[RBW] Re: Amos/San Marcos
I have one in the middling 54cm size that will be available for test rides on Thursday when we have our Just Ride book-signin' and meat fiesta. Unless someone buys it first. I agree with the above description of the handling. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/byBxuAbovAwJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos/San Marcos
For what it's worth for those wondering about sizing I'm about 5'9, 84cm PBH and the 54 fit nicely. The 56 Hillborne fits too but I would need a stem about 1-2cm shorter. Ryan On May 28, 12:37 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery thill@gmail.com wrote: I have one in the middling 54cm size that will be available for test rides on Thursday when we have our Just Ride book-signin' and meat fiesta. Unless someone buys it first. I agree with the above description of the handling. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos/San Marcos
@ FreeRange? Any comparisons come to mind? On Friday, May 25, 2012 7:20:26 PM UTC-7, rcnute wrote: Just test rode one. What a great bike! Pretty too. Ryan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/nLhSD0Pu7qYJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos/San Marcos
Yup. Hard to compare--it rides just like a Rivendell (unsurprising). It was kind of like a Rambouillet but felt a bit snappier. Not so laid back/stable as the Hillborne. Ryan On May 26, 3:15 pm, Frank pguil...@gmail.com wrote: @ FreeRange? Any comparisons come to mind? On Friday, May 25, 2012 7:20:26 PM UTC-7, rcnute wrote: Just test rode one. What a great bike! Pretty too. Ryan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Guess I see the undertube as marketing in this case. Not to keep the bike different than a MCFB but to do something different than Surly, Salsa, or Raleigh. Personally, I see this bike competing more with the Pacer, Casseroll or Port Townsend than a typical off the shelf racing bike. And maybe Soma feels that type of buyer would be more open to an undertube. Again, that's just my opinion. No matter how I look at it, the bike is still too skinny and racy for my tastes. Especially since this year seems to be one of pootling on the bike. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Apr 17, 8:26 pm, CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net wrote: on 4/17/11 11:25 AM, Jeremy Till at jeremy.t...@gmail.com wrote: I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Yeah, I'm actually a bit curious as to how the specific sizing on this bicycle will turn out. I've ridden one, and it was a pretty spritely little beast. http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=431 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/4468312567/ It was a 54(55?), and I'm ~5'11, riding a 58 Quickbeam and a 59 Hilsen. It was a touch small feeling when I first got on it, but worked OK. I'd probably want to try both. As far as the second top tube...man, that feature does seem to divide folks into camps... ;^) There's no appreciable difference in weight, IMO. If you've ever hefted a light tapered tube, you'll know what I mean. And, since the frame _is_ built with lighter tubing and higher clearances (certainly more than the Ramboulliet, which got cited as not needing a 2TT), maybe it does make a difference when the triangles get big and stresses accumulate. I'll reserve judgement until I ride one of them. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Could you take a moment to vote for me? I am entered in a audiobook contest which is initially determined by public voting - if you could go here - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar register on the Bookperk site and vote for my read -http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar- I'd really appreciate it. You can vote one time each day until early May. Vote early, vote often! Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
Matt has a good point. And, rack mounts would serve a greater purpose than the 2TT. From: newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:12 AM Subject: [RBW] Re: AMOS update It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't mind the double TT but if you're gonna overbuild it why not just make it more rack/load friendly? It doesn't need to be as sturdy as a Saga but maybe in-between that and their ES sport road bike. On Apr 18, 5:12 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: It'll be a good looking, cool bike either way. But, I think if the San Marcos is going to have a double TT, they should just go ahead and add rack mounts and double eyelets front and rear. -Matt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 18, 7:24 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: This is too easy, we all know that the guys looking at $6K carbon bikes are never going to go for rack mounts:) Good Luck! Dude, I doubt people looking at $6k carbon bikes are the target audience for this bike anyway. This bike with it's quill stem, low BB height and standard reach brakes is not targeted for them in any way shape or form. Soma and even Riv with the Roadeo already have better options for that crowd. From what I've seen here in Portland, when racer types are looking for fenderable bikes they lean towards cross bikes or using modified fenders which River City sells, fenders designed for bikes with low clearances. The older racer types do seem to have older steel bikes with better clearances, but we're still talking 700x23 tires with fenders. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
