Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Bill Lindsay]

Agreeing with dougP, and just for the fun of it, wording it another way:

In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret selling bike X" 
?  I bet it's a lot

In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret holding on to 
bike X" ?  I bet it's not many

Apply that to your life however you see fit

Bill holding-on Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA


On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:10:41 AM UTC-8, dougP wrote:
>
> "I may hold onto it."
>
> A thought I strongly encourage.  Consider the number of people who've 
> posted "...I wish I'd never sold my Atlantis."
>
> dougP
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-8, Hugh Smitham wrote:
>>
>> Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I 
>> may hold onto it. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:39:41 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:
>>>
>>> So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat 
>>> Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, 
>>> just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with 
>>> anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming 
>>> summer.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[dougP]

"I may hold onto it."

A thought I strongly encourage.  Consider the number of people who've 
posted "...I wish I'd never sold my Atlantis."

dougP

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-8, Hugh Smitham wrote:
>
> Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I 
> may hold onto it. 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:39:41 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:
>>
>> So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.
>>
>> 
>>
>> I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat 
>> Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, 
>> just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with 
>> anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming 
>> summer.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[true]

I love to read discussions like this and learn from the variety of feedback.

After having and trying bikes with 26" ,650b and  700c wheels
my take it is not so much about the wheel size as like others have pointed out 
but the quality of the tires.

That said, I also think it is even more about the 'engine'.

These days with my 'engine' getting up there in age
and at the speeds I ride I can't tell a huge amount of difference
on ride times whether I am riding my 26", 650b or 700c bikes in my mostly urban 
area rides.

Riding  high quality and wide enough tires 39 to 60m wide on all of them has 
really added to my enjoyment in riding any of my bikes
due to the comfort of the wider tires and I don't get as 'beat up' from riding 
rough roads allowing me to ride longer. 

For my self contained loaded heavy (60 to 70 lbs of gear) bike tours I rode 
700c wheel bikes but that was in the US.
If I get to do further touring I would not hesitate to ride 26" wheels and 
would probably prefer it
if riding in countries were 26" replacements were what was available. 

Another essential aspect I have not seen mentioned (pardon if I may have missed 
it)
over any of the wheel sizes you chose is to select a wheel that is very well 
built, especially if carrying a load.
Subpar built wheels are going to go out of true with a load. That has been my 
experience.
If you are going to tour I would never scrimp on the quality of the wheel set 
whatever size is chosen.

Paul in Dallas



-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[olofstroh]

I took a look in my Riv catalogues (I´m happy to have all). The Riv All-Rounder 
is built with 559 in all sizes, made up to 62 cm (this was the time before 
custom sizes) in catalogue 3, summer 1997. In catalogue 4, a year later this 
had changed, bigger than 59 cm were now built with 622 cm. The Atlantis 
appeared as „our new one“ in catalogue 6, summer 2000 built aroun 559 in sizes 
51-53-56 and around 622 in sizes 58-61-64.

 

So that was the start. 

 

Cheers

 

Olof Stroh

Uppsala Sweden

 

From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:54 AM
To: iamkeith; RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

 

 

That's the earliest catalog I have. Does anyone have some scans of catalogs or 
frame brochures earlier than #5 (1999)? I think Keith is right.

 

-Norm

 

  _  

From: iamkeith <keithhar...@gmail.com>
To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> 
Cc: bone1...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

 



On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:

Thanks Hugh!

 

It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 
65 went to 700c

 

 

I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the period 
of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some point.   As 
noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at least one larger 
than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that also has 26" wheels.   
Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell below the "cutoff" between 
26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that nothing larger was ever 
ordered/built.

 

I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   Remember 
that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were no 700c tires 
that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some point, that obviously 
changed.

 

If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 1999, 
comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in builders  (Joe 
Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in the year, used 
700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose for a short period 
during the overlap.

 
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-959jH7PcILI/VsUtE8jblyI/ARw/weliXUDKx8w/s1600/BigAR.jpg>
 Bild som tagits bort av avsändaren.

 

 

-- 
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.

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Patrick Moore]

I'd almost trade you for my green 2003 Curt built custom! Man, I sometimes
wonder if a Rat Trap Pass bike wouldn't be better than even a road-29er.
Anyway, let us know how you like those tires.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:39 PM, iamkeith  wrote:

> So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.
>
> 
>
> I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat
> Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires,
> just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with
> anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming
> summer.
>
>
> 
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
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 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.

