date:20240418

"interested to hear how..."  to what end?  Just so you have something to 
read?  So you can pick up a smart comment to re-use in another forum later? 
 Just as an academic consideration about "Bicycle"?  Or for some practical 
application that you are personally considering?  Are you thinking about 
setting up *"that Libertas" * with tubulars?  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 2:58:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> I'll be interested to hear how users of both compare the ride and "feel" 
> of tubulars to clinchers with tubes and tubeless clinchers.* Is it true 
> that modern supple clinchers can roll better than equivalent tubulars? With 
> tubes or only tubeless?
>
>
> * I realize that "wired on" is the correct term but this isn't the CR list.
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:42 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> A discussion a while back touched on a couple people revealing that they 
>> run sew-ups on their Rivendell.  Show a photo of your Rivendell with 
>> sew-ups!  
>>
>> Here's my 57cm Legolas.  I briefly reconfigured it as a 2x road bike, but 
>> it's in-process getting switched back to a cyclocross racing set up.  No, I 
>> will not be racing cyclocross any time soon, but I will be using it for 
>> rides of that kind.  
>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53661740502/in/dateposted/
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/68187836-f8ad-42c2-b25b-9c8b777db6a3n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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/fdcae2a1-9549-4f66-b0da-f270eb6a5dfan%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

That I can't say BUT if you go with the 54 might I suggest the Billie bars? 
They are similar to the Albatross but go back a bit further. Quite 
luxurious.

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:13:32 PM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:

> That does make sense. I wonder if a 130 stem with the Albatross bars on 
> the 51 would give enough knee clearance, because I definitely want to run 
> those bars. 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I would never question Rivendell's knowledge on anything at all but like 
>> I said their method of sizing bikes for people does not work for me 
>> personally. If you are comfortable on the 55 Salsa the 54 SH will feel a 
>> lot bigger. The 51 will likely feel pretty close. But I don't want to 
>> discourage sizing up especially if you are diving into the sweptback 
>> movement the kids are into these days.
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>>
>>> OP here, apologies for deleting the post amidst the thoughtful 
>>> conversation, I thought that I got the answer I needed and didn't want to 
>>> clutter up the board :p 
>>>
>>> Will at Riv suggested that I size up to the 54. 
>>>
>>> The context was: compared to my current bike, a drop-bar 55cm Salsa 
>>> Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...
>>>
>>> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
>>> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>>>
>>> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
>>> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>>>
>>> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
>>> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
>>> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. That nearly 2" 
>>> increase of standover height gives me pause, to be honest. But eh, seems 
>>> that the wisdom of the riding community suggests sizing up. 
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 7:56:06 PM UTC-4 Drew Fitchette wrote:
>>>
 Echoing Bill on here. I also look at stack and reach, and have nearly 
 the same dimensions as the OP

 I had a 53 Atlantis from the last run as it was correct for my PBH as 
 I’m between the 53 and 55, after deep dives on stack and reach(in 
 particular) I realized what made the bike *feel* small to me. I 
 should’ve sized up to a 55 instead, and similar to Bill have now scooped a 
 56 hillborne from another list member as it’s the biggest size non step 
 over riv I can fit. 

 Roman told me that the 54 Sam would feel bigger as far as 
 standover(mostly due to the 700c wheels) but the bike might feel similar 
 to 
 the Atlantis for stack and the reach is shorter. He actually suggested a 
 60cm Plat with my seat slammed since I’m 6 ft tall. And I know Grant rides 
 a 59cm Clem with only a slightly taller PBH than I have. 

 All that to say, I think I’ll be sizing up henceforth as I like toscos 
 or albatross bars usually and don’t mind the straddle heigh being close!



 On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:42:10 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 
> 54cm Rambo"
>
> I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO. 
>  My comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person 
> would 
> probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
> any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 
> Ram, 
> and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post 
> so 
> it's maybe a thread we should let die.  
>
> Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers 
> associated with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people 
> have 
> different approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is 
> pretty 
> common, and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my 
> Stack and Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I 
> use 
> are 600mm for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I 
> have a ton of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the 
> way 
> to 62, but are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking 
> for 
> those numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a 
> little short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem 
> with 
> drop bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The 
> extra 
> reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and 
> I 
> could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
> "fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach 
> on 
> that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they 
> have 
> a Salsa Vaya.  Look

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

That does make sense. I wonder if a 130 stem with the Albatross bars on the 
51 would give enough knee clearance, because I definitely want to run those 
bars. 
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:08:44 PM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I would never question Rivendell's knowledge on anything at all but like I 
> said their method of sizing bikes for people does not work for me 
> personally. If you are comfortable on the 55 Salsa the 54 SH will feel a 
> lot bigger. The 51 will likely feel pretty close. But I don't want to 
> discourage sizing up especially if you are diving into the sweptback 
> movement the kids are into these days.
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>
>> OP here, apologies for deleting the post amidst the thoughtful 
>> conversation, I thought that I got the answer I needed and didn't want to 
>> clutter up the board :p 
>>
>> Will at Riv suggested that I size up to the 54. 
>>
>> The context was: compared to my current bike, a drop-bar 55cm Salsa 
>> Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...
>>
>> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
>> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>>
>> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
>> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>>
>> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
>> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
>> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. That nearly 2" 
>> increase of standover height gives me pause, to be honest. But eh, seems 
>> that the wisdom of the riding community suggests sizing up. 
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 7:56:06 PM UTC-4 Drew Fitchette wrote:
>>
>>> Echoing Bill on here. I also look at stack and reach, and have nearly 
>>> the same dimensions as the OP
>>>
>>> I had a 53 Atlantis from the last run as it was correct for my PBH as 
>>> I’m between the 53 and 55, after deep dives on stack and reach(in 
>>> particular) I realized what made the bike *feel* small to me. I 
>>> should’ve sized up to a 55 instead, and similar to Bill have now scooped a 
>>> 56 hillborne from another list member as it’s the biggest size non step 
>>> over riv I can fit. 
>>>
>>> Roman told me that the 54 Sam would feel bigger as far as 
>>> standover(mostly due to the 700c wheels) but the bike might feel similar to 
>>> the Atlantis for stack and the reach is shorter. He actually suggested a 
>>> 60cm Plat with my seat slammed since I’m 6 ft tall. And I know Grant rides 
>>> a 59cm Clem with only a slightly taller PBH than I have. 
>>>
>>> All that to say, I think I’ll be sizing up henceforth as I like toscos 
>>> or albatross bars usually and don’t mind the straddle heigh being close!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:42:10 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 54cm 
 Rambo"

 I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO. 
  My comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person would 
 probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
 any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 Ram, 
 and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post so 
 it's maybe a thread we should let die.  

 Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers 
 associated with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people 
 have 
 different approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is 
 pretty 
 common, and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my 
 Stack and Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I use 
 are 600mm for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I 
 have a ton of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the 
 way 
 to 62, but are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking 
 for 
 those numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a 
 little short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem with 
 drop bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The 
 extra 
 reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and 
 I 
 could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
 "fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach 
 on 
 that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they have 
 a Salsa Vaya.  Looking over that geo-chart, I can say for certain I would 
 not ride a Salsa Vaya in any size.  None of them gets me in the 
 neighborhood of where I'd want to be in Stack and Reach.  I think that's 
 another important piece of knowledge: to know that not every bike model on 
 Earth comes in "your size" and to know how to not-buy the wrong bike.  In

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

I would never question Rivendell's knowledge on anything at all but like I 
said their method of sizing bikes for people does not work for me 
personally. If you are comfortable on the 55 Salsa the 54 SH will feel a 
lot bigger. The 51 will likely feel pretty close. But I don't want to 
discourage sizing up especially if you are diving into the sweptback 
movement the kids are into these days.

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:

> OP here, apologies for deleting the post amidst the thoughtful 
> conversation, I thought that I got the answer I needed and didn't want to 
> clutter up the board :p 
>
> Will at Riv suggested that I size up to the 54. 
>
> The context was: compared to my current bike, a drop-bar 55cm Salsa Vaya's 
> standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...
>
> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>
> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>
> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. That nearly 2" 
> increase of standover height gives me pause, to be honest. But eh, seems 
> that the wisdom of the riding community suggests sizing up. 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 7:56:06 PM UTC-4 Drew Fitchette wrote:
>
>> Echoing Bill on here. I also look at stack and reach, and have nearly the 
>> same dimensions as the OP
>>
>> I had a 53 Atlantis from the last run as it was correct for my PBH as I’m 
>> between the 53 and 55, after deep dives on stack and reach(in particular) I 
>> realized what made the bike *feel* small to me. I should’ve sized up to 
>> a 55 instead, and similar to Bill have now scooped a 56 hillborne from 
>> another list member as it’s the biggest size non step over riv I can fit. 
>>
>> Roman told me that the 54 Sam would feel bigger as far as 
>> standover(mostly due to the 700c wheels) but the bike might feel similar to 
>> the Atlantis for stack and the reach is shorter. He actually suggested a 
>> 60cm Plat with my seat slammed since I’m 6 ft tall. And I know Grant rides 
>> a 59cm Clem with only a slightly taller PBH than I have. 
>>
>> All that to say, I think I’ll be sizing up henceforth as I like toscos or 
>> albatross bars usually and don’t mind the straddle heigh being close!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:42:10 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 54cm 
>>> Rambo"
>>>
>>> I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO. 
>>>  My comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person would 
>>> probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
>>> any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 Ram, 
>>> and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post so 
>>> it's maybe a thread we should let die.  
>>>
>>> Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers 
>>> associated with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people have 
>>> different approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is pretty 
>>> common, and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my 
>>> Stack and Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I use 
>>> are 600mm for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I 
>>> have a ton of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the way 
>>> to 62, but are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking for 
>>> those numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a 
>>> little short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem with 
>>> drop bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The extra 
>>> reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and I 
>>> could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
>>> "fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach on 
>>> that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they have 
>>> a Salsa Vaya.  Looking over that geo-chart, I can say for certain I would 
>>> not ride a Salsa Vaya in any size.  None of them gets me in the 
>>> neighborhood of where I'd want to be in Stack and Reach.  I think that's 
>>> another important piece of knowledge: to know that not every bike model on 
>>> Earth comes in "your size" and to know how to not-buy the wrong bike.  In 
>>> 2024 where there are fewer and fewer "test rides", that's an important 
>>> ability.  
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 With the way these bikes are designed the 51 SH I owned seemed as large 
 or larger than the 54cm Rambo that I owned at the same time. For road 
 riding

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

OP here, apologies for deleting the post amidst the thoughtful 
conversation, I thought that I got the answer I needed and didn't want to 
clutter up the board :p 

Will at Riv suggested that I size up to the 54. 