I guess I don't really take Grant's comment that this is the kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten as an assertion that RBW is marketing the bike to that guy. I take it more as a commentary on the fact that many of the guys who buy those bikes would be much better off with a bike like the Amos. Shaun Meehan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
The Amos...I'm not sure when it'll come out. I hear, from Merry Sales, that it'll be about a monthbut I know from experience that it could be three. It won't hit with a big splash anyway---the last I heard, MS was going to bring in only fifteen each of the 54, 59, and 63; and of those fifteen, RIV's buying five each. (The 47, 51 650B models will come later, after another sample. RIV's role in it is limited to geometry and the undertube. Plus, I approved the tubing. I wanted to make sure the tubes are suitable for the kind of bike it is supposed to be---a sporty road bike. Not a touring/country bike. But it will clear 33.333mm tires with a fender which means about a 36 or 37 without; and it'll have rackmounts on the seat stays for a rack or saddlebag support. Two eyelets on the rear drops, one on the front. Same tubing butts and bellies as the Rambouillet and Hilsen, but a diff brand (Tange Prestige). The undertube is a go/no-go feature for some, I know that, but I don't look at stuff like that and think, Classic/traditional/classy/ god or wuzzupwiddat?/bad. As the frame gets bigger, it loses triangulation and the structure that comes so much from that triangulation. The undertube gives turns would otherwise be a rhombus- like shape into more of a triangle. It means a tall dude who needs the triangulation gets some of it back, and so to me, it makes sense. The alternative is much fatter tubes, but I don't like fat tubes. It's an easier way and requires less brazing or welding, but to me (maybe only to me--I don't rule that out), it's the cold-hard-lazy-unattractive way to do that. Depending on the particulars (how fat?), it may be even MORE effective, but I'm not shooting for No. 1 lateral rigidity; just trying to get back some that's lost in the frames with taller head tubes. I agree that a 59cm frame ordinarily may not scream for an undertube, but the 59 Amos has a 6-deg upslope, which gives it the head tube height of about a 65and yet the top and seat tubes are still 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.8 (butt-belly-butt). The U2b, in this case, helps more than going to 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.9 would. Good point, of course, about it's possible unnecessariness on a bike for fenders but not racks, but on a bike that could conceivably be ridden by a 290-lb rider, a little conservativeness is not a bad thing. Historically--going back to the '70s, touring bikes used 1.0 x 0.7 x 1.0 tubing, big race bikes used 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.9 tubing, and race bikes for light riders used 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.8 tubing. Record attempt bikes used 0.7 x 0.4 x 0.7. These days that's all out the door, there are different rules and expectations--and tubes have gotten larger in outside diameter, and some of the metallurgy has changed---but it's still good to see the historical view and to recognize that the reason for the change is more related to marketing and steel's perceived need to compete with unsteels, than because we know so much more now. Anyway...it seems only 30 U2bers will be around in the foreseeable future, and I'm glad we're getting ten of 'em! Sorry for the long post. As always, I submit it in a good spirit, not to slam the door on further discussion/dissention. G In the end, the contribution the AMOS will make to riders outside of our bubble here, is that it will raise the bars humongously higher; it will allow them to ride tires that are humongously more useful, and it'll let them ride with fenders, which they won't likely be able to fit on whatever other bike the Amos is going neck-and-neck with. BUT...this contribution will be limited by the sad fact that there will be only 30 of them available to the country's 4,200 bike dealers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
not to beat a dead horse... but the double top tube road bike is just plain marketing schtick, nothing else. I just got back from a 2 week bike tour in the Yucatan and took many pictures of bikes owned by economically poor locals. Nearly every bike had double top tubes. Ray Lisbon, CT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
