Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Eric Daume]

Well, now I'm more curious and might have a reason to go visit my giant
local Trek store!

Eric

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:59 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:

> Eric D asked what model Treks.  Good question, as I just walked in on the
> sout side of the store and exited on the north side.
>
> Well, went back to the LBS today after dental appointment. I was looking
> for 1) a chain checker tool, and 2) Purple Loctite #222. Fizzled out on
> both.  The long wheelbase Treks are the FX 1, FX 2 and FX 3. Sports are a
> bit shorter. Nothing like what Kim Hetzel shows in the Clem photo.  The web
> photos appear to show a bike with a shorter wheelbase, shorter chainstays
> than what I observed, in person, at the LBS.
>
> Mike SLO CA
>
> On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 11:10:20 AM UTC-7 Kim H. wrote:
>
>> @Joel,
>> I am grateful to hear that you have arrived at the much desired height
>> with your handlebar stem.
>>
>> Comfort in the cockpit is everything.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 11:02 AM J S  wrote:
>>
>>> Kim, I have the height  I need while it is maxed out it is just what I
>>> need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:59 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>>
 @Joel,

 It is quite comforting to hear that I am not alone in not wanting to
 have a threadless stem on my bicycle, my Clem. I only have one bicycle that
 I ride. The other is a retired road bike that I would like to sell to a
 good home.

 Would the Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stem help you get the height you want
 on your favorite bike ?

 Kim Hetzel.


 On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 5:51 AM J S  wrote:

> Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the
> same reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the
> height I desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be
> adding any more.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
>> @Joel,
>> You are more than welcome.
>> I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring
>> myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I
>> am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto
>> Technomic NTC-280 stem.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the
>> longest available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my 
>> first
>> road I used the shorter Technomic deluxe.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>> @Joel,
>> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of
>> the Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length 
>> of
>> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 
>> inches.
>>
>> This is where I bought mine:
>> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the
>> Technomic? I never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the 
>> old
>> high stem I think Riv now calls the Tallux.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>> @John,
>> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on
>> the rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable
>> upright riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have
>> found myself very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a
>> Sakae Ringyo MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far 
>> as
>> getting the my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO
>> Technomic NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, 
>> yet
>> it all works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a
>> senior cyclist.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>>
>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like
>> the aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust
>> said) once you're riding.
>>
>> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you,
>> but one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright 
>> position,
>> you want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft
>> than with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more
>> forward on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It
>> makes intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mike Godwin]

Eric D asked what model Treks.  Good question, as I just walked in on the 
sout side of the store and exited on the north side.

Well, went back to the LBS today after dental appointment. I was looking 
for 1) a chain checker tool, and 2) Purple Loctite #222. Fizzled out on 
both.  The long wheelbase Treks are the FX 1, FX 2 and FX 3. Sports are a 
bit shorter. Nothing like what Kim Hetzel shows in the Clem photo.  The web 
photos appear to show a bike with a shorter wheelbase, shorter chainstays 
than what I observed, in person, at the LBS.

Mike SLO CA 

On Sunday, March 10, 2024 at 11:10:20 AM UTC-7 Kim H. wrote:

> @Joel,
> I am grateful to hear that you have arrived at the much desired height 
> with your handlebar stem.
>
> Comfort in the cockpit is everything. 
>
> Kim Hetzel. 
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 11:02 AM J S  wrote:
>
>> Kim, I have the height  I need while it is maxed out it is just what I 
>> need. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:59 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>>> @Joel,
>>>
>>> It is quite comforting to hear that I am not alone in not wanting to 
>>> have a threadless stem on my bicycle, my Clem. I only have one bicycle that 
>>> I ride. The other is a retired road bike that I would like to sell to a 
>>> good home. 
>>>
>>> Would the Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stem help you get the height you want 
>>> on your favorite bike ?
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel. 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 5:51 AM J S  wrote:
>>>
 Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the 
 same reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the 
 height I desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be 
 adding any more.  



 On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:

> @Joel,
> You are more than welcome. 
> I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring 
> myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I 
> am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto 
> Technomic NTC-280 stem. 
>
> Kim Hetzel. 
>
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the 
> longest available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my 
> first 
> road I used the shorter Technomic deluxe. 
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
> @Joel,
> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of 
> the Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length 
> of 
> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 
> inches.
>
> This is where I bought mine:
> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>
> Kim Hetzel. 
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>
> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? 
> I never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem 
> I 
> think Riv now calls the Tallux. 
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
> @John,
> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on 
> the rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable 
> upright riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have 
> found myself very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a 
> Sakae Ringyo MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far 
> as 
> getting the my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO 
> Technomic NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, 
> yet 
> it all works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a 
> senior cyclist.  
>
> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>
> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the 
> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust 
> said) 
> once you're riding. 
>
> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but 
> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, 
> you 
> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft 
> than 
> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more 
> forward 
> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes 
> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy 
> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) 
> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in 
> the 
> case of Jones, high 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Kim H.]

@Joel,
I am grateful to hear that you have arrived at the much desired height with
your handlebar stem.

Comfort in the cockpit is everything.

Kim Hetzel.


On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 11:02 AM J S  wrote:

> Kim, I have the height  I need while it is maxed out it is just what I
> need.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:59 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
>> @Joel,
>>
>> It is quite comforting to hear that I am not alone in not wanting to have
>> a threadless stem on my bicycle, my Clem. I only have one bicycle that I
>> ride. The other is a retired road bike that I would like to sell to a good
>> home.
>>
>> Would the Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stem help you get the height you want
>> on your favorite bike ?
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 5:51 AM J S  wrote:
>>
>>> Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the
>>> same reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the
>>> height I desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be
>>> adding any more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>>
 @Joel,
 You are more than welcome.
 I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring
 myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I
 am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto
 Technomic NTC-280 stem.

