[RBW] WTB- Cambium C15s, anyone have the short version of the narrow Cambium?
Looking for the narrow and short version of the Cambium, C15s. tan preferred but black acceptable, carved or un-carved. thanks, let me know if you have one for sale. --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Saddle height vs PBH
At the time, I thought Grant's recommendation of PBH minus 10 or 11cm seemed like a nice simplification of the mainstream performance saddle height method that became a widespread standard in the 80s. Even though Grant's advice on frame height and bar height were/are way out of industry standard and invite people to re-think the way a bike fits, I think his "rule" for saddle height was more a descriptive observation of what most avid cyclists were using. According to that 70s standard my own ~87cm PBH multiplied by .889 is 77cm and that's the saddle height I rode for 30 years. The standard advice for saddle height in the 80s in the US was based on Greg Lemond's book and Bernard Hinault's book before that. It was assumed back then top racers would have the best advice on saddle height. Hinault's book recommended measuring PBH the way we do now and then multiplying by .889 (IIRC/exactly) to get bb center to saddle top distance, assuming a 170 crank. Lemond's book used a different multiplier for a pedal spindle center to saddle top height which was a way of taking into account crank length and foot length better. Hinault's and Lemond's numbers tended to result in the same saddle height for most riders. Grant's subtraction method matches closely this multiplier method in the mid-size bike sizes but would result in proportionately lower saddle heights for smaller riders and proportionally higher saddle heights for taller riders. *That's one reason I assumed his "rule" was more descriptive. I think it was not so much a method of arriving at saddle height but more a way to estimate frame size--a way to prevent getting too small a frame.* The 80s .889 saddle height method represented a significant rise in standard saddle height from the previous generations of racers/riders (continent, Britain, N.America) mid-70s and earlier, who used lower saddles at least 2cm lower. You seen this in older photos of racers and riders with much more knee bend at bottom than this new standard allowed. This would have been or become the dominant saddle height theory during the period Grant P was racing and was pretty standard for N.Americans by mid-80s even before Lemond's book came out. Eddy B. (Polish emigre) was a top US coach/guru in the mid 80s and recommended even higher seat heights if you could manage them without too much hip rocking. He based this on VOmax studies, which I won't go into, but suffice it to say the Hinault/Lemond method was considered by comparison a fairly conservative method in the 80s. To my surprise, this mainstream N.American method wasn't the accepted wisdom among racers/riders in Britain when I lived and raced there beginning in the late 80s. To my team mates my saddle was a little high. But I persisted because continental riders were using the same method N.Americans were using, including the French, Swiss, and Flemish clubs we partnered with for Velodrome events. Also all the Six Day pros used this same saddle height. I assumed British club racers were just more traditional and would eventually adopt the new method. In the last 10 years though, out of boredom and wanting to tinker, and because various experiences had made me wonder whether all those previous generations knew better than we did in the 80s, I decided to experiment with lowering my saddle to the heights they were using in the 60s. Lowering a few mm at a time over a month, my saddle height has now been 2cm lower for years now. I've found no drawback whatsoever that I can tell and have enjoyed several advantages of a lower saddle height. My 80s/90s London club-mates were right. So I my own rule now is saddle height 12cm less than PBH. --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Grim Hipsters, Holdfasts
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 3:12:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > Patrick Moore implied that duct tape was employed to attach Daves feet to > the pedals during the Little 500 at the end of Breaking Away. > > Without checking , I will wager the cost of a pair of HoldFast straps that > it was not duct tape, but masking tape. > > Bill Pedal Pedant Lindsay > El Cerrito Ca > This will require a re-viewing. My memory is it's white athletic trainers tape, the kind commonly found in a stadium for taping ankles and vaulting poles. --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Grant Petersen Interview up on the Gravel & Grind website