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I 
may hold onto it. 



On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:39:41 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:
>
> So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.
>
> 
>
> I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat 
> Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, 
> just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with 
> anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming 
> summer.
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[iamkeith]

Sorry... that is my 60, not 59.

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[iamkeith]

So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.



I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat 
Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, 
just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with 
anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming 
summer.



-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Patrick Moore]

I don't know whether a 700C bike as such -- *as such* is faster or slower
than a 26" wheeled bike. If it is faster, I can't imagine any reason except
that bigger wheels somehow roll more easily than smaller ones. (I do think
I notice more drag on my 406 mm Kojaks than on my 559 or 622 Kojaks.)

I do know -- you feel it very distinctly riding fixed -- that heavy 700c
wheels seem to maintain speed better than light 559 or 571 wheels, given
more or less similar tires, but that hasn't made mine any faster for me
overall. I've had my road bike setup more or less engraved in stone for the
last 20 years, so there is little variable in setup. At any rate, I've
ridden many 700C road bikes and 4 very nice 559/571 road bikes, and I've
always been fastest on the 26ers, on road.

I might well find an Atlantis slower on road, being that it is rather
stoutly built compared to a nice, light 700C road frame. OTOH, with Elk
Passes on the Atlantis and Pro Race 4s on the gofast -- I dunno!

As for coasting downhill: I recall riding with erstwhile Boblist and
Rivlist member Gary "9,000 miles; it was a bad year" Blakely up and down
Tramway, he on a very nice Trek sport tourer, me on my half stepped '95
custom commuter. He was faster uphill (he waited for me; oh, and I geared
wy down to 60") but I was faster downhill -- funny, I had to keep
braking for politeness sake. Of course, I was about 30 lb heavier than he
-- he was small, and probably less than 150, I at about 170; bikes about
the same. 32 mm 559 folding, non Tourguard Paselas, so not hugely swift
tires.

As you say, there are many variables, but from my experience -- which,
again, while hardly definitive is considerable, I would very emphatically
say that I have no evidence at all after decades of riding that 700c is
inherently faster than smaller wheels because of momentum, tire drag, spoke
churn, frontal aerodynamics, weight, or any other reason.

I do ride my Elk Pass-shod tires with said wheels on light dirt and gravel;
fun! Even the gofast works, now that I swapped the Keos for even lighter
SPD clones. (Tho' I am hoarding my old Dura Ace SPD road pedals, because
they will probably go on to the gofast simply because they are *nice*).

Note that the Sun M14A was designed as a mountain bike tire back in the
early '90s, and I used them for years off road with Farmer Johns and such.
I also commuted across town on them, on some rough pavement, sometime with
heavy rear loads, while shod with 200 gram 559 22 mm Specialized Turbos.
The rims are bombproof.

I did break a couple of rear nipples under rear loads of 30 lb or more
while using the Turbos, but that was because the wheels were built with
Revolution spokes and aluminum nipples. I switched to 14-15 and brass and
no more problems. But then I found the Kojak and after that the Elk Pass.

And I would very definitely use 26" for dirt and touring; I use it on dirt
(Race Lite) tho' I've not done any touring. I think -- no touring
experience, but extrapolating from such load handling experience as I have
with them -- that 26" would be a better size for touring, especially with a
tire like the Rat Trap Pass.

In fact, had I not invested in a Matthews replacement of the Fargo, with
the custom wheels and parts, I'd probably be buying a Raven or something
roady to accept a Rat Trap Pass tire, or perhaps a 559X2.5" Furious Fred.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Hugh Smitham  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Moore 
> wrote:
>
>> It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C
>> wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a
>> tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the
>> Elk Passes) but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus
>> effort versus conditions. The Elk Passes I've owned weigh between 172 and
>> 178 grams; the Pro Race 4 was about 200 grams.
>>
>> That said: why would a 700C bike fitted with 700C Pro Race 4s be faster
>> or lighter than a bike built for 26" wheels?
>>
>
> Lots of variables here, rider conditioning, course conditions and bike
> build characteristics. Did you measure your yourself on the same segment
> with the exact same conditions to arrive at your conclusion? I recently
> rode my Trek 660 with someone riding my Atlantis and though that person is
> in decent shape I can assure you the Trek 660 shod with Conti Grand Prix
> 700x28mm was faster. This wasn't a controlled experiment so pretty
> meaningless.
>
> Note that a faster bike may or may not be lighter than a slower bike.
>>
>
> Right, sure the engine may be finely tuned.
>
>>
>> Do you mean that smaller wheels have pari passu greater rolling
>> resistance?
>>
>
> Nope that's not what I'm saying and I have no data to confirm deny that.
>
>
>> That may be so, but the difference IME (which is considerable) is hard to
>> feel, and I certainly feel that the 26" Elk Pass tires roll better than 