Grant - Thanks for adding some behind-the-scenes facts to the discussion. The San Marcos and Roadeo have both seemed like four-wheel-drive Ferraris to me - fat, plush suspension slung below a rocket sled frame. It's always interesting to see how these projects evolve. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Could you take a moment to vote for me? I am entered in a audiobook contest which is initially determined by public voting - if you could go here - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar register on the Bookperk site and vote for my read - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar - I'd really appreciate it. You can vote one time each day until early May. Vote early, vote often! Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
on a bike that could conceivably be ridden by a 290-lb rider, a little conservativeness is not a bad thing This is something all of us as rivendell consumers have to come to terms with. The potential for riders of this stature is real and a constraint that production bike designers face and custom builders deal with on a case by case basis. For me to get to 290 I would need over a 70lb touring load and my pockets full of penies, and I am not a small guy. If I want a road bike, no matter what the percieved light and fast marketing schtik is, it will likely be built for the potential heavy weight. Not that this is bad, but something to be realistic about whan you shop at this pricepoint or production model. Once the bikes are in the wild the designer has no control over who will do what with them, but if the frame is in its as sold state, they likely bear some liabilty for its performance. I was initially enamored with these, even considered picking one up to use as a cheeper fast and light touring bike, maybe even sell the Roadeo, but I can say I am in the undertube kills it for me group. It takes the bike to a level that is covered by my Rawland dSogn, it has only one tube heavier than the nubers thrown out here, and was sold as a mtn bike with no diagatube. Rob (uderstanding the designer's challenge for big people doing silly things on a road bike) in Ventura - http://oceanaircycles.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 15:04 -0700, rperks wrote: If I want a road bike, no matter what the percieved light and fast marketing schtik is, it will likely be built for the potential heavy weight. I think it's pretty safe to say your LBS carbon fiber racing bike with the lightly spoked wheels and tire clearances limiting the bike to 23mm tires at most (and yes, there are plenty that won't even take a 25mm) was not designed for a 290 pounder. In fact, chances are it wasn't designed for a 200 pound rider. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 15:04 -0700, rperks wrote: If I want a road bike, no matter what the percieved light and fast marketing schtik is, it will likely be built for the potential heavy weight. I think it's pretty safe to say your LBS carbon fiber racing bike with the lightly spoked wheels and tire clearances limiting the bike to 23mm tires at most (and yes, there are plenty that won't even take a 25mm) was not designed for a 290 pounder. In fact, chances are it wasn't designed for a 200 pound rider. I agree that it probably wasn't designed for a 290'er, but it better be designed for a 220'er at least. I see lots of big big dudes around here on fly-weight carbon bikes with low-spoke-count wheels. -- John Speare Spokane, WA USA http://cyclingspokane.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:28 -0700, John Speare wrote: I agree that it probably wasn't designed for a 290'er, but it better be designed for a 220'er at least. I see lots of big big dudes around here on fly-weight carbon bikes with low-spoke-count wheels. I wonder how many of them are using Campagnolo components that come with a 170 lb weight limit... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS... AndyUndertube
Not me. In fact,that's another reason why I've never used anything with that name on it. Other than a peanut butter wrench. Then again, because of my size, won't ride a bike with Tange Prestige tubing, either. Yes, the modern stuff could, probably, hopefully, take my weight. But am not going to risk it. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Apr 18, 7:32 pm, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:28 -0700, John Speare wrote: I agree that it probably wasn't designed for a 290'er, but it better be designed for a 220'er at least. I see lots of big big dudes around here on fly-weight carbon bikes with low-spoke-count wheels. I wonder how many of them are using Campagnolo components that come with a 170 lb weight limit... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