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > > I'd be *very* interested to learn more about this, and how it relates to > f-c, trail, hta, tires, and so forth. Anyone? > Keeping the right balance of weight on the front wheel helps with that nice turn-in you describe. It can be a challenge with any bike intended for fendered use by people who don't like toe overlap, where designers are trying to maximize front-center to keep toes out of fenders. That can be mitigated a little in a low trail bike because an extra 20mm fork offset puts the wheel further away. But in general low trail designs have longer front-center than some, if only because of more fork offset. Mtbs got elongated front-centers for endo-prevention from the late 90s on--Fischer called it Genesis Geometry. Plus there's been a decades long trend of preference for short chainstays. All this tends to take weight off the front wheel (in the last instance of mtbs that was intended). Add to that the front-end-lightening general trend for high handlebars in the RBW, 600B, iBob world, and you can lose that nice front-weighted turn-in feel. Long chainstays move weight back forward to the front end, all else equal, and you see that in Riv models. Perhaps Grant has found a way to make a bike intended for high bars, fenders, and no toe-overlap that nevertheless keeps weight on the front wheel (by balancing a short as possible front-center with long chainstays and low bb) for that planted feel with responsive turn initiation. --Mitch (non-Riv) low trail designs because extra fork offset can put the wheel 20mm further out there (a lot). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: In praise of Spur-cycles bells
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-6, dstein wrote: > > Inspired by Bill's post I bought a Spur bell on a whim at a bike shop the > other day in the Mission (SF). It's super expensive, but a damn good bell > and I like that it's smaller. It does has a super nice ring to it. The > attachment is kind of weird, it comes with two different flimsy aluminum > pieces, i'm guessing for 26 and 31.8mm size bars. Feels a little loose > around my 25.4 bars unless i get it right around the twine. Maybe i'll zip > tie instead. > > All my SpurCycle bells came with mount straps that are stainless steel, not aluminum, and not flimsy at all. And they fit fine on 25.4 bars. I have seen several rip-off copies of the SpurCycle? --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Need new shoes
Patrick, do I remember correctly you used to pedal barefoot during your feet strengthening time? Do you still? Do you have any pedal suggestion for barefoot riding? I remember enjoying barefoot riding for a long time in my childhood using the rubber sided pedals common on consumer bikes back then. There might be a safety issue riding barefoot (thinking like a motorcyclist here) but I'd like to try it again. +2 on the Giro Republic. My wife with very sensitive choosey feet has said her Giro Republic are the best she's felt. She uses Frogs too. I use Dromartis and Vittoria 1976, both with slot cleats, clips, and straps. --Mitch On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 5:32:29 PM UTC-6, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > Michael, I can't help with the shoes, but if you are interested in > something that may help the tender feet, I can help with that. I used to > have feet so tender (and weak, though I didn't know it, save for my "need" > for orthotics) I couldn't walk barefoot in the house on wood floors. Long > story short, for other reasons, I began walking barefoot up and down our > gravel road (out and back is two-tenths of a mile) daily. Boy howdy! Was > that a challenging experience! But my feet woke up and got stronger. They > tingled for two weeks straight, like a leg that falls asleep then gets > blood back. My feet just needed to escape their prison and be used as God > intended and get strong again. Perhaps something similar in your case? > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 5:26:39 PM UTC-6, Michael Hechmer wrote: >> >> Urgh, I have this sinking feeling I left my Ausrtin Pedlars with Frog >> cleats at a trail head. Anyway i can't find them anywhere and that's the >> last place I remember seeing them. They are my all time favorite shoe / >> cleat combination. I have very tender feet and the combination of the >> pretty stiff sole, moveable cleat and walk about looks provided everything >> I wanted. My web search suggests that Keen no longer makes the pedlar. >> Does anyone know of a source or a good alternative? >> >> I gave my White ind. pedals to my wife and see that they are now $239, >> ouch. I looked at the RBW site and they no longer sell the MKS Touring >> pedal, which gave me a WTF moment. >> >> Suggestions welcome. >> >> Michael >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Discs versus calipers