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:

> It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C
> wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a
> tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the
> Elk Passes) but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus
> effort versus conditions. The Elk Passes I've owned weigh between 172 and
> 178 grams; the Pro Race 4 was about 200 grams.
>
> That said: why would a 700C bike fitted with 700C Pro Race 4s be faster or
> lighter than a bike built for 26" wheels?
>

Lots of variables here, rider conditioning, course conditions and bike
build characteristics. Did you measure your yourself on the same segment
with the exact same conditions to arrive at your conclusion? I recently
rode my Trek 660 with someone riding my Atlantis and though that person is
in decent shape I can assure you the Trek 660 shod with Conti Grand Prix
700x28mm was faster. This wasn't a controlled experiment so pretty
meaningless.

Note that a faster bike may or may not be lighter than a slower bike.
>

Right, sure the engine may be finely tuned.

>
> Do you mean that smaller wheels have pari passu greater rolling resistance?
>

Nope that's not what I'm saying and I have no data to confirm deny that.


> That may be so, but the difference IME (which is considerable) is hard to
> feel, and I certainly feel that the 26" Elk Pass tires roll better than any
> 700C tire I've used (well, the 50 mm Furious Fred certainly rolls well, but
> it has knoblets to slow it down on pavement).
>

I've found when riding alongside folks with relatively similar conditioning
on 700c bikes and me on my 26er I have the advantage on climbs and am at a
disadvantage on descents. The 700's can keep the momentum up. Again maybe
if I had the wheels and tires you're rolling those disadvantages would
disappear?


> As for weight, ceteris paribus, a smaller wheel will have lighter rims,
> tires, and tubes -- this by mere fact of size; but the change brought
> further weight reduction, in that the 650C ME14As weighed ~430 grams while
> the 559 M14As (no eyelets) weight 370 grams. And as before, the EPs are
> lighter than the PR4s. (The gofast weighs ~17.5 lb with cage and pedals but
> no seat bag.)
>

Those are light wheels and tires.  And you've made a great point for 26ers.
Would you use them for mixed terrain and loaded touring?

Finally, I don't recall, despite subscribing to BQ for the last 10 years,
> that Jan tested the relative speeds of wheels of different diameters. He
> made judgements about handling and wheel diameter and tire width. Did I
> miss something?
>
>  However, assuming the bike shod with Michelin Pro Race 4 @ 22mm are shod
>>> on a 700c bike versus a bike with the Compass ELk 26x1.25  I'll  remain a
>>> skeptic that the 26er will be faster. A bike designed with that tire in mind
>>>
>>
Less of a skeptic.

> (Michelin Pro Race 4) is lighter and consequently faster.  As Doug
>>> mentioned, *perhaps* Jan did a test on this very thing, if so I'd be
>>> curious to read it.
>>>
>>
>>>
~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep
moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/


> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/cerNIKH36P0/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

['Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch]

That's the earliest catalog I have. Does anyone have some scans of catalogs or 
frame brochures earlier than #5 (1999)? I think Keith is right.

-Norm


  From: iamkeith <keithhar...@gmail.com>
 To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> 
Cc: bone1...@yahoo.com
 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:43 PM
 Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
   


On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:
Thanks Hugh!
It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 
65 went to 700c


I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the period 
of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some point.   As 
noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at least one larger 
than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that also has 26" wheels.   
Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell below the "cutoff" between 
26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that nothing larger was ever 
ordered/built.    
I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   Remember 
that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were no 700c tires 
that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some point, that obviously 
changed.
If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 1999, 
comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in builders  (Joe 
Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in the year, used 
700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose for a short period 
during the overlap.


  

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Patrick Moore]

It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C wheels
and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a tiny bit
higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the Elk Passes)
but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus effort
versus conditions. The Elk Passes I've owned weigh between 172 and 178
grams; the Pro Race 4 was about 200 grams.

