea may also spur a more functional insight in someone else's brain. >>>>> >>>>> This (hopefully) is not an empirical discussion. If you have a >>>>> Quickbeam or SimpleOne and really like a certain aspect of the frame >>>>> design, or if you didn't buy one because of a specific issue, this is the >>>>> place to talk about that. The goal is to recognize valued features and >>>>> uncover hidden possibilities. All of which or none of which might be >>>>> incorporated into the final design. >>>>> >>>>> For example - >>>>> I have an orange series. It does not have seat stay threads for a >>>>> rear rack. This has always bothered me as I have a Mark's Rack on my >>>>> Hilsen and would love to be able to run a dual rack setup without >>>>> resorting >>>>> to P-Clamps. (This was corrected in the SimpleOne.) >>>>> >>>>> - or - >>>>> >>>>> Would it matter if it had a derailleur hanger? Would you want it >>>>> optimized for upright bars? Would a kickstand plate be a dealbreaker? >>>>> Would >>>>> it absolutely have to be a 584/650B capable of accepting super wide >>>>> tires? >>>>> Or a 622/700C capabler of mounting your favorite "29er" mondo tire? >>>>> >>>>> OK? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance and enjoy the ride! >>>>> >>>>> - Jim / cyclo...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- 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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