The context was: compared to my current bike, a drop-bar 55cm Salsa Vaya's 
standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...

51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 

54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 

An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. That nearly 2" 
increase of standover height gives me pause, to be honest. But eh, seems 
that the wisdom of the riding community suggests sizing up. 
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 7:56:06 PM UTC-4 Drew Fitchette wrote:

> Echoing Bill on here. I also look at stack and reach, and have nearly the 
> same dimensions as the OP
>
> I had a 53 Atlantis from the last run as it was correct for my PBH as I’m 
> between the 53 and 55, after deep dives on stack and reach(in particular) I 
> realized what made the bike *feel* small to me. I should’ve sized up to a 
> 55 instead, and similar to Bill have now scooped a 56 hillborne from 
> another list member as it’s the biggest size non step over riv I can fit. 
>
> Roman told me that the 54 Sam would feel bigger as far as standover(mostly 
> due to the 700c wheels) but the bike might feel similar to the Atlantis for 
> stack and the reach is shorter. He actually suggested a 60cm Plat with my 
> seat slammed since I’m 6 ft tall. And I know Grant rides a 59cm Clem with 
> only a slightly taller PBH than I have. 
>
> All that to say, I think I’ll be sizing up henceforth as I like toscos or 
> albatross bars usually and don’t mind the straddle heigh being close!
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:42:10 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 54cm 
>> Rambo"
>>
>> I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO. 
>>  My comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person would 
>> probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
>> any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 Ram, 
>> and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post so 
>> it's maybe a thread we should let die.  
>>
>> Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers 
>> associated with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people have 
>> different approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is pretty 
>> common, and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my 
>> Stack and Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I use 
>> are 600mm for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I 
>> have a ton of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the way 
>> to 62, but are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking for 
>> those numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a 
>> little short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem with 
>> drop bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The extra 
>> reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and I 
>> could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
>> "fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach on 
>> that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they have 
>> a Salsa Vaya.  Looking over that geo-chart, I can say for certain I would 
>> not ride a Salsa Vaya in any size.  None of them gets me in the 
>> neighborhood of where I'd want to be in Stack and Reach.  I think that's 
>> another important piece of knowledge: to know that not every bike model on 
>> Earth comes in "your size" and to know how to not-buy the wrong bike.  In 
>> 2024 where there are fewer and fewer "test rides", that's an important 
>> ability.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> With the way these bikes are designed the 51 SH I owned seemed as large 
>>> or larger than the 54cm Rambo that I owned at the same time. For road 
>>> riding I would not have wanted to go larger. But I also admit that I don't 
>>> like having no standover clearance so thats part of it for me. One of the 
>>> big reasons I like step-over/thru frames. But IMO Riv's already have fairly 
>>> long reach and (obviousl) long wheelbases so moving up for a drop bar setup 
>>> just seems way to stretches out. Honestly I prefer the 50cm Gallop I have 
>>> for road stuff to the 51cm SH I had.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-4 ian m wrote:
>>>
 It's pretty wild the differing opinions people have on upsi

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

2024-04-18 Thread Drew Fitchette

Echoing Bill on here. I also look at stack and reach, and have nearly the 
same dimensions as the OP

I had a 53 Atlantis from the last run as it was correct for my PBH as I’m 
between the 53 and 55, after deep dives on stack and reach(in particular) I 
realized what made the bike *feel* small to me. I should’ve sized up to a 
55 instead, and similar to Bill have now scooped a 56 hillborne from 
another list member as it’s the biggest size non step over riv I can fit. 

Roman told me that the 54 Sam would feel bigger as far as standover(mostly 
due to the 700c wheels) but the bike might feel similar to the Atlantis for 
stack and the reach is shorter. He actually suggested a 60cm Plat with my 
seat slammed since I’m 6 ft tall. And I know Grant rides a 59cm Clem with 
only a slightly taller PBH than I have. 

All that to say, I think I’ll be sizing up henceforth as I like toscos or 
albatross bars usually and don’t mind the straddle heigh being close!



On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:42:10 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 54cm 
> Rambo"
>
> I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO.  My 
> comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person would 
> probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
> any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 Ram, 
> and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post so 
> it's maybe a thread we should let die.  
>
> Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers associated 
> with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people have different 
> approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is pretty common, 
> and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my Stack and 
> Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I use are 600mm 
> for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I have a ton 
> of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the way to 62, but 
> are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking for those 
> numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a little 
> short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem with drop 
> bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The extra 
> reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and I 
> could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
> "fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach on 
> that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they have 
> a Salsa Vaya.  Looking over that geo-chart, I can say for certain I would 
> not ride a Salsa Vaya in any size.  None of them gets me in the 
> neighborhood of where I'd want to be in Stack and Reach.  I think that's 
> another important piece of knowledge: to know that not every bike model on 
> Earth comes in "your size" and to know how to not-buy the wrong bike.  In 
> 2024 where there are fewer and fewer "test rides", that's an important 
> ability.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> With the way these bikes are designed the 51 SH I owned seemed as large 
>> or larger than the 54cm Rambo that I owned at the same time. For road 
>> riding I would not have wanted to go larger. But I also admit that I don't 
>> like having no standover clearance so thats part of it for me. One of the 
>> big reasons I like step-over/thru frames. But IMO Riv's already have fairly 
>> long reach and (obviousl) long wheelbases so moving up for a drop bar setup 
>> just seems way to stretches out. Honestly I prefer the 50cm Gallop I have 
>> for road stuff to the 51cm SH I had.
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-4 ian m wrote:
>>
>>> It's pretty wild the differing opinions people have on upsizing or 
>>> downsizing based on cockpit choices. I'm with Bill on this, and I think Riv 
>>> tends to suggest smaller sizes than necessary, maybe because there's still 
>>> consumer pushback to running shorter stems? Everyone thinks they need a 
>>> 10cm for optimum handling or something. 
>>>
>>> But why would one aim for a 51 Hillborne to use drops and a 54 to use 
>>> sweptback bars? The reach difference is 6mm! That's less than the 
>>> difference between the stem you have and the next size up or down. 
>>>
>>> Maybe it's better from a consumer happiness standpoint to have customers 
>>> on a too small bike, as they'll feel more comfortable with the extra 
>>> standover clearance, and Riv has moved far more upright than even the 
>>> recent past. When in-between two sizes I'll always go for the largest I can 
>>> standover (on a roadish bike anyways)
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:34:29 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 OOPS! the OP deleted their post.  It's worth pointing out

[RBW] Easily pocket-able, decent but cheap binocular or monocular

New thread to avoid egregious thread highjacking.

Thanks, David, that's what I'd hope to find. The one I lost/sold/gave away
was of a similar size and had what I think was at one point was a reputable
name, Bushnell; tho' these days, with selling brand assets, who the hell
knows. But it worked fine and was only a wee bit big to slide easily into a
jersey pocket.

To all: Monococular: suggestions? If one wants to put a premium on
portability at the expense of visual experience -- tho' one wants the
device to be useful for casual bird, person, or object observance. I also,
long ago, and a cheap monocular, about the size of a test tube, and it did
sort of work.

Thanks again.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:08 PM DavidP  wrote:

> "Palm sized" is how I'd describe the Carson MiniScout 7x18 I take along on
> trail rides and other rides when I don't expect to be using them much or
> are too rough to bring more expensive binoculars. Tiny, expendable, very
> small eye relief, but surprisingly decent handling for the size.
>
> A 6x18 monocular is smaller but the bins give a better view.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Yes; please keep them coming.
>>
>> Aside, to all: suggestions for a usable but inexpensive, small, and
>> easily stowable binocular or monocular for very casual sightings while
>> riding around? For some reason I lost or tossed a nice palm-size binocular
>> and I'd like to replace with with something that easily fits into a rear
>> jersey pocket.
>>
>>
>> Patrick "I see a Clem in my future, but only after fettling the new M 1:1
>> knobby wheelset and the beater Libertas build" Moore
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:42 AM DavidP  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Chris - very much enjoyed your ride report and always great to
>>> see photos!
>>>
>>> I also like to bring binos on bike rides, and find a stem bag is a great
>>> way to have them easily accessible (requires folding/pocket bins - I use a
>>> pair of Bushnell Legend 10x25 for this).
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:51:56 AM UTC-4 Chris Halasz wrote:
>>>
 I took advantage of the intermission in rains here on California’s
 Central Coast for a short and easy trail ride this evening.