That said: why would a 700C bike fitted with 700C Pro Race 4s be faster or
lighter than a bike built for 26" wheels?

Note that a faster bike may or may not be lighter than a slower bike.

Do you mean that smaller wheels have pari passu greater rolling resistance?
That may be so, but the difference IME (which is considerable) is hard to
feel, and I certainly feel that the 26" Elk Pass tires roll better than any
700C tire I've used (well, the 50 mm Furious Fred certainly rolls well, but
it has knoblets to slow it down on pavement).

As for weight, ceteris paribus, a smaller wheel will have lighter rims,
tires, and tubes -- this by mere fact of size; but the change brought
further weight reduction, in that the 650C ME14As weighed ~430 grams while
the 559 M14As (no eyelets) weight 370 grams. And as before, the EPs are
lighter than the PR4s. (The gofast weighs ~17.5 lb with cage and pedals but
no seat bag.)

Finally, I don't recall, despite subscribing to BQ for the last 10 years,
that Jan tested the relative speeds of wheels of different diameters. He
made judgements about handling and wheel diameter and tire width. Did I
miss something?

 However, assuming the bike shod with Michelin Pro Race 4 @ 22mm are shod
>> on a 700c bike versus a bike with the Compass ELk 26x1.25  I'll  remain a
>> skeptic that the 26er will be faster. A bike designed with that tire in
>> mind (Michelin Pro Race 4) is lighter and consequently faster.  As Doug
>> mentioned, perhaps Jan did a test on this very thing, if so I'd be curious
>> to read it.
>>
>
>>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

All these bikes look great to me! Thanks for posting! 

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:43:26 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Hugh!
>>
>> It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 
>> and 65 went to 700c
>>
>>
> I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the 
> period of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some 
> point.   As noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at 
> least one *larger* than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that 
> also has 26" wheels.   Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell 
> below the "cutoff" between 26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that 
> nothing larger was ever ordered/built.
>
> I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   
> Remember that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were 
> no 700c tires that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some 
> point, that obviously changed.
>
> If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 
> 1999, comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in 
> builders  (Joe Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in 
> the year, used 700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose 
> for a short period during the overlap.
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[john]

@Keith, Norm and Tim: Those are hot bikes! Exactly what I'm thinking! Great 
Rough Stuff, Go-Anywhere  All-Rounders!
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:43:26 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Hugh!
>>
>> It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 
>> and 65 went to 700c
>>
>>
> I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the 
> period of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some 
> point.   As noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at 
> least one *larger* than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that 
> also has 26" wheels.   Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell 
> below the "cutoff" between 26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that 
> nothing larger was ever ordered/built.
>
> I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   
> Remember that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were 
> no 700c tires that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some 
> point, that obviously changed.
>
> If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 
> 1999, comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in 
> builders  (Joe Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in 
> the year, used 700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose 
> for a short period during the overlap.
>
>
> 
>
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:
>
> Thanks Hugh!
>
> It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 
> and 65 went to 700c
>
>
I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the 
period of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some 
point.   As noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at 
least one *larger* than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that 
also has 26" wheels.   Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell 
below the "cutoff" between 26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that 
nothing larger was ever ordered/built.

I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   
Remember that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were 
no 700c tires that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some 
point, that obviously changed.

If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 
1999, comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in 
builders  (Joe Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in 
the year, used 700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose 
for a short period during the overlap.



-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

 at 3:55 PM, Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> Hugh asked:
>
>
> "Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis
> (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? "
>
> *It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better.  It
> will make it a different bike.  I trust both old and new Atlantii will be
> excellent, but different.  *
>

So often when a designer or manufacturer updates a given design it's lauded
as "better" or at the least regarded that way by adherents. But I agree not
necessarily better just different.

>
> "I've also heard others mention that they've had the front end lift up on
> them as they were climbing. That seems like a poorly distributed load
> situation to me with too much weight in the rear. I've never experienced
> this on either my Hilsen or my Atlantis? What gives here? "
>
> *On a really steep hill with an upright cockpit your whole body is poorly
> distributed with too much weight on the rear.  There's a ~20% section on
> one approach up the hill to my house, and it's hard keeping the front end
> down on an upright bike.  No matter what your position, there is a hill
> steep enough that will cause the front end to lift.  One solution is don't
> ride up >20% grades.  Another is bend down.  Another is put more weight in
> front.   There are other solutions.  Maybe longer stays will be one.*
>

Well on a >20% hill any bike's front end is going to want to rise up. On my
road bike that would most certainly be true and I'd be out of the saddle
partly due to gearing and to shift my weight to the front end to keep it
down. With a loaded tour bike I suspect most would be walking and having
longer chain stays on a >20% hill I suppose would help but most likely in
a negligible way. I think in most practical applications I don't see
many benefits other than your heel strike point below.