Eric I shared your reaction to the 2TT on the San Marcos. A second top tube sounds very much unnecessary and out of place on a 59cm road bike that is sturdy enough for fenders but not racks. I'll keep saving for a Roadeo or a custom (or the next thing I can't live without). On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume ericda...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page: http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/knothole_post/349 I was disappointed to hear this about the second top tube: *It is an expanded frame, meaning the top tube slopes up 6-degrees to assure good comfy highish handlebars even if you buy a bit too small. The first three sizes coming---by late May, we're told, but we are out of that loop---will be 54, 59, and 63. The two bigger have an undertube (second top tube), and the 54 won't. The other sizes are 47 and 51, and they'll come later and will fit 650B wheels.* I've been kind of debating this bike vs. the Rawland Nordavinden (if that one ever happens...), but, I'm sorry, I find this whole second top tube thing just silly, especially on a sporty road bike. No thanks. Eric Dublin, OH -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 17, 8:01 am, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: Me, too. The second top tube is a deal killer. Sorry to be grousy but it's a dumb idea except maybe for cargo bikes. Agree. I can see 650b for smaller size, but the 700c bikes getting a second top tube is too much! I don't get Grant when he says: kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten - really? Guys who are looking at $6K carbon bikes are not going for 650b or double top tubes. Sorry, doesn't work on either count. I guess with a total distribution of only 15 frames/size, they shouldn't have too much trouble selling. Still, I doubt its going to be on anyone's radar who is also looking at $6K carbon bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room.It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. -Matt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
Nailed it. On 4/17/11, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: bfd I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's their bike. Grant 'specifically' said that those folks who did buy a $6000 road bike should have bought a bike like the San Marcos. Somebody with as much experience reading Grant's postings as you do know what Grant means by that. He means that folks who buy plastic 16lb bikes should be buying 20lb steel bikes. That's a lot different than saying Hey, you bike shoppers! After you test ride that Cervelo and that Madone, come check out this undertube! That would be ridiculous, but that's not what Grant said, that's what you said. Merry Sales paid Grant for a design. Grant supplied one. None of the prototype photos have the second TT, so I suspect Merry Sales/Soma made the decision to add it. There's no way Grant called Merry Sales and said I've done the calculations and the bigger two sizes MUST have a 2TT! I'd bet a dollar that it's a fashion-driven decision, and the tiny production run makes it sound like a loss-leader, which bums me out on several levels besides the lousy idea of a 2TT on a road bike. good luck! Me, I love the 2TT on my parallel Bombadil, and I'm glad my 56cm Hillborne doesn't have one. On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room.It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Unfortunately, probably not in the cards for me financially anytime soon. Although maybe i can do a frame on layaway. On Apr 17, 7:13 am, Eric Daume ericda...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen any mention of the Soma/Amos update on the Riv page: http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/knothole_post/349 I was disappointed to hear this about the second top tube: *It is an expanded frame, meaning the top tube slopes up 6-degrees to assure good comfy highish handlebars even if you buy a bit too small. The first three sizes coming---by late May, we're told, but we are out of that loop---will be 54, 59, and 63. The two bigger have an undertube (second top tube), and the 54 won't. The other sizes are 47 and 51, and they'll come later and will fit 650B wheels.* I've been kind of debating this bike vs. the Rawland Nordavinden (if that one ever happens...), but, I'm sorry, I find this whole second top tube thing just silly, especially on a sporty road bike. No thanks. Eric Dublin, OH -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the cream head tube. On Apr 17, 11:10 am, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: Nailed it. On 4/17/11, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: bfd I think you are taking your point a little far. Grant/Rivendell is not marketing the San Marcos at all, much less marketing it towards the mainstream racing bike customer. Merry Sales and Soma aren't even 'marketing' the San Marcos, and it's their bike. Grant 'specifically' said that those folks who did buy a $6000 road bike should have bought a bike like the San Marcos. Somebody with as much experience reading Grant's postings as you do know