 I'd started running again and enjoying something like a 10k loop along
 this trail for the past year, and recently wondered why I never bother to
 take a bike here: it's a quicker way to grab the binos and do some
 occasional birding. A Clem seemed like a good candidate for stepping off in
 sketchy sections, and for portaging with its low top tube.

 This was its first ride into the trees!

 The trees seemed to be enjoying the frogs making happy noise in the
 creek, the air was cool, not much breeze, and the (new to me) Clem cruised
 nicely over the winter’s leaves, the drying trails, and lots of exposed
 rock from a generously wet winter. Shall I ride the bike when I go
 hear Suzanne Simard speak in a couple weeks?

 [image: IMG_1128.jpeg]

 [image: IMG_1132.jpeg]

 [image: IMG_1137.jpeg]

 Hope you enjoy the photos as much as I enjoyed the (short) ride,

 Chris

>>> --
> 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/2b93a595-3c25-4eaf-b265-8759668aea27n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/CALuTfgs_xohvf0fO0Bp3UfXf_TKM7ZkoTpUfKDVMnJ%2BLU3Cg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Evening Spring Ride on the Clem

"Palm sized" is how I'd describe the Carson MiniScout 7x18 I take along on 
trail rides and other rides when I don't expect to be using them much or 
are too rough to bring more expensive binoculars. Tiny, expendable, very 
small eye relief, but surprisingly decent handling for the size. 

A 6x18 monocular is smaller but the bins give a better view.

-Dave

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Yes; please keep them coming.
>
> Aside, to all: suggestions for a usable but inexpensive, small, and easily 
> stowable binocular or monocular for very casual sightings while riding 
> around? For some reason I lost or tossed a nice palm-size binocular and I'd 
> like to replace with with something that easily fits into a rear jersey 
> pocket.
>
>
> Patrick "I see a Clem in my future, but only after fettling the new M 1:1 
> knobby wheelset and the beater Libertas build" Moore
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:42 AM DavidP  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Chris - very much enjoyed your ride report and always great to 
>> see photos! 
>>
>> I also like to bring binos on bike rides, and find a stem bag is a great 
>> way to have them easily accessible (requires folding/pocket bins - I use a 
>> pair of Bushnell Legend 10x25 for this).
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:51:56 AM UTC-4 Chris Halasz wrote:
>>
>>> I took advantage of the intermission in rains here on California’s 
>>> Central Coast for a short and easy trail ride this evening. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd started running again and enjoying something like a 10k loop along 
>>> this trail for the past year, and recently wondered why I never bother to 
>>> take a bike here: it's a quicker way to grab the binos and do some 
>>> occasional birding. A Clem seemed like a good candidate for stepping off in 
>>> sketchy sections, and for portaging with its low top tube. 
>>>
>>>
>>> This was its first ride into the trees!  
>>>
>>>
>>> The trees seemed to be enjoying the frogs making happy noise in the 
>>> creek, the air was cool, not much breeze, and the (new to me) Clem cruised 
>>> nicely over the winter’s leaves, the drying trails, and lots of exposed 
>>> rock from a generously wet winter. Shall I ride the bike when I go hear 
>>> Suzanne Simard speak in a couple weeks?
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1128.jpeg]
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1132.jpeg]
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1137.jpeg]
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope you enjoy the photos as much as I enjoyed the (short) ride, 
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris 
>>>
>>

-- 
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/2b93a595-3c25-4eaf-b265-8759668aea27n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread larson....@gmail.com

Count me in on the fracas for a green Hunqapillar if it is a 62cm! Always 
thought this would be my dream bike.
Randy in WI

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 5:39:38 PM UTC-5 philip@gmail.com wrote:

> Max, 
>
> I will fight you to the death for it.
>
> P. W.
> ~
> (917) 514-2207
> ~
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:51 AM, Max S  wrote:
>
> This thread really makes me want to find a green Hunqapillar to put that 
> bullmoose bar on... 
>
>
> - Max "and this is how we ended up with so many bikes..." in A2
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-4 larson@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> [image: IMG_2484.jpeg][image: 
>> E3DC21C4-E0AA-43EF-91A3-DF38B9CDA3DD.jpeg][image: 
>> IMG_2597.jpeg]Thanks P.W. - here are three more.
>> Randy in WI
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-5 Matthew P wrote:
>>
>>> I like'em and rode them today.
>>> A couple notes:
>>> 1. Integrated stem - less adjustability. Can't play with stem 
>>> (horizontal)length/reach nor rise/drop
>>> 2. Cant slam it completely, if you wanted/needed to, bc of built in rise
>>> 3. No clamp = no slippage there
>>> 4. Sweep angle, reach etc. - to each their own
>>>
>>> I have them all the way up on an old ('84?) StumpJumper and that setup 
>>> handles bad, terrible with a front load, but I blame that on the super 
>>> slack head tube angle.
>>>
>>> Send unwanted bullmoosees to me please :)
>>> Happy to trade for drops or something 
>>>
>>> Next build gets the chocomoose or Bosco moose I forget. 
>>>
>>> -Matthew P
>>> San Diego / Kumeyaay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 6:25 AM P W  wrote:
>>>
 Love that big boy Appa, Randy.

 More photos, please!

 P. W.
 ~
 (917) 514-2207
 ~




 On Apr 18, 2024, at 5:38 AM, larson@gmail.com  
 wrote:

 
 
 I am a fan of the bullmoose bars. On my 62cm Appaloosa I like them when 
 the bike is set up as my ATB with bigger tires and more off road ready. I 
 initially thought they were too stiff as I had some wrist and shoulder 
 pain.Ergon grips solved this issue and I find them comfortable. I do set 
 my 
 bike up with Billie bars during the summer for road/gravel riding, and 
 like 
 them as well. I like the aesthetic of the bullmoose and probably could 
 make 
 them work for all of my riding.
 Randy in WI

 On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:25:56 AM UTC-5 exliontamer wrote:

> Serious thanks to everyone for the photos & advice! I think I'm going 
> to go for a set. Seems like looking at the photos it will suit my height, 
> build, and even my setup on the Atlantis. I set my Cheviot back up with 
> Albatross bars and while there's nothing wrong with having multiple bikes 
> with the same bar, variety is just more fun. 
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:14:44 PM UTC-5 Stephen wrote:
>
>> I have a pair that i used to have on my appaloosa. I’m around 6’1-2” 
>> and i really like the width and sweep. On my ‘21 appaloosa the reach was 
>> good, some might consider it too long. i think itd probably be nice on 
>> an 
>> older atlantis, just assuming that it would have a shorter top tube. 
>> very 
>> solid bars of course, no flexy. One of the coolest looking bars, I’ll 
>> always have them in the collection i think, I’m a perpetual bar swapper. 
>> I 
>> have the tig version, wish they were the fillet but both are good. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:47:03 PM UTC-4 
>> philip@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Max,
>>>
>>> I was just about to say your SimpleOne is the perfect bike.
>>>
>>> Clearly we have overlapping tastes!
>>>
>>> Our green bikes should be friends.
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> P. W.
>>> ~
>>> (917) 514-2207
>>> ~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Max S  wrote:
>>>
>>> I've tried them on my (dearly departed) SimpleOne, my QuickBeam, 
>>> and even my Serotta. Great bars, and I could even use the forward 
>>> extension 
>>> to get low and fast. I still have these bars, waiting to be put back on 
>>> the 
>>> QB to make it into the tracklocross hoon wagon that it wants to be. At 
>>> a 
>>> hair over 6' tall, I felt the bar was a little too wide for me, and 
>>> I've 
>>> been tempted to cut it down a bit. For you, the width might be perfect. 
>>> As 
>>> far as commuting goes, I'm of the opinion that for commuting involving 
>>> city 
>>> streets, a narrow bar is better. If your commute involves some dirt, or 
>>> the 
>>> bike gets used for different things and the commute doesn't involve 
>>> cars 
>>> passing close, then bar width is maybe of less consequence. Also, if 
>>> you're 
>>> running a loaded front bag or basket, and the head tube angle is < 72 
>>> and 
>>> trail is >45

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

Johnny said: "the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or larger than the 54cm 
Rambo"

I agree with that.  A 51 Sam is "bigger" than a 54cm Rambouillet, IMO.  My 
comment had to do with the OP's height at 5'11".  A 5'11" person would 
probably do best on a 60cm Ram.  At 5'10" I'd pick a 60cm if you gave me 
any size I choose.  A 57 Hillborne would be a little bigger than a 60 Ram, 
and a 54 Hilborne would be a little smaller.  The OP deleted their post so 
it's maybe a thread we should let die.  