>
> "Seems to me that longer chain stays will make it a bit more stable and
> possibly a slightly poorer climber."
>
> *That's a reasonable guess.  When you ride one for yourself, you'll be
> able to judge for yourself.  For sure big-footed people who like big rear
> panniers will love the extra heel clearance.  My guess is that it won't be
> a poorer climber, but it's just a guess.  My Joe Appaloosa will be here in
> just a couple weeks!  I'll let you know what I think.  *
>

No plans to ride an Appaloosa anytime soon. I did ride a Proto-Appaloosa
last time I was at Riv Hq and I was underwhelmed. Just curious how others
will characterize the new changes?  I'll be interested in your ride notes.
Which of course will be subjective but none the less interesting.

"I've also heard from folks that the Atlantis is dead unloaded?  Again not
> my experience, unloaded the Atlantis feels downright lively."
>
> *Not my experience either.  My 58cm 700c Atlantis doesn't feel dead to me,
> but dead is in the eye of the beholder. *
>

Yup.

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep
moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/

>
>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/cerNIKH36P0/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

Thanks Norm. That's a good read. As others have stated from the get go
Grant has matched wheel size with frame size. So he could have gone with
26" straight across the board but went with aesthetics. That's not to say
the larger wheeled versions are any less capable.

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep
moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/



On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM, 'Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch <
rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Thanks Hugh!
>
> It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63
> and 65 went to 700c
>
> Riv Cat05 all-rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/11823202605/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
> [image: image]
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/11823202605/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Riv Cat05 all-rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/11823202605/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> View on www.flickr.com
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/11823202605/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com>
> *To:* RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:30 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
>
> Yeah Norm we know you have this beauty!! Thanks for rubbing it in dude :)
>
> ~Hugh
>
> “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep
> moving.” ― Albert Einstein
>
> http://velocipeedemusings.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, 'Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I have a 59 AR with 26" wheels. match built in '99.
>
> -Norm in PDX
>
> Rivendell All Rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
> [image: image]
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rivendell All Rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> View on www.flickr.com
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
> --
> *From:* Steven Sweedler <sweed...@gmail.com>
> *To:* "rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" <
> rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
>
> Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall
> that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My
> own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve
> Apache Junction, Az.
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep
> rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb
> better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB
> & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll
> grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large
> frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size
> rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical
> experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off
> road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is
> ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem
> prudent to use a 26" wheel.
>
> We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category.
> Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned
> above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better
> than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can
> accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat
> tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all
> seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine
> article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I
> bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question
> John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't
> have 26" in the larger sized frames.
>
>
> Tail Winds,
>
> ~Hugh
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Bill Lindsay]

Hugh asked:


"Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis 
(longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? "

*It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better.  It 
will make it a different bike.  I trust both old and new Atlantii will be 
excellent, but different.  *

"I've also heard others mention that they've had the front end lift up on 
them as they were climbing. That seems like a poorly distributed load 
situation to me with too much weight in the rear. I've never experienced 
this on either my Hilsen or my Atlantis? What gives here? "

*On a really steep hill with an upright cockpit your whole body is poorly 
distributed with too much weight on the rear.  There's a ~20% section on 
one approach up the hill to my house, and it's hard keeping the front end 
down on an upright bike.  No matter what your position, there is a hill 
steep enough that will cause the front end to lift.  One solution is don't 
ride up >20% grades.  Another is bend down.  Another is put more weight in 
front.   There are other solutions.  Maybe longer stays will be one.*

"Seems to me that longer chain stays will make it a bit more stable and 
possibly a slightly poorer climber."

*That's a reasonable guess.  When you ride one for yourself, you'll be able 
to judge for yourself.  For sure big-footed people who like big rear 
panniers will love the extra heel clearance.  My guess is that it won't be 
a poorer climber, but it's just a guess.  My Joe Appaloosa will be here in 
just a couple weeks!  I'll let you know what I think.  *

"I've also heard from folks that the Atlantis is dead unloaded?  Again not 
my experience, unloaded the Atlantis feels downright lively."