what Grant means by that. He means that folks who buy plastic 16lb bikes should be buying 20lb steel bikes. That's a lot different than saying Hey, you bike shoppers! After you test ride that Cervelo and that Madone, come check out this undertube! That would be ridiculous, but that's not what Grant said, that's what you said. Merry Sales paid Grant for a design. Grant supplied one. None of the prototype photos have the second TT, so I suspect Merry Sales/Soma made the decision to add it. There's no way Grant called Merry Sales and said I've done the calculations and the bigger two sizes MUST have a 2TT! I'd bet a dollar that it's a fashion-driven decision, and the tiny production run makes it sound like a loss-leader, which bums me out on several levels besides the lousy idea of a 2TT on a road bike. good luck! Me, I love the 2TT on my parallel Bombadil, and I'm glad my 56cm Hillborne doesn't have one. On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:40 -0700, rob markwardt wrote: The double top tube is becoming a rivendell signature. I prefer the cream head tube. +1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. Philip Philip Williamson www.biketinker.com On Apr 17, 10:47 am, Ron MH visio...@gmail.com wrote: It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. Philip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
And for me, I lurv the double TT on the Bombadil and larger Hilsens, but don't like the diagnatube of the Hunqapillar. But either on a road bike seem overkill. Luckily we can vote with our wallets and get a Roadeo, or a Hilsen or an Atlantis :-) On 4/17/11, Bruce fullylug...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. Philip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
not to beat a dead horse... but the double top tube road bike is just plain marketing schtick, nothing else. For me I would have bought a Hunquapillar if the 54 had the diagonal tube. I think that is a classic look and make sense for a camping/ rough stuff bike. ~Mike On Apr 17, 4:42 pm, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: And for me, I lurv the double TT on the Bombadil and larger Hilsens, but don't like the diagnatube of the Hunqapillar. But either on a road bike seem overkill. Luckily we can vote with our wallets and get a Roadeo, or a Hilsen or an Atlantis :-) On 4/17/11, Bruce fullylug...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, I love the look of the diagatube and would ride it on a road bike any day. From: Philip Williamson philip.william...@gmail.com To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update I was disappointed by the undertube as well, especially on a bike identified as road-only. Philip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS update
What no one is talking about yet is how it will be built out, component-wise. Sure, some will go the full-Riv route - Nitto noodles, bar-end shifters, Sugino triple, B17 saddle, etc., at least those who read this list and buy it frame-only from Riv if it's sold that way. I can see many shops who sell it as a Soma will do so with a full Shimano 105 build, or maybe a SRAM Apex build, and that many of the buyers will not know who Grant Petersen is, think Bridgestone has only and always made car tires, and think Rivendell is some fantasy kingdom of sorts. If the double top tube turns out to be a dud, Soma will drop it in a heartbeat and go with singles. Maybe change the color a little or a lot too. Wait and see. On Apr 17, 1:47 pm, Ron MH visio...@gmail.com wrote: It's basically a roady frame, not a country bike, not a touring bike, just a really nice and versatile road frame kind of the way the Rambouillet was, and the Roadeo would be if it were a hair heavier and had rack mounts. A ROAD bike with clearance for tires up to 33mm with fenders, or 35mm without. The kind of bike you'd get for road riding, club rides, charitable centuries, and occasional careful smooth fire roading. The kind of bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames should've gotten instead, but they don't think so. And this bike needs a second top tube?... that's nuts. It's a road bike, not an off-road bike. It simply doesn't need a second top tube in large sizes. Look at the tens of thousands of large steel road bikes out there; do any have double top tubes? Look at the Rambouillet. And are these bikes prone to collapsing like a deck of cards for the lack of a second top tube?... of course not! Are they so flexy that they're unstable? Ask any of the RBW or iBOB readers who ride larger (60cm +) steel road bikes. The second top tube idea is just silly and will keep many from buying this bike. Hey let's add some extra weight to the bike without any reasonable benefit and see if people will buy it? Yeah, these will just fly off the showroom floor! On Apr 17, 9:53 am, bfd bfd...