Here's a comment to those who are super confused by the numbers associated 
with bike sizing:  it is super confusing.  Different people have different 
approaches to normalize bike fitting.  The method I use is pretty common, 
and pretty contemporary, and that is Stack and Reach.  I keep my Stack and 
Reach numbers in my pocket and go from there.  The numbers I use are 600mm 
for Stack and 390mm for Reach for a roadish drop bar setup.  I have a ton 
of bikes, and the names of their sizes range from 47 all the way to 62, but 
are all where I want them to be in Stack and Reach.  Looking for those 
numbers the 54 is right there in Stack for 5'10" me, but it's a little 
short in the Reach department so I'd need to run a longer stem with drop 
bars and forget about it for any kind of upright bar setup.  The extra 
reach of the 57 would make an upright bar setup more straightforward, and I 
could slam the stem because the stack is high.  If you have a bike that 
"fits" I think it's a really good idea to figure out the Stack and Reach on 
that bike and use it for comparison.  The OP on this thread said they have 
a Salsa Vaya.  Looking over that geo-chart, I can say for certain I would 
not ride a Salsa Vaya in any size.  None of them gets me in the 
neighborhood of where I'd want to be in Stack and Reach.  I think that's 
another important piece of knowledge: to know that not every bike model on 
Earth comes in "your size" and to know how to not-buy the wrong bike.  In 
2024 where there are fewer and fewer "test rides", that's an important 
ability.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-7 Johnny Alien wrote:

> With the way these bikes are designed the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or 
> larger than the 54cm Rambo that I owned at the same time. For road riding I 
> would not have wanted to go larger. But I also admit that I don't like 
> having no standover clearance so thats part of it for me. One of the big 
> reasons I like step-over/thru frames. But IMO Riv's already have fairly 
> long reach and (obviousl) long wheelbases so moving up for a drop bar setup 
> just seems way to stretches out. Honestly I prefer the 50cm Gallop I have 
> for road stuff to the 51cm SH I had.
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-4 ian m wrote:
>
>> It's pretty wild the differing opinions people have on upsizing or 
>> downsizing based on cockpit choices. I'm with Bill on this, and I think Riv 
>> tends to suggest smaller sizes than necessary, maybe because there's still 
>> consumer pushback to running shorter stems? Everyone thinks they need a 
>> 10cm for optimum handling or something. 
>>
>> But why would one aim for a 51 Hillborne to use drops and a 54 to use 
>> sweptback bars? The reach difference is 6mm! That's less than the 
>> difference between the stem you have and the next size up or down. 
>>
>> Maybe it's better from a consumer happiness standpoint to have customers 
>> on a too small bike, as they'll feel more comfortable with the extra 
>> standover clearance, and Riv has moved far more upright than even the 
>> recent past. When in-between two sizes I'll always go for the largest I can 
>> standover (on a roadish bike anyways)
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:34:29 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> OOPS! the OP deleted their post.  It's worth pointing out to people that 
>>> this Google Group is basically an email activity.  You can delete a post, 
>>> but it's deleted the same way an email is deleted.  It's out there.  
>>>
>>> BL in EC
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:32:17 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 I'm 5'10", shorter than the OP, and I think I'm between sizes on the 
 Hillbornebut not between 51 and 54.  I think I'm between 54 and 57 on 
 the Hillborne.  

 My Saddle Height is 75.5cm, so my PBH is probably in the 85-86 range. 
  I own an older 56cm Hillborne which is perfect, used to run a 56cm 
 Bombadil which was perfect. 

 When I went to buy an original run Leo Roadini, the Riv guys leaned 
 towards a 54.  I was surprised because that felt like a significant 
 downsize.  I disagreed with them and got a 57 and it was terrific, albeit 
 with no standover clearance.  If I had to replace my 56 Hillborne with a 
 current Hillborne I'd almost definitely get a 57.  

 Does that make me ever more of a weird upsizer than the reputation Riv 
 has with people like Johnny?  I'm not sure.  Th

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread P W

Max, I will fight you to the death for it.P. W.~(917) 514-2207~On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:51 AM, Max S wrote:This thread really makes me want to find a green Hunqapillar to put that bullmoose bar on... - Max "and this is how we ended up with so many bikes..." in A2On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-4 larson@gmail.com wrote:Thanks P.W. - here are three more.Randy in WIOn Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-5 Matthew P wrote:I like'em and rode them today.A couple notes:1. Integrated stem - less adjustability. Can't play with stem (horizontal)length/reach nor rise/drop2. Cant slam it completely, if you wanted/needed to, bc of built in rise3. No clamp = no slippage there4. Sweep angle, reach etc. - to each their ownI have them all the way up on an old ('84?) StumpJumper and that setup handles bad, terrible with a front load, but I blame that on the super slack head tube angle.Send unwanted bullmoosees to me please :)Happy to trade for drops or something Next build gets the chocomoose or Bosco moose I forget. -Matthew PSan Diego / KumeyaayOn Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 6:25 AM P W wrote:Love that big boy Appa, Randy.More photos, please!P. W.~(917) 514-2207~On Apr 18, 2024, at 5:38 AM, larson@gmail.com wrote:I am a fan of the bullmoose bars. On my 62cm Appaloosa I like them when the bike is set up as my ATB with bigger tires and more off road ready. I initially thought they were too stiff as I had some wrist and shoulder pain.Ergon grips solved this issue and I find them comfortable. I do set my bike up with Billie bars during the summer for road/gravel riding, and like them as well. I like the aesthetic of the bullmoose and probably could make them work for all of my riding.Randy in WIOn Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:25:56 AM UTC-5 exliontamer wrote:Serious thanks to everyone for the photos & advice! I think I'm going to go for a set. Seems like looking at the photos it will suit my height, build, and even my setup on the Atlantis. I set my Cheviot back up with Albatross bars and while there's nothing wrong with having multiple bikes with the same bar, variety is just more fun. On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:14:44 PM UTC-5 Stephen wrote:I have a pair that i used to have on my appaloosa. I’m around 6’1-2” and i really like the width and sweep. On my ‘21 appaloosa the reach was good, some might consider it too long. i think itd probably be nice on an older atlantis, just assuming that it would have a shorter top tube. very solid bars of course, no flexy. One of the coolest looking bars, I’ll always have them in the collection i think, I’m a perpetual bar swapper. I have the tig version, wish they were the fillet but both are good. On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:47:03 PM UTC-4 philip@gmail.com wrote:Max,I was just about to say your SimpleOne is the perfect bike.Clearly we have overlapping tastes!Our green bikes should be friends.- PhilipP. W.~(917) 514-2207~On Apr 17, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Max S wrote:I've tried them on my (dearly departed) SimpleOne, my QuickBeam, and even my Serotta. Great bars, and I could even use the forward extension to get low and fast. I still have these bars, waiting to be put back on the QB to make it into the tracklocross hoon wagon that it wants to be. At a hair over 6' tall, I felt the bar was a little too wide for me, and I've been tempted to cut it down a bit. For you, the width might be perfect. As far as commuting goes, I'm of the opinion that for commuting involving city streets, a narrow bar is better. If your commute involves some dirt, or the bike gets used for different things and the commute doesn't involve cars passing close, then bar width is maybe of less consequence. Also, if you're running a loaded front bag or basket, and the head tube angle is < 72 and trail is >45 mm, IMO, the wider bar and rearward position really help with steering. - Max "the ghosts of bikes past" in A2On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:03:43 PM UTC-4 J J wrote:Hi exliontamer. I'm a little bit taller than you, also with broad shoulders, burly, and I have a Toyo Atlantis (61) with a Nitto-Riv Bullmoose. I like the bar, it looks great, and I love the integrated stem. Aesthetically I think the Bullmoose looks badass on the Atlantis. I had to raise the bar up as high as I can get it it's probably a couple of inches higher than saddle height. Otherwise the reach is too long *for the riding I have been doing*. It makes me stretch out more than is comfortable for my wrists and shoulders. So this is where my opinion starts diverging from other respondents on this thread: I'm honestly getting sick of the Bullmoose. Every time I ride it I wish it were a Chocomoose or a Boscomoose. I run a Boscomoose on my Hunqapillar and love and prefer it. In other words, I have direct experience with both bars on roughly similar bikes that makes comparing the bars pretty easy. For commuting, bopping around town, riding paved t

Re: [RBW] Re: Evening Spring Ride on the Clem

Yes; please keep them coming.

Aside, to all: suggestions for a usable but inexpensive, small, and easily
stowable binocular or monocular for very casual sightings while riding
around? For some reason I lost or tossed a nice palm-size binocular and I'd
like to replace with with something that easily fits into a rear jersey
pocket.


Patrick "I see a Clem in my future, but only after fettling the new M 1:1
knobby wheelset and the beater Libertas build" Moore


On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:42 AM DavidP  wrote:

> Thanks, Chris - very much enjoyed your ride report and always great to see
> photos!
>
> I also like to bring binos on bike rides, and find a stem bag is a great
> way to have them easily accessible (requires folding/pocket bins - I use a
> pair of Bushnell Legend 10x25 for this).
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:51:56 AM UTC-4 Chris Halasz wrote:
>
>> I took advantage of the intermission in rains here on California’s
>> Central Coast for a short and easy trail ride this evening.
>>
>>
>> I'd started running again and enjoying something like a 10k loop along
>> this trail for the past year, and recently wondered why I never bother to
>> take a bike here: it's a quicker way to grab the binos and do some
>> occasional birding. A Clem seemed like a good candidate for stepping off in
>> sketchy sections, and for portaging with its low top tube.
>>
>>
>> This was its first ride into the trees!
>>
>>
>> The trees seemed to be enjoying the frogs making happy noise in the
>> creek, the air was cool, not much breeze, and the (new to me) Clem cruised
>> nicely over the winter’s leaves, the drying trails, and lots of exposed
>> rock from a generously wet winter. Shall I ride the bike when I go hear
>> Suzanne Simard speak in a couple weeks?
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_1128.jpeg]
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_1132.jpeg]
>>
>>
>> [image: IMG_1137.jpeg]
>>
>>
>> Hope you enjoy the photos as much as I enjoyed the (short) ride,
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>

-- 
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/CALuTfguDDoRLkV3Y%2BV9HE78JrrjscdfRXOJOsrkgyg4oWE32-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB: 54cm Appaloosa or Sam, or 53cm Atlantis

Theres a 53 Atlantis in Columbus on the facebook group.  Thats just a hop 
skip from you. 