*Not my experience either.  My 58cm 700c Atlantis doesn't feel dead to me, 
but dead is in the eye of the beholder. *

*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 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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

['Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Thanks Hugh!
It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 
65 went to 700c
Riv Cat05 all-rounder

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Riv Cat05 all-rounder |
|  |
| View on www.flickr.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |




  From: Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com>
 To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:30 PM
 Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
   
Yeah Norm we know you have this beauty!! Thanks for rubbing it in dude :)
~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― 
Albert Einstein
http://velocipeedemusings.com/



On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, 'Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch 
<rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I have a 59 AR with 26" wheels. match built in '99.
-Norm in PDX
Rivendell All Rounder

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Rivendell All Rounder |
|  |
| View on www.flickr.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


  From: Steven Sweedler <sweed...@gmail.com>
 To: "rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM
 Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
  
Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the 
first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 
2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  SteveApache Junction, Az.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep rolling 
than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb better than 
those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB & Touring large 
frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll grant that the larger 
wheel size looks proportionally better on a large frame. And I hear a lot of 
comments on off road riding that the 29er size rolls over obstructions better 
than the 26" but I have no practical experience with that size off road. My 26" 
wheels have always been fine off road. On availability I've been told the 26" 
wheel size is ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would 
seem prudent to use a 26" wheel. 
We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category. Those 
sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned above. Beyond, 
availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better than 26"? It's not 
chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can accommodate more rubber with 
correct frame clearance design, example fat tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I 
get the proportion deal but it all seems like a component manufacturers push. 
I'm sure there's a Jan Heine article out there on why 650b is the favored 
randonneur wheel size but I bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, 
very good question John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why 
Riv doesn't have 26" in the larger sized frames. 

Tail Winds,
~Hugh    



On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the frame 
size?
Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger 
touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
What am I missing here?
-- 
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.



-- 
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshiret
-- 
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.


   -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/cerNIKH36P0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

Yeah Norm we know you have this beauty!! Thanks for rubbing it in dude :)

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep
moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/



On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM, 'Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch <
rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I have a 59 AR with 26" wheels. match built in '99.
>
> -Norm in PDX
>
> Rivendell All Rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
> [image: image]
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rivendell All Rounder
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> View on www.flickr.com
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonehaus/7560193642/in/album-72157639527145063/>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
> --
> *From:* Steven Sweedler <sweed...@gmail.com>
> *To:* "rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" <
> rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
>
> Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall
> that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My
> own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve
> Apache Junction, Az.
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep
> rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb
> better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB
> & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll
> grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large
> frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size
> rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical
> experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off
> road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is
> ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem
> prudent to use a 26" wheel.
>
> We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category.
> Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned
> above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better
> than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can
> accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat
> tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all
> seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine
> article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I
> bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question
> John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't
> have 26" in the larger sized frames.
>
>
> Tail Winds,
>
> ~Hugh
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>
> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
>
> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the
> frame size?
>
> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger
> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshiret
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from 

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

['Norman Bone' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I have a 59 AR with 26" wheels. match built in '99.
-Norm in PDX
Rivendell All Rounder

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Rivendell All Rounder |
|  |
| View on www.flickr.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


  From: Steven Sweedler <sweed...@gmail.com>
 To: "rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com" <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM
 Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling
   
Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the 
first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 
2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  SteveApache Junction, Az.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham <hughsmit...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep rolling 
than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb better than 
those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB & Touring large 
frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll grant that the larger 
wheel size looks proportionally better on a large frame. And I hear a lot of 
comments on off road riding that the 29er size rolls over obstructions better 
than the 26" but I have no practical experience with that size off road. My 26" 
wheels have always been fine off road. On availability I've been told the 26" 
wheel size is ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would 
seem prudent to use a 26" wheel. 
We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category. Those 
sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned above. Beyond, 
availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better than 26"? It's not 
chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can accommodate more rubber with 
correct frame clearance design, example fat tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I 
get the proportion deal but it all seems like a component manufacturers push. 
I'm sure there's a Jan Heine article out there on why 650b is the favored 
randonneur wheel size but I bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, 
very good question John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why 
Riv doesn't have 26" in the larger sized frames. 

Tail Winds,
~Hugh    



On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the frame 
size?
Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger 
touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
What am I missing here?
-- 
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.