On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > > Speaking of discs versus calipers, I've read in more than one place that > discs are useful on racing bikes because they stop faster and therefore let > you go faster into a corner before you have to slow down, so that you can > negotiate corners faster than with calipers. > > I daresay that hydraulic discs will jam a wheel still with less finger > pressure than any caliper, but so what -- when you have a tiny rubber > patch, what advantage does a more powerful "squeeze" make? > > Note that I'm not figuring carbon fiber rims into the equation here; i > daresay that, since calipers work less well on cf rims than on aluminum > ones, discs on road bikes with cf rims may well be useful in that regard. > But consider the question asked for bikes with aluminum rims. > > So, is this bogus, or is it true? > > I think discs have advantages over calipers that make them useful for > certain types of riding in certain conditions, but I am very skeptical of > this claim. > Right, you hope they're not comparing discs to rim-braking on carbon brake tracks where rim-braking is not at it's best. I've noticed I do brake later into steep high speed road turns on my disc road bike, turns that require coming down from 50 mph to 20pmh on my canyon descents, but the biggest difference in late braking is with wider tires. When I compare are tires (41mm Baby Shoe Pass EL) with brazed-on Raids on A23 rims vs. TRP Hy/Rds 160 rotors with Modolo levers on Pacenti TL28 rims, I brake somewhat later with discs. But I noticed braking much later into these high speed turns on my most recent canyon descents on 47-48 Switch Back Hill EL tires. I'm guessing I'd also brake later on rim brakes with SBH tires too--they fit on my bike with Raids but not under the fenders so I may have to remove fenders to try it sometime. In general I don't see a lot of difference in braking quality or power in these two road set-ups, rim vs. disc, except that the same amount of braking requires somewhat less hand effort with discs. Both seem to do really well with high speed descending on pavement with heavy braking for tight switchbacks. Hand effort seems really good to me with the Raids too, much less hand effort than required with the regular old single pivot Record brakes I'm used to. But hand effort is still noticeably less with discs. But the big difference in late braking for me has been with increasing tire width. This surprises me because I was doing these same 50mph to 20mph turns on 25mm tires with no complaints before I started riding fatter tires on the road. I'd hear descending was faster on fat tires and I would think maybe that's just for riders who aren't fast descenders. But I think the difference is there because I brake noticeably laters on 42mm tires compared to 25mm and then on 48mm tires the late braking is really noticeable. I think the reason for the late braking is probably two things (?): there is more grip with the larger contact patch, but also wider tires soak up more road irregularity and surface roughness through the turn and on narrower tires I feel like I need to get speed down a little earlier in preparation so I can manage that roughness leaned over while with the wider tires I'm more ok leaning the bike over and trusting the tires to handle more of that roughness than narrow tires can on their own. The late braking difference in lower hand effort seems to come from the fact that I notice I use progressive stages of hand effort when I scrub a lot of speed (50 down to 20). BTW, all of this braking I do on descents is from the hoods. On rim brake Raids, I squeeze and lose a lot of speed, but then there is a harder squeeze I have to ramp up to with more hand strength to get down to the safe 20mph to go through the sharp sweeper turn. Some people might do this all with one progressively firmer squeeze but for me it does feel like two separate squeeze--one big firm one then a really hard one. On disc Hy/Rds I don't require that second stage of harder. One stage of firm hand pressure on Hy/Rds takes me all the way down to 20mph. This simpler process lets me brake later I think, or at least that seems one likely explanation, all else being equal. (The old school Record single pivots handle the same 50mph down to 20mph turns just fine but it takes noticeably more hand pressure than the Raids.) --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: In praise of Spur-cycles bells
+1 Also have the Spurcycle bell on several bikes, with a special mod to mount it to a stem's M5 bell mount. I like the sound, pitch, sustain, low profile, design and quality. On a recent MUP ride with my wife I we compared the Spurcycle and a brass Crane bell from Riv, and alternated, to see if there was a difference in how people responded or how the bell sounded to us. We rode ahead separately to see if we could hear one better than the other. We had good results with both, couldn't tell a difference (in our non-empirical test) in how people responded to the bells. We thought we could hear the Spurcycle from further away but that might have been sustain/duration. Haven't tried it with a tuner to see what the actual pitch is, but it only seems an octave or so above the Crane, and that doesn't seem like enough of a pitch difference to pass out of hearing range for most people. There are lots of higher freq overtones in bell sounds so I imagine some of those are less audible for some people, but that would be true for all bells. --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Anyone used a large Saddleback for touring?