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:27:36 PM UTC-4 cfic...@gmail.com wrote:

> Preferably with swept bars (Choco, Losco, Billie, etc) or possibly frame 
> only. I'm in Cincinnati, OH and could travel a reasonable distance to pick 
> up, or shipping is possible. Also will be traveling to Kansas City, KS in 
> June and could pick up along that route, as well. 

-- 
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/50dff3dc-b114-47f7-a921-733aa8e18d22n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] WTB: 54cm Appaloosa or Sam, or 53cm Atlantis

2024-04-18 Thread Chuck Blessing

Preferably with swept bars (Choco, Losco, Billie, etc) or possibly frame 
only. I'm in Cincinnati, OH and could travel a reasonable distance to pick 
up, or shipping is possible. Also will be traveling to Kansas City, KS in 
June and could pick up along that route, as well. 

-- 
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/3e1ff648-84ce-4c9d-bbd8-c60d3d1ffbacn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] WTB: 57cm Appaloosa or 59cm Clem

2024-04-18 Thread Matthew Williams

Yes!

https://groups.google.com/g/rbw-owners-bunch/c/w0OeCP48xQo/m/_kWYO5xVAgAJ



> On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:10 PM, Trevor Oleniuk  wrote:
> 
> Before I go and invest in a new frames later this year, I am going to put 
> this out there. Anyone have either a 57cm appaloosa or 59cm Clem they are 
> looking to get rid of?
> 
> Thanks,
> Trevor 
> 
> -- 
> 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/3d77ec05-f649-4728-9775-9c2b882a2827n%40googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4E43B33B-F22D-4CC7-A8E4-1A3A96037A2F%40gmail.com.

[RBW] WTB: 57cm Appaloosa or 59cm Clem

2024-04-18 Thread Trevor Oleniuk

Before I go and invest in a new frames later this year, I am going to put 
this out there. Anyone have either a 57cm appaloosa or 59cm Clem they are 
looking to get rid of?

Thanks,
Trevor 

-- 
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/3d77ec05-f649-4728-9775-9c2b882a2827n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

With the way these bikes are designed the 51 SH I owned seemed as large or 
larger than the 54cm Rambo that I owned at the same time. For road riding I 
would not have wanted to go larger. But I also admit that I don't like 
having no standover clearance so thats part of it for me. One of the big 
reasons I like step-over/thru frames. But IMO Riv's already have fairly 
long reach and (obviousl) long wheelbases so moving up for a drop bar setup 
just seems way to stretches out. Honestly I prefer the 50cm Gallop I have 
for road stuff to the 51cm SH I had.

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-4 ian m wrote:

> It's pretty wild the differing opinions people have on upsizing or 
> downsizing based on cockpit choices. I'm with Bill on this, and I think Riv 
> tends to suggest smaller sizes than necessary, maybe because there's still 
> consumer pushback to running shorter stems? Everyone thinks they need a 
> 10cm for optimum handling or something. 
>
> But why would one aim for a 51 Hillborne to use drops and a 54 to use 
> sweptback bars? The reach difference is 6mm! That's less than the 
> difference between the stem you have and the next size up or down. 
>
> Maybe it's better from a consumer happiness standpoint to have customers 
> on a too small bike, as they'll feel more comfortable with the extra 
> standover clearance, and Riv has moved far more upright than even the 
> recent past. When in-between two sizes I'll always go for the largest I can 
> standover (on a roadish bike anyways)
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:34:29 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> OOPS! the OP deleted their post.  It's worth pointing out to people that 
>> this Google Group is basically an email activity.  You can delete a post, 
>> but it's deleted the same way an email is deleted.  It's out there.  
>>
>> BL in EC
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:32:17 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> I'm 5'10", shorter than the OP, and I think I'm between sizes on the 
>>> Hillbornebut not between 51 and 54.  I think I'm between 54 and 57 on 
>>> the Hillborne.  
>>>
>>> My Saddle Height is 75.5cm, so my PBH is probably in the 85-86 range.  I 
>>> own an older 56cm Hillborne which is perfect, used to run a 56cm Bombadil 
>>> which was perfect. 
>>>
>>> When I went to buy an original run Leo Roadini, the Riv guys leaned 
>>> towards a 54.  I was surprised because that felt like a significant 
>>> downsize.  I disagreed with them and got a 57 and it was terrific, albeit 
>>> with no standover clearance.  If I had to replace my 56 Hillborne with a 
>>> current Hillborne I'd almost definitely get a 57.  
>>>
>>> Does that make me ever more of a weird upsizer than the reputation Riv 
>>> has with people like Johnny?  I'm not sure.  The idea of a 5'11" human on a 
>>> 51cm Hillborne doesn't seem right to me.  
>>>
>>> Is your Salsa Vaya a perfect fit?  do you want to share a photo of your 
>>> setup?
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 9:38:33 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 I agree with Johnny. Think about how you mostly want this bike set up 
 and size accordingly. You had mentioned wanting an Albatross bar setup, so 
 if it were me, I would go with the 54cm and longer top tube that will play 
 nicely with the swept-back bars and longer stem required for said bars. I 
 also have a PBH that's between 83-84, even though I'm a little shorter 
 than 
 you. If I were buying a new Sam, I would purchase the 54cm size, and I 
 would probably also run some sort of swept-back cockpit. I already have a 
 drop bar Riv, and a fat-tired Riv, and those are the only two factors that 
 would make me want to size down to a 51cm.

 Brian
 Lex KY

 On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
> traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
> laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops 
> go 
> with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but 
> the 
> standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the 
> advice 
> to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going 
> to 
> push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
> worked for me.
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:
>
>> Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!
>>
>> 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with 
>> this stuff.
>>
>> 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length 
>> I'm guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 
>> 54cm Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a 
>> long 
>> stem on that Albatross. My 58cm

Re: [RBW] Rivendells with tubulars

I'll be interested to hear how users of both compare the ride and "feel" of
tubulars to clinchers with tubes and tubeless clinchers.* Is it true that
modern supple clinchers can roll better than equivalent tubulars? With
tubes or only tubeless?


* I realize that "wired on" is the correct term but this isn't the CR list.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:42 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> A discussion a while back touched on a couple people revealing that they
> run sew-ups on their Rivendell.  Show a photo of your Rivendell with
> sew-ups!
>
> Here's my 57cm Legolas.  I briefly reconfigured it as a 2x road bike, but
> it's in-process getting switched back to a cyclocross racing set up.  No, I
> will not be racing cyclocross any time soon, but I will be using it for
> rides of that kind.
>
> https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53661740502/in/dateposted/
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> --
> 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/68187836-f8ad-42c2-b25b-9c8b777db6a3n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/CALuTfgu1j-NsAgr94jUsej%3Dcz2wOu%2BKJxiAX4Xtk2UtKaOvg%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Clem Chainstay Ding Peer Review Request

Thanks, Dave. I think I might fall between sizes, between the 52 and the 59
and, inclined to go small, the 52 alas is spec'd for 650B instead of my
preferred 700C. But perhaps a 59 would be alright as long as I don't want a
drop bar.* I don't know my PBH but a 60 X 56 c-c fits perfectly with 9 cm
stem and fistful of seatpost -- 4/3 scale Asian build with more of height
in torso.

But if the 52 and 650B, good to know that it can take ~58s with fenders.

* And my daydreams of a Clem have it built with some sort of sweepback bar,
but that too is a question as every bar I've used except standard drops
hurts my left palm.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:25 AM DavidP  wrote:

> ... Patrick, the Clem can do tires up to 2.6 or ~2.25 fendered. The
> Platypus can do ~2.1-2.2"; mine's running VO 63mm fenders over those 2"
> GravelKings.
>
> -Dave

-- 
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/CALuTfguBC7wbkmR%3DS8CHUErYphqmkLKav8xvuhF2zAYBPCGjpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread larson....@gmail.com

Great looking Bombadil and Atlantis!
Randy in WI

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 3:04:40 PM UTC-5 maxcr wrote:

> Just to add more pics to the thread, here is my Bombadill with Bullmoose 
> bars and my Atlantis with the unpopular Bull bar on a faceplater.
>
> I'm 5'11" with long arms and long legs and the Bullmoose feels comfortable 
> for trails and rough stuff - they are super stiff so they inspire 
> confidence. I don't love the Ourys and might swap em for Ergons (thanks for 
> the tip Randy). I also have a set of Ortho Bars that I've considered 
> swapping out for, but that won't happen just yet.
>
> With the Altantis, there's more wiggle room around height and angle, but 
> honestly I set them up very similarly.
>
> Max
>
> [image: IMG_9921.jpeg]
>
> [image: IMG_9939.jpeg]
>
> [image: IMG_8554.jpeg]
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:21:22 AM UTC-6 Brian Turner wrote:
>
>> bullmoose bars certainly look cool and have the extra stiffness that's 
>> often welcomed for trail riding... but as others have mentioned, the 
>> biggest downside is the lack of adjustability. The specifics of the bars 
>> have to pretty much match what is needed for your position on the bike, 
>> give or take the slight height adjustment ability. For example, I recently 
>> acquired a set of Tosco-moose bars from another member here, and I had long 
>> been searching for these for my Gus. The length matched the stem length I'd 
>> been using on my standard Tosco bars and Ron's Ortho bars but I miss just a 
>> slight bit of downward angle adjustment that I had with a standard stem. 
>> It's not enough to make them uncomfortable, but it's something to consider.
>>
>> Brian
>> Lex KY
>>
>

-- 
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/2e5bbc60-5924-4dac-abf9-0ed16ac857d9n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

2024-04-18 Thread ian m

It's pretty wild the differing opinions people have on upsizing or 
downsizing based on cockpit choices. I'm with Bill on this, and I think Riv 
tends to suggest smaller sizes than necessary, maybe because there's still 
consumer pushback to running shorter stems? Everyone thinks they need a 
10cm for optimum handling or something. 