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 9:09 am, newenglandbike matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: I guess there is no accounting for taste, because I have always dug the second top-tube (I prefer the name 'innertube' to 'undertube', but i digress) ever since the bombadil came out, although I agree it probably works better on a mountain/all-purpose bike. I was also drawn to the plain-gauge tubing. I still like the bombadil's concept, even though now it is changed, but the original parallel second tube is hard to beat in my book. I agree in part. There are many, like yourself, who like the double top tube look. That's great and with only 15 framesets per size, it should easily sell. However, Grant is not marketing to you or those who like it. Instead, he specifically said the frame is aimed at bike guys who buy $6,000 carbon frames. That's ridiculous. People in the market for $6K carbon bikes are not looking at either 650b or double top tubes. The only way either of those things get popular with the $6K carbon crowd is if someone in the Tour de Frances wins on one. Now THAT will get people's attention and sell these kind of bikes. Of course, its not going to happen FWIW, I was in Harris Cyclery the yesterday, and they have a 58cm Hunqapillar built-up in the show room. It has the gray/red paint job. All I can say is, pictures don't do that bike justice. I haven't seen one of those yet and I live in San Francisco! I'm sure there's a few around as I do see alot of Riv bikes. Good Luck! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS update
on 4/17/11 11:25 AM, Jeremy Till at jeremy.t...@gmail.com wrote: I'd ride one. I wonder if a 59 or a 63 would fit me better. Yeah, I'm actually a bit curious as to how the specific sizing on this bicycle will turn out. I've ridden one, and it was a pretty spritely little beast. http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=431 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/4468312567/ It was a 54(55?), and I'm ~5'11, riding a 58 Quickbeam and a 59 Hilsen. It was a touch small feeling when I first got on it, but worked OK. I'd probably want to try both. As far as the second top tube...man, that feature does seem to divide folks into camps... ;^) There's no appreciable difference in weight, IMO. If you've ever hefted a light tapered tube, you'll know what I mean. And, since the frame _is_ built with lighter tubing and higher clearances (certainly more than the Ramboulliet, which got cited as not needing a 2TT), maybe it does make a difference when the triangles get big and stresses accumulate. I'll reserve judgement until I ride one of them. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Could you take a moment to vote for me? I am entered in a audiobook contest which is initially determined by public voting - if you could go here - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar register on the Bookperk site and vote for my read - http://tinyurl.com/vote-jimedgar - I'd really appreciate it. You can vote one time each day until early May. Vote early, vote often! Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Amos
Nice bike. This is the bike you recommend to your friends when they want something sensible and fun for less than $2k. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:00 PM, MannyAcosta manueljohnaco...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/amos/70-999 -- -- Anne Paulson My hovercraft is full of eels -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos
in a recent riv message GP said they are on their way. like maybe springtime. he spoke of possible repaint and rebadge and resell, but no decision as of about two weeks ago. i bet he springs something interesting on it in the next couple of months. different paint and riv decals could get us all up in tizzy. soma san marco. riv amos. On Dec 28, 8:06 am, Darin G. dbg...@mac.com wrote: Anyone have new details on the Amos/San Marco? Will Rivendell be selling the Soma version or repainting/renaming it for themselves? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos
http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/amos/70-999 On the site they said it might come around Mayish. check it. On Dec 28, 9:06 am, Darin G. dbg...@mac.com wrote: Anyone have new details on the Amos/San Marco? Will Rivendell be selling the Soma version or repainting/renaming it for themselves? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS news
too bad no photo of the one i rode with an actual matching colored fork. and, at least for now, no mention of double top tubes. yea! seems that would add a chunk to cost anyway...and nonsense on a lightweight road bike. may is a long way off. On Dec 17, 7:24 am, Mike mjawn...@gmail.com wrote: There is information about the AMOS/San Marcos on the Riv site. Check it out: http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/amos/70-999 Looks like they're expected to be in stock by May, give or take 25 days. Just in time for summer! I'm not considering purchasing one but I know others are. --mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: AMOS / San Marcos Update?