Did a lot of hostel/B touring in Ireland and Britain using only large Carradice saddlebag and it worked well. I wanted to carry a handlebar bag too, and I would carry one today on my bikes that have friendly geometry for a boxy front bag. But back then I was touring on my 80s lugged race bike (longer wheelbase and room for 32s and fenders) but with long stem that didn't get along at all with a front bag. Having the bag attached well side to side, and supported enough to prevent sway is important. But a saddle bag with 20 lbs will still give the bike a slower pendulum feel out of the saddle, and be careful walking the bike because the back end can get away from you. I carried a musette in the saddlebag that I'd use to carry groceries or lunch. I could stop in town or anywhere that had something tasty, get the musette out and carry provisions to wherever I wanted to use them. To a park or beach or mountain overlook to eat (and swim). Or on to the hostel to cook up dinner. I used/use the same Carradice set up for commuting usually with a home-brew quick release for the bag. For touring I always detached the bag to bring it into the hostel or B, or to visit a cathedral or museum, or carry it to my seat on the train. I didn't use a quick release on every trip though, and it depended on how solid my current QR set up was. QR is vital for commuting but for touring I found it more important to have a secure connection than a QR. But some of my QR setups were plenty secure. I did some trips with front low-rider panniers only and that was good too, and could potentially hold more. Overall I preferred the big saddlebag for tours and commuting. Ive done some recent trips using only a large (Docena) front bag which holds as much, or almost as much, as a Nelson, and I can do credit card touring with it alone. To carry more, I'm likely to add the Nelson back rather than add lowriders, but I'll probably experiment with both again, all over. --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: blug notes
Yes thanks for posting Olaf. Grant managed a nice modesty in his response which is admirable too. Once there I found myself reading some of his other how-to cycling essays on the riv site. I always appreciate how his perspective can remind me riding a bike doesn't have to be some form of training. Still, his best writing I think was from the Bob Gazette period into the early months/years of establishing Rivendell. His anxiety laden blogs about the day-to-day of starting a new business probably ought to be business school required reading for his insight and candor. I never see anything as interesting or as good in business writing. --Mitch On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 5:48:47 AM UTC-7, Olof Stroh wrote: > > Just went to the new site and read Grants blug 24 hours after. Enough to > make me support Riv. As that should be necessary. > > > > Olof Stroh > > Uppsala Sweden > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: ISO a courier bag that will hold a 13" Macbook Pro
If I carry a laptop on my back in a courier bag I want to the laptop sitting inside vertically and centered. Most laptop bags are designed to carry horizontally but on the the back, courier style that means the laptop doesn't match the curve of your bag and prevents a courier bag from hugging you, curving around you. That way it's more comfortable and secure and doesn't slide around. Also when you bump a courier bag on something it's always the sides that bump and if the laptop is vertical in the center it isn't affected by those bumps. So you want a bag that's 15" tall with a centered 10" sleeve you can slide your laptop into. Or you might modify any 15" tall bag to create that sleeve, sewing it yourself maybe. --Mitch On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 2:42:39 PM UTC-6, bertin753 wrote: > > Let's just say 10" X 15" ... plus a book or 2 and the usual keys, > sunglasses, and other small bits. > > "Courier" bag, because I want something I can use on the bike.I also want > the design with a waist strap, not the type that cinches to your shoulder > > Color: not too particular, as long as it is dull: gray, black, tan, brown, > beige, olive, taupe -- sad sack color. > > Materials, ditto, as long as they are sturdy. > > Offers? Or, links to good buys? > > I've looked at the JUMBO Rivendell Grabsack; will that work? I have a > regular Grabsack, and that one won't. > > Thanks. > > > -- > Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews. > By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching. > Other professional writing services. > http://www.resumespecialties.com/ > www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ > Patrick Moore > Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique, Vereinigte Staaten > ** > ** > *The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a > circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and > individualities revolve. *Chuang Tzu > > *Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.* *(The cross stands motionless while the > world revolves.) *Carthusian motto > > *It is *we *who change; *He* remains the same.* Eckhart > > *Kinei hos eromenon.* (*It moves [all things] as the beloved.) *Aristotle > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: WTB: 1" mtb fork
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:00:15 PM UTC-6, Jimmy Livengood wrote: > > Hi Franklyn, > > FYI for you or anyone else out there, I had Cyclefab here in Seattle bore > out a 21.1 steerer ID to 22.2 for me due to the same problem. > > It wasn't massively expensive but I can't recall the exact price. A good > option if you don't want to repaint the fork to match or need to keep the > original fork for some other reason. > > Jimmy > Seattle > > Franklyn, I was going to suggest there are multiple 1" threaded forks on eBay that would work but I like Jimmy's idea better. It's a nice fork you have; the rake is more and better than you're likely to find on replacement forks and the low-rider boss is an extra you won't find on eBay forks. Nice tubing for the era (1.0/.7/1.0). I like the lugs and some other features and you'll likely get a low Q with that chainstay arrangement. What's the bb drop on that frame? nice project --Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