But why would one aim for a 51 Hillborne to use drops and a 54 to use 
sweptback bars? The reach difference is 6mm! That's less than the 
difference between the stem you have and the next size up or down. 

Maybe it's better from a consumer happiness standpoint to have customers on 
a too small bike, as they'll feel more comfortable with the extra standover 
clearance, and Riv has moved far more upright than even the recent past. 
When in-between two sizes I'll always go for the largest I can standover 
(on a roadish bike anyways)
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:34:29 PM UTC-4 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> OOPS! the OP deleted their post.  It's worth pointing out to people that 
> this Google Group is basically an email activity.  You can delete a post, 
> but it's deleted the same way an email is deleted.  It's out there.  
>
> BL in EC
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:32:17 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I'm 5'10", shorter than the OP, and I think I'm between sizes on the 
>> Hillbornebut not between 51 and 54.  I think I'm between 54 and 57 on 
>> the Hillborne.  
>>
>> My Saddle Height is 75.5cm, so my PBH is probably in the 85-86 range.  I 
>> own an older 56cm Hillborne which is perfect, used to run a 56cm Bombadil 
>> which was perfect. 
>>
>> When I went to buy an original run Leo Roadini, the Riv guys leaned 
>> towards a 54.  I was surprised because that felt like a significant 
>> downsize.  I disagreed with them and got a 57 and it was terrific, albeit 
>> with no standover clearance.  If I had to replace my 56 Hillborne with a 
>> current Hillborne I'd almost definitely get a 57.  
>>
>> Does that make me ever more of a weird upsizer than the reputation Riv 
>> has with people like Johnny?  I'm not sure.  The idea of a 5'11" human on a 
>> 51cm Hillborne doesn't seem right to me.  
>>
>> Is your Salsa Vaya a perfect fit?  do you want to share a photo of your 
>> setup?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 9:38:33 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Johnny. Think about how you mostly want this bike set up 
>>> and size accordingly. You had mentioned wanting an Albatross bar setup, so 
>>> if it were me, I would go with the 54cm and longer top tube that will play 
>>> nicely with the swept-back bars and longer stem required for said bars. I 
>>> also have a PBH that's between 83-84, even though I'm a little shorter than 
>>> you. If I were buying a new Sam, I would purchase the 54cm size, and I 
>>> would probably also run some sort of swept-back cockpit. I already have a 
>>> drop bar Riv, and a fat-tired Riv, and those are the only two factors that 
>>> would make me want to size down to a 51cm.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>> Lex KY
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>>
 I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
 traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
 laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops 
 go 
 with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but the 
 standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the 
 advice 
 to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going to 
 push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
 worked for me.

 On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:

> Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!
>
> 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with 
> this stuff.
>
> 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length 
> I'm guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 
> 54cm Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long 
> stem on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. 
> The drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a 
> longer 
> fit without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the 
> reach 
> is luxurious.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>
>> Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm 
>> thinking I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and 
>> I 
>> don't know if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to 
>> my 
>> current bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 
>> 55cm...
>>
>> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
>>

Re: [RBW] Re: Belated Ride Report: Redlands Strada Rossa

Great report, Corwin - and nice to see your new custom back on the dirt. 
Sounds like you stretched yourself quite a bit on this one and made it 
through - congrats!

-Dave

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 1:28:42 AM UTC-4 ttoshi wrote:

> Wow, adventurous ride! Nice job finishing it.
> You’ve motivated me to think about a mixed terrain ride later this year.
>
> Thanks for sharing,
> Toshi
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:09 PM Corwin Zechar  wrote:
>
>> Sorry. I took more photos, but seem to have previously filled the disk on 
>> my camera with unrelated pics.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/934017c5-7715-4b6b-9a71-f59292bff828n%40googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/23adc11a-9562-48ba-a3fb-12d59dcbf8ddn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Rivendells with tubulars

A discussion a while back touched on a couple people revealing that they 
run sew-ups on their Rivendell.  Show a photo of your Rivendell with 
sew-ups!  

Here's my 57cm Legolas.  I briefly reconfigured it as a 2x road bike, but 
it's in-process getting switched back to a cyclocross racing set up.  No, I 
will not be racing cyclocross any time soon, but I will be using it for 
rides of that kind.  

https://flickr.com/photos/45758191@N04/53661740502/in/dateposted/

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

-- 
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/68187836-f8ad-42c2-b25b-9c8b777db6a3n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

OOPS! the OP deleted their post.  It's worth pointing out to people that 
this Google Group is basically an email activity.  You can delete a post, 
but it's deleted the same way an email is deleted.  It's out there.  

BL in EC

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:32:17 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I'm 5'10", shorter than the OP, and I think I'm between sizes on the 
> Hillbornebut not between 51 and 54.  I think I'm between 54 and 57 on 
> the Hillborne.  
>
> My Saddle Height is 75.5cm, so my PBH is probably in the 85-86 range.  I 
> own an older 56cm Hillborne which is perfect, used to run a 56cm Bombadil 
> which was perfect. 
>
> When I went to buy an original run Leo Roadini, the Riv guys leaned 
> towards a 54.  I was surprised because that felt like a significant 
> downsize.  I disagreed with them and got a 57 and it was terrific, albeit 
> with no standover clearance.  If I had to replace my 56 Hillborne with a 
> current Hillborne I'd almost definitely get a 57.  
>
> Does that make me ever more of a weird upsizer than the reputation Riv has 
> with people like Johnny?  I'm not sure.  The idea of a 5'11" human on a 
> 51cm Hillborne doesn't seem right to me.  
>
> Is your Salsa Vaya a perfect fit?  do you want to share a photo of your 
> setup?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 9:38:33 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I agree with Johnny. Think about how you mostly want this bike set up and 
>> size accordingly. You had mentioned wanting an Albatross bar setup, so if 
>> it were me, I would go with the 54cm and longer top tube that will play 
>> nicely with the swept-back bars and longer stem required for said bars. I 
>> also have a PBH that's between 83-84, even though I'm a little shorter than 
>> you. If I were buying a new Sam, I would purchase the 54cm size, and I 
>> would probably also run some sort of swept-back cockpit. I already have a 
>> drop bar Riv, and a fat-tired Riv, and those are the only two factors that 
>> would make me want to size down to a 51cm.
>>
>> Brian
>> Lex KY
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
>>> traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
>>> laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops go 
>>> with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but the 
>>> standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the advice 
>>> to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going to 
>>> push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
>>> worked for me.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:
>>>
 Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!

 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with 
 this stuff.

 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length 
 I'm guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 
 54cm Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long 
 stem on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. 
 The drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a longer 
 fit without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the reach 
 is luxurious.

 -Dave

 On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:

> Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm 
> thinking I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and I 
> don't know if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to my 
> current bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 
> 55cm...
>
> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>
> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>
> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. 
>
> I would like to run Albatross bars and be comfy about it. 
>
> Which frame size should I choose? 
>
>
>

-- 
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/c4d444b8-8abd-4d30-bef1-f8a25b6956b9n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

I'm 5'10", shorter than the OP, and I think I'm between sizes on the 
Hillbornebut not between 51 and 54.  I think I'm between 54 and 57 on 
the Hillborne.  

My Saddle Height is 75.5cm, so my PBH is probably in the 85-86 range.  I 
own an older 56cm Hillborne which is perfect, used to run a 56cm Bombadil 
which was perfect. 

When I went to buy an original run Leo Roadini, the Riv guys leaned towards 
a 54.  I was surprised because that felt like a significant downsize.  I 
disagreed with them and got a 57 and it was terrific, albeit with no 
standover clearance.  If I had to replace my 56 Hillborne with a current 
Hillborne I'd almost definitely get a 57.  

Does that make me ever more of a weird upsizer than the reputation Riv has 
with people like Johnny?  I'm not sure.  The idea of a 5'11" human on a 
51cm Hillborne doesn't seem right to me.  

Is your Salsa Vaya a perfect fit?  do you want to share a photo of your 
setup?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 9:38:33 AM UTC-7 brok...@gmail.com wrote:

> I agree with Johnny. Think about how you mostly want this bike set up and 
> size accordingly. You had mentioned wanting an Albatross bar setup, so if 
> it were me, I would go with the 54cm and longer top tube that will play 
> nicely with the swept-back bars and longer stem required for said bars. I 
> also have a PBH that's between 83-84, even though I'm a little shorter than 
> you. If I were buying a new Sam, I would purchase the 54cm size, and I 
> would probably also run some sort of swept-back cockpit. I already have a 
> drop bar Riv, and a fat-tired Riv, and those are the only two factors that 
> would make me want to size down to a 51cm.
>
> Brian
> Lex KY
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
>> traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
>> laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops go 
>> with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but the 
>> standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the advice 
>> to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going to 
>> push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
>> worked for me.
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:
>>
>>> Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!
>>>
>>> 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with 
>>> this stuff.
>>>
>>> 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length I'm 
>>> guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 54cm 
>>> Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long stem 
>>> on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. The 
>>> drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a longer fit 
>>> without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the reach is 
>>> luxurious.
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>>>
 Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm 
 thinking I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and I 
 don't know if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to my 
 current bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 
 55cm...