-- 
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshiret
-- 
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.


  

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[iamkeith]

I have a large (60cm) with 26" wheels. 1999 model year.  Others are much 
more knowledgeable about changes and history, but my understanding is that 
2000 is when they switched to 700c for the larger models, so that would 
jive.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-7, Steven Sweedler wrote:
>
> Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall 
> that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My 
> own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve
> Apache Junction, Az.
>
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham  > wrote:
>
>> It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep 
>> rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb 
>> better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB 
>> & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll 
>> grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large 
>> frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size 
>> rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical 
>> experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off 
>> road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is 
>> ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem 
>> prudent to use a 26" wheel. 
>>
>> We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category. 
>> Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned 
>> above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better 
>> than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can 
>> accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat 
>> tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all 
>> seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine 
>> article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I 
>> bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question 
>> John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't 
>> have 26" in the larger sized frames. 
>>
>>
>> Tail Winds,
>>
>> ~Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the 
>>> frame size?
>>>
>>> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger 
>>> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
>>>
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshiret
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Steven Sweedler]

Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that
the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR
is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve
Apache Junction, Az.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham  wrote:

> It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep
> rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb
> better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB
> & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll
> grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large
> frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size
> rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical
> experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off
> road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is
> ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem
> prudent to use a 26" wheel.
>
> We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category.
> Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned
> above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better
> than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can
> accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat
> tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all
> seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine
> article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I
> bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question
> John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't
> have 26" in the larger sized frames.
>
>
> Tail Winds,
>
> ~Hugh
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
>>
>> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the
>> frame size?
>>
>> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger
>> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
> --
> 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.
>


-- 
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshiret

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Patrick Moore]

Road wheels must be 26". Off road wheels must be 700C. Amen.



On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM, john  wrote:

> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
>
> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the
> frame size?
>
> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger
> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
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 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.

Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[masmojo]

As a former XO-1 owner I can tell you the smaller wheels accelerate faster and 
are probably a little easier on a slow grinding climb while loaded,  but in the 
other end of the spectrum the larger wheels seem to maintain momentum better. I 
might go 26" if traveling to somewhere outof tge way, but otherwise I would 
choose a wheel size proportional to you height. 
I rode 26" almost exclusively for 25 years, but I am loving 650B now & that is 
one thing I look for, but it might not make sense touring China or South 
America. 

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Steven Sweedler]

I am 6'2", touring on a Thorn with 26" wheels and am very comfortable if
the frame is well designed it will work regardless of wheel size  Also much
easier to pack if you fly with your bike It was Grant who convinced me
years ago on 26" wheels but on larger frames he didn't like the extra long
head tube Steve
Catalina, Az

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Ron Mc  wrote:

> I'm thinking if your legs are short, a 26" is fine.  But if you're 6'3"
> and all limbs like me, it has to be 700c.  If nothing else, just to have
> acceptable pedal clearance.
>
> --
> 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.
>


-- 
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshiret

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Deacon Patrick]

It's like we attend the same meetings and drink the same kool-aid-laced 
#coffeeoutside. Grin.

With abandon,
Patrick

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:02:11 PM UTC-7, Tim Gavin wrote:
>
>
> Grant designs the frames to have roughly the same tire clearance for each 
> wheel size, so each size rides similarly to the others.
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Tim Gavin]

Some folks believe that 26" wheels are best for touring because of their
widespread availability.  I.e., if you're touring in Borneo you'll still
find tires, tubes, and wheels.

Other than parts availability, I don't believe that one wheel size has an
inherent advantage over the others.

Rivendell/Grant believes in sizing the wheel diameter to correlate to the
frame size.  Some of their bikes have 26" wheels for the small frames, 650b
wheels in the middle sizes, and 700c for the large sizes.

Grant designs the frames to have roughly the same tire clearance for each
wheel size, so each size rides similarly to the others.

I applaud this approach, because a bike with smaller-diameter wheels fits
better for shorter people.  I cringe when I build up 47 and 49 cm road
frames with 700c wheels at the shop where I work.  Those short folks could
have a better-fitting, better-handling bike if they used smaller hoops.

Tim

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:46 PM, john  wrote:

> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.
>
> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the
> frame size?
>
> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger
> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[john]

I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.

Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the 
frame size?

Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger 
touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?

What am I missing here?

-- 
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.