on 9/8/10 11:18 AM, Mike at mjawn...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, you looking to add to your quiver? The word quiver always cracks me up... don't know why. The Roadeo felt like a Lamborghini (yeah, like I've driven one of those...) with a Cadillac (ditto) ride. Imperfect analogy, but you get the idea. The San Marcos was just a spec small for me, I think, and I rode it for a much shorter time. But, my thought at the time was, they are going to sell one helluva lotta these... Hope I'm right. This year is probably not the get-a-new-bike year. But, for some reason, the image of a cream with burgundy highlights Roadeo, sporting Paul brakes remains tenacious in my brain. Or an orange one with cream highlights. But, if the budget allowed only the San Marcos, that wouldn't be a bad thing. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes The Gallery needs your photos! Send 'em in - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines She edged in to get a better look at the bike, how it was made, the intricacy of its brakes and shifters pulling her straight in. Beauty. -- William Gibson, Virtual Light -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS / San Marcos Update?
Thanks for the udpate Sean I have been wondering too and checking the Soma site a couple times a week for updates. 2011 just gives me more time to save ;-) On Sep 8, 6:20 pm, Sean Whelan strummer_...@yahoo.com wrote: I emailed Soma Fabrications. They are currently awaiting the full size run of prototypes from the factory. They will then have to confer with RBW about whether it is Thumbs up or Thumbs down. No time estimate was given. Thanks, Sean --- On Wed, 9/8/10, CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net wrote: From: CycloFiend cyclofi...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [RBW] AMOS / San Marcos Update? To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 1:43 PM Re: [RBW] AMOS / San Marcos Update? on 9/8/10 10:13 AM, Sean Whelan at strummer_...@yahoo.com wrote: Cyclofiend's last update seems to be from January:http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=414 I am really really interested in this bike. Has anyone heard anything new? I am sure we are talking Mid 2011 now, right? I would reckon - and this is absolute and pure conjecture - that SOMA couldn't nail delivery for this year, and probably decided that they'd intro it at Interbike (industry trade show on the immediate horizon) and go forward with firm orders for 2011. It's always been a SOMA project, as far as the distribution was concerned (and hence a Merry Sales Co issue). I'd expect that with the economy of the last couple years, they would want to have it timed for maximum impact and minimum exposure. Having a container land in November, when none of your dealers are buying much is a pretty big risk, as an example. - Jim -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Gallery updates now appear here -http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com Steel's what you want for a messenger bike. Weight. Big basket up front. Not cardboard with some crazy aramid shit wrapped around it, weighs about as much as a sandwich. -- William Gibson, Virtual Light -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS / San Marcos Update?
If you call Riv Headquarters, I'm sure they'd be delighted to talk with you. 1(800)345-3918 On Sep 8, 10:13 am, Sean Whelan strummer_...@yahoo.com wrote: Cyclofiend's last update seems to be from January:http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=414 I am really really interested in this bike. Has anyone heard anything new? I am sure we are talking Mid 2011 now, right? Cheers, Sean -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS / San Marcos Update?
Jim, you looking to add to your quiver? --mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos?
It's going to be pink. On Apr 20, 12:22 pm, D. Goff dbg...@mac.com wrote: Any new rumors on the Amos? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Amos?
Enough gossip like that and you might force HQ to put out some clarification. I did almost fall over though. On Apr 20, 2:43 pm, sjauch sja...@gmail.com wrote: It's going to be pink. On Apr 20, 12:22 pm, D. Goff dbg...@mac.com wrote: Any new rumors on the Amos? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: AMOS
This looks like a fun bike. Good news indeed. D.G. On Mar 21, 6:14 pm, Mike mjawn...@gmail.com wrote: Hey did people notice this little tidbit in Grant's most recent post? Good news for those hoping to get an AMOS. We're expecting AMOS No.2 within a month. It's the SOMA bike we designed (and will sell, and we just call it AMOS for fun for now). If this one has the changes requested and seems perfect, then that bike will be available this Summer; and if not, it may be Spring 2011. --Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.