 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 

 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 

 An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
 measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
 inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. 

 I would like to run Albatross bars and be comfy about it. 

 Which frame size should I choose? 

-- 
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/e69b3c0a-4650-4331-93f6-71ff37991e34n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Clem Chainstay Ding Peer Review Request

Chris, thanks for posting the update including photos of the final build. 
That's great looking Clem and nice touch up work! I love to hear stories of 
bikes being built around a single part, this may be the first I've heard of 
a bike being built around a set of tires!

Re: comparisons to the Platypus, the longer WB on the Clem may have 
something do to with it, though your tire selections definitely will make a 
difference. My Platy is built similarly to your Clem (50mm GravelKing SKs 
and 65cm Tosco bars).

Patrick, the Clem can do tires up to 2.6 or ~2.25 fendered. The Platypus 
can do ~2.1-2.2"; mine's running VO 63mm fenders over those 2" GravelKings.

-Dave

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:53:49 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Thanks for the clarifications and precisions. I'm more auditory than 
> visual so I do appreciate the apercus of someone who is visual about the 
> Clem's appearance. Also, can the Clem take wider tires than the Platypus? 
> At any rate, if I ever get a Clem, it will be for dawdling about on 
> pavement and on sandy roads and trails so I'd need a minimum width of 48.
>
> Please do post more offroad photos of the Clem.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:32 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:
>
>> Patrick 
>>
>>
>> I almost, and probably should have, refrained from comparing the Clem 
>> with the Platypus. 
>>
>>
>> I built the 60cm Platypus with 42mm Graveling SS tires and Crust Juan 
>> Martin bars, front rack, often with a beloved little dog in the front 
>> basket rack. The Clem is a 64cm with Tosco bars, 48mm Oracle Ridge tires, 
>> and no racks. Surely all of that is part of the change. 
>>
>>
>> It feels a little more sure - to me - with the type of riding I’m doing 
>> now: a little less road, a few more rocky trails (images to follow in 
>> another thread). 
>>
>>
>> I’m highly visual, and while I couldn’t argue that the Platypus is the 
>> more objectively beautifully built frame, there’s something downright 
>> compelling to me about the largest Clem and the way the top and down tubes 
>> diverge at the steerer tube, and the way my somewhat dyslexic brain works, 
>> that translate to *me* finding myself more at home on this build; it feels 
>> a bit more like an extension of me, or maybe I just feel more sure with the 
>> Clem in the type of riding I’m doing now. I’ve grown more accustomed to 
>> riding upright, and maybe that extra inch or so of chainstay suits the 
>> riding I’m doing now.  
>>
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>

-- 
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/958f5f71-1193-4fa5-b55d-cbec6f4432bbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Clem Chainstay Ding Peer Review Request

Thanks for the clarifications and precisions. I'm more auditory than visual
so I do appreciate the apercus of someone who is visual about the Clem's
appearance. Also, can the Clem take wider tires than the Platypus? At any
rate, if I ever get a Clem, it will be for dawdling about on pavement and
on sandy roads and trails so I'd need a minimum width of 48.

Please do post more offroad photos of the Clem.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:32 PM Chris Halasz  wrote:

> Patrick
>
>
> I almost, and probably should have, refrained from comparing the Clem with
> the Platypus.
>
>
> I built the 60cm Platypus with 42mm Graveling SS tires and Crust Juan
> Martin bars, front rack, often with a beloved little dog in the front
> basket rack. The Clem is a 64cm with Tosco bars, 48mm Oracle Ridge tires,
> and no racks. Surely all of that is part of the change.
>
>
> It feels a little more sure - to me - with the type of riding I’m doing
> now: a little less road, a few more rocky trails (images to follow in
> another thread).
>
>
> I’m highly visual, and while I couldn’t argue that the Platypus is the
> more objectively beautifully built frame, there’s something downright
> compelling to me about the largest Clem and the way the top and down tubes
> diverge at the steerer tube, and the way my somewhat dyslexic brain works,
> that translate to *me* finding myself more at home on this build; it feels
> a bit more like an extension of me, or maybe I just feel more sure with the
> Clem in the type of riding I’m doing now. I’ve grown more accustomed to
> riding upright, and maybe that extra inch or so of chainstay suits the
> riding I’m doing now.
>
>
> - Chris
>

-- 
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/CALuTfgsjSrNn2HjQ5Kxn7%2BL8GbZ3FMvNBMuDRJMSb1%3DVEGUDjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

2024-04-18 Thread Brian Turner

I agree with Johnny. Think about how you mostly want this bike set up and 
size accordingly. You had mentioned wanting an Albatross bar setup, so if 
it were me, I would go with the 54cm and longer top tube that will play 
nicely with the swept-back bars and longer stem required for said bars. I 
also have a PBH that's between 83-84, even though I'm a little shorter than 
you. If I were buying a new Sam, I would purchase the 54cm size, and I 
would probably also run some sort of swept-back cockpit. I already have a 
drop bar Riv, and a fat-tired Riv, and those are the only two factors that 
would make me want to size down to a 51cm.

Brian
Lex KY

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:40:27 AM UTC-4 Johnny Alien wrote:

> I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
> traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
> laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops go 
> with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but the 
> standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the advice 
> to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going to 
> push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
> worked for me.
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:
>
>> Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!
>>
>> 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with 
>> this stuff.
>>
>> 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length I'm 
>> guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 54cm 
>> Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long stem 
>> on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. The 
>> drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a longer fit 
>> without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the reach is 
>> luxurious.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm 
>>> thinking I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and I 
>>> don't know if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to my 
>>> current bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 
>>> 55cm...
>>>
>>> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
>>> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>>>
>>> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
>>> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>>>
>>> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
>>> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
>>> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. 
>>>
>>> I would like to run Albatross bars and be comfy about it. 
>>>
>>> Which frame size should I choose? 
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/7196769b-a191-47d3-9d3a-20cd17fb027dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread Brian Turner

bullmoose bars certainly look cool and have the extra stiffness that's 
often welcomed for trail riding... but as others have mentioned, the 
biggest downside is the lack of adjustability. The specifics of the bars 
have to pretty much match what is needed for your position on the bike, 
give or take the slight height adjustment ability. For example, I recently 
acquired a set of Tosco-moose bars from another member here, and I had long 
been searching for these for my Gus. The length matched the stem length I'd 
been using on my standard Tosco bars and Ron's Ortho bars but I miss just a 
slight bit of downward angle adjustment that I had with a standard stem. 
It's not enough to make them uncomfortable, but it's something to consider.

Brian
Lex KY

-- 
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/0a9a2716-64c5-4176-8292-fcf6fe2ccf44n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread Max S

This thread really makes me want to find a green Hunqapillar to put that 
bullmoose bar on... 

- Max "and this is how we ended up with so many bikes..." in A2

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-4 larson@gmail.com wrote:

> [image: IMG_2484.jpeg][image: 
> E3DC21C4-E0AA-43EF-91A3-DF38B9CDA3DD.jpeg][image: 
> IMG_2597.jpeg]Thanks P.W. - here are three more.
> Randy in WI
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-5 Matthew P wrote:
>
>> I like'em and rode them today.
>> A couple notes:
>> 1. Integrated stem - less adjustability. Can't play with stem 
>> (horizontal)length/reach nor rise/drop
>> 2. Cant slam it completely, if you wanted/needed to, bc of built in rise
>> 3. No clamp = no slippage there
>> 4. Sweep angle, reach etc. - to each their own
>>
>> I have them all the way up on an old ('84?) StumpJumper and that setup 
>> handles bad, terrible with a front load, but I blame that on the super 
>> slack head tube angle.
>>
>> Send unwanted bullmoosees to me please :)
>> Happy to trade for drops or something 
>>
>> Next build gets the chocomoose or Bosco moose I forget. 
>>
>> -Matthew P
>> San Diego / Kumeyaay
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 6:25 AM P W  wrote:
>>
>>> Love that big boy Appa, Randy.
>>>
>>> More photos, please!
>>>
>>> P. W.
>>> ~
>>> (917) 514-2207
>>> ~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 5:38 AM, larson@gmail.com  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am a fan of the bullmoose bars. On my 62cm Appaloosa I like them when 
>>> the bike is set up as my ATB with bigger tires and more off road ready. I 
>>> initially thought they were too stiff as I had some wrist and shoulder 
>>> pain.Ergon grips solved this issue and I find them comfortable. I do set my 
>>> bike up with Billie bars during the summer for road/gravel riding, and like 
>>> them as well. I like the aesthetic of the bullmoose and probably could make 
>>> them work for all of my riding.
>>> Randy in WI
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:25:56 AM UTC-5 exliontamer wrote:
>>>
 Serious thanks to everyone for the photos & advice! I think I'm going 
 to go for a set. Seems like looking at the photos it will suit my height, 
 build, and even my setup on the Atlantis. I set my Cheviot back up with 
 Albatross bars and while there's nothing wrong with having multiple bikes 
 with the same bar, variety is just more fun. 
 On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:14:44 PM UTC-5 Stephen wrote:

> I have a pair that i used to have on my appaloosa. I’m around 6’1-2” 
> and i really like the width and sweep. On my ‘21 appaloosa the reach was 
> good, some might consider it too long. i think itd probably be nice on an 
> older atlantis, just assuming that it would have a shorter top tube. very 
> solid bars of course, no flexy. One of the coolest looking bars, I’ll 
> always have them in the collection i think, I’m a perpetual bar swapper. 
> I 
> have the tig version, wish they were the fillet but both are good. 
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:47:03 PM UTC-4 philip@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Max,
>>
>> I was just about to say your SimpleOne is the perfect bike.
>>
>> Clearly we have overlapping tastes!
>>
>> Our green bikes should be friends.
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>> P. W.
>> ~
>> (917) 514-2207
>> ~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Max S  wrote:
>>
>> I've tried them on my (dearly departed) SimpleOne, my QuickBeam, and 
>> even my Serotta. Great bars, and I could even use the forward extension 
>> to 
>> get low and fast. I still have these bars, waiting to be put back on the 
>> QB 
>> to make it into the tracklocross hoon wagon that it wants to be. At a 
>> hair 
>> over 6' tall, I felt the bar was a little too wide for me, and I've been 
>> tempted to cut it down a bit. For you, the width might be perfect. As 
>> far 
>> as commuting goes, I'm of the opinion that for commuting involving city 
>> streets, a narrow bar is better. If your commute involves some dirt, or 
>> the 
>> bike gets used for different things and the commute doesn't involve cars 
>> passing close, then bar width is maybe of less consequence. Also, if 
>> you're 
>> running a loaded front bag or basket, and the head tube angle is < 72 
>> and 
>> trail is >45 mm, IMO, the wider bar and rearward position really help 
>> with 
>> steering. 
>>
>> - Max "the ghosts of bikes past" in A2
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:03:43 PM UTC-4 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Hi exliontamer. I'm a little bit taller than you, also with broad 
>>> shoulders, burly, and I have a Toyo Atlantis (61) with a Nitto-Riv 
>>> Bullmoose. I like the bar, it looks great, and I love the integrated 
>>> stem. 
>>> Aesthetically I think the Bullmoose loo

Re: [RBW] Nitto/Riv Bullmoose thoughts

2024-04-18 Thread James M

Lovely bullmooses in here.  I have the choco-moose on my Hunq - which I 
love - but I'm intrigued about the possibilities of the bullmoose for trail 
riding...

James

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-4 larson@gmail.com wrote:

> [image: IMG_2484.jpeg][image: 
> E3DC21C4-E0AA-43EF-91A3-DF38B9CDA3DD.jpeg][image: 
> IMG_2597.jpeg]Thanks P.W. - here are three more.
> Randy in WI
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-5 Matthew P wrote:
>
>> I like'em and rode them today.
>> A couple notes:
>> 1. Integrated stem - less adjustability. Can't play with stem 
>> (horizontal)length/reach nor rise/drop
>> 2. Cant slam it completely, if you wanted/needed to, bc of built in rise
>> 3. No clamp = no slippage there
>> 4. Sweep angle, reach etc. - to each their own
>>
>> I have them all the way up on an old ('84?) StumpJumper and that setup 
>> handles bad, terrible with a front load, but I blame that on the super 
>> slack head tube angle.
>>
>> Send unwanted bullmoosees to me please :)
>> Happy to trade for drops or something 
>>
>> Next build gets the chocomoose or Bosco moose I forget. 
>>
>> -Matthew P
>> San Diego / Kumeyaay
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 6:25 AM P W  wrote:
>>
>>> Love that big boy Appa, Randy.
>>>
>>> More photos, please!
>>>
>>> P. W.
>>> ~
>>> (917) 514-2207
>>> ~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 5:38 AM, larson@gmail.com  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am a fan of the bullmoose bars. On my 62cm Appaloosa I like them when 
>>> the bike is set up as my ATB with bigger tires and more off road ready. I 
>>> initially thought they were too stiff as I had some wrist and shoulder 
>>> pain.Ergon grips solved this issue and I find them comfortable. I do set my 
>>> bike up with Billie bars during the summer for road/gravel riding, and like 
>>> them as well. I like the aesthetic of the bullmoose and probably could make 
>>> them work for all of my riding.
>>> Randy in WI
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 12:25:56 AM UTC-5 exliontamer wrote:
>>>
 Serious thanks to everyone for the photos & advice! I think I'm going 
 to go for a set. Seems like looking at the photos it will suit my height, 
 build, and even my setup on the Atlantis. I set my Cheviot back up with 
 Albatross bars and while there's nothing wrong with having multiple bikes 
 with the same bar, variety is just more fun. 
 On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:14:44 PM UTC-5 Stephen wrote:

> I have a pair that i used to have on my appaloosa. I’m around 6’1-2” 
> and i really like the width and sweep. On my ‘21 appaloosa the reach was 
> good, some might consider it too long. i think itd probably be nice on an 
> older atlantis, just assuming that it would have a shorter top tube. very 
> solid bars of course, no flexy. One of the coolest looking bars, I’ll 
> always have them in the collection i think, I’m a perpetual bar swapper. 
> I 
> have the tig version, wish they were the fillet but both are good. 
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:47:03 PM UTC-4 philip@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Max,
>>
>> I was just about to say your SimpleOne is the perfect bike.
>>
>> Clearly we have overlapping tastes!
>>
>> Our green bikes should be friends.
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>> P. W.
>> ~
>> (917) 514-2207
>> ~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Max S  wrote:
>>
>> I've tried them on my (dearly departed) SimpleOne, my QuickBeam, and 
>> even my Serotta. Great bars, and I could even use the forward extension 
>> to 
>> get low and fast. I still have these bars, waiting to be put back on the 
>> QB 
>> to make it into the tracklocross hoon wagon that it wants to be. At a 
>> hair 
>> over 6' tall, I felt the bar was a little too wide for me, and I've been 
>> tempted to cut it down a bit. For you, the width might be perfect. As 
>> far 
>> as commuting goes, I'm of the opinion that for commuting involving city 
>> streets, a narrow bar is better. If your commute involves some dirt, or 
>> the 
>> bike gets used for different things and the commute doesn't involve cars 
>> passing close, then bar width is maybe of less consequence. Also, if 
>> you're 
>> running a loaded front bag or basket, and the head tube angle is < 72 
>> and 
>> trail is >45 mm, IMO, the wider bar and rearward position really help 
>> with 
>> steering. 
>>
>> - Max "the ghosts of bikes past" in A2
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 10:03:43 PM UTC-4 J J wrote:
>>
>>> Hi exliontamer. I'm a little bit taller than you, also with broad 
>>> shoulders, burly, and I have a Toyo Atlantis (61) with a Nitto-Riv 
>>> Bullmoose. I like the bar, it looks great, and I love the integrated 
>>> stem. 
>>> Aesthetically I think the Bullmo

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

I am between sizes as well and my general rule is...if I want a more 
traditional setup/fit (maybe with drop bars) I size down. If I want to go 
laid back, more sweptback style I go up. With your PBH if you want drops go 
with the 51 otherwise the 54 might be best. If you want to size up but the 
standover gives you pause then consider a Platypus. I understand the advice 
to call Rivendell but (from my experience) they are almost always going to 
push you into a go larger direction and that has not historically always 
worked for me.

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:20:35 AM UTC-4 DavidP wrote:

> Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!
>
> 1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with this 
> stuff.
>
> 2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length I'm 
> guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 54cm 
> Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long stem 
> on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. The 
> drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a longer fit 
> without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the reach is 
> luxurious.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:
>
>> Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm thinking 
>> I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and I don't know 
>> if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to my current 
>> bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...
>>
>> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
>> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>>
>> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
>> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>>
>> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
>> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
>> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. 
>>
>> I would like to run Albatross bars and be comfy about it. 
>>
>> Which frame size should I choose? 
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/d78fb308-6950-48e5-9a1f-d51f0ccd3af0n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement

Oooh, a new Sam - exciting!

1) Send Riv an email and get their recommendation, they're great with this 
stuff.

2) I'm a similar height but have an 87cm PBH. With your torso length I'm 
guessing you'll want more reach, the concern is the standover on the 54cm 
Sam if you max out the tires. Either way you'll probably want a long stem 
on that Albatross. My 58cm top tube Albatross bike has a 120mm stem. The 
drop tube bikes (Susie, Platypus, Clem) are great for getting a longer fit 
without worrying about standover; I'm on a 60cm Platypus and the reach is 
luxurious.

-Dave

On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 10:43:16 AM UTC-4 Robert Calton wrote:

> Haven't had luck pinning down a used bike this last week, so I'm thinking 
> I might try and buy a new Sam in May/June with the refresh and I don't know 
> if the 51 or 54 frame size is the right choice. Compared to my current 
> bike, a 55cm Salsa Vaya's standover of 77.6cm and top tube of 55cm...
>
> 51 Sam standover: 78.6 (+1cm from Vaya)
> 51 Sam top tube: 56.5 (+1.5cm from Vaya) 
>
> 54 Sam standover: 82.0 (+4.4cm from Vaya) 
> 54 Sam top tube:  58 (+3cm from Vaya) 
>
> An 83.8 PBH was the highest measurement out of the 10 or so times I 
> measured. Most of the time it was 81.2 - 82.5 range. I'm 5'11 with a 30" 
> inseam. Riv says a 51 Sam is 79-83 and a 54 is 83-86. 
>
> I would like to run Albatross bars and be comfy about it. 
>
> Which frame size should I choose? 
>
>
>

-- 
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/acf4b4c5-0316-4a20-a3c5-121425294a90n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Sizing question for "in between" PBH measurement