 Kim Hetzel.


 On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the
 longest available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first
 road I used the shorter Technomic deluxe.

 On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:

 @Joel,
 The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of
 the Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of
 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.

 This is where I bought mine:
 https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1

 Kim Hetzel.
 On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:


 Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic?
 I never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I
 think Riv now calls the Tallux.


 On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:

 @John,
 From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the
 rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright
 riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself
 very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo
 MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the
 my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic
 NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all
 works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior
 cyclist.

 Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]

 On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:

 I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the
 aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said)
 once you're riding.

 I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but
 one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you
 want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than
 with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward
 on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes
 intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy
 upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes)
 involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the
 case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It
 would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back,
 the bike design should take this into account.

 -John
 On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality
 equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:

 I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of
 the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for
 instance) ride very, very nicely.


 That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more
 than I dislike the extended variety.

 My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[J S]

Kim, I have the height  I need while it is maxed out it is just what I
need.



On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 1:59 PM Kim H.  wrote:

> @Joel,
>
> It is quite comforting to hear that I am not alone in not wanting to have
> a threadless stem on my bicycle, my Clem. I only have one bicycle that I
> ride. The other is a retired road bike that I would like to sell to a good
> home.
>
> Would the Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stem help you get the height you want on
> your favorite bike ?
>
> Kim Hetzel.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 5:51 AM J S  wrote:
>
>> Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the
>> same reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the
>> height I desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be
>> adding any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>>> @Joel,
>>> You are more than welcome.
>>> I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring
>>> myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I
>>> am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto
>>> Technomic NTC-280 stem.
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the
>>> longest available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first
>>> road I used the shorter Technomic deluxe.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>>
>>> @Joel,
>>> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of
>>> the Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of
>>> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.
>>>
>>> This is where I bought mine:
>>> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel.
>>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I
>>> never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I
>>> think Riv now calls the Tallux.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>>
>>> @John,
>>> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the
>>> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright
>>> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself
>>> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo
>>> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the
>>> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic
>>> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all
>>> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior
>>> cyclist.
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the
>>> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said)
>>> once you're riding.
>>>
>>> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but
>>> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you
>>> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than
>>> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward
>>> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes
>>> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy
>>> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes)
>>> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the
>>> case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It
>>> would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back,
>>> the bike design should take this into account.
>>>
>>> -John
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality
>>> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of
>>> the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for
>>> instance) ride very, very nicely.
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more
>>> than I dislike the extended variety.
>>>
>>> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find
>>> myself drawn to even longer.
>>>
>>> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say,
>>> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look
>>> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though.
>>>
>>> Maybe there's more learning for 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Kim H.]

@Joel,

It is quite comforting to hear that I am not alone in not wanting to have a
threadless stem on my bicycle, my Clem. I only have one bicycle that I
ride. The other is a retired road bike that I would like to sell to a good
home.

Would the Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stem help you get the height you want on
your favorite bike ?

Kim Hetzel.


On Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 5:51 AM J S  wrote:

> Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the same
> reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the height I
> desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be adding any
> more.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
>> @Joel,
>> You are more than welcome.
>> I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring
>> myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I
>> am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto
>> Technomic NTC-280 stem.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the
>> longest available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first
>> road I used the shorter Technomic deluxe.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>> @Joel,
>> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of the
>> Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of
>> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.
>>
>> This is where I bought mine:
>> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>>
>> Kim Hetzel.
>> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I
>> never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I
>> think Riv now calls the Tallux.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>> @John,
>> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the
>> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright
>> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself
>> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo
>> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the
>> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic
>> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all
>> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior
>> cyclist.
>>
>> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>>
>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the
>> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said)
>> once you're riding.
>>
>> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but
>> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you
>> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than
>> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward
>> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes
>> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy
>> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes)
>> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the
>> case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It
>> would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back,
>> the bike design should take this into account.
>>
>> -John
>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality
>> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:
>>
>> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the
>> frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance)
>> ride very, very nicely.
>>
>>
>> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more
>> than I dislike the extended variety.
>>
>> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find
>> myself drawn to even longer.
>>
>> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say,
>> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look
>> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though.
>>
>> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier,
>> bouncier tread. But that's another topic.
>>
>> - Chris
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your
>> perspective."

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[J S]

Kim, I agree, I have never wanted a threadless stem, probably for the same
reasons as you. In my mind a threadless stem will not give me the height I
desire, maybe I am wrong but I have my bikes and will not be adding any
more.



On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM Kim H.  wrote:

> @Joel,
> You are more than welcome.
> I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring
> myself to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I
> am very slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto
> Technomic NTC-280 stem.
>
> Kim Hetzel.
>
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the longest
> available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first road I
> used the shorter Technomic deluxe.
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
> @Joel,
> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of the
> Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of
> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.
>
> This is where I bought mine:
> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>
> Kim Hetzel.
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I
> never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I
> think Riv now calls the Tallux.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
> @John,
> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the
> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright
> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself
> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo
> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the
> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic
> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all
> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior
> cyclist.
>
> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>
> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the
> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said)
> once you're riding.
>
> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but one
> thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you want
> those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than with
> a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward on
> your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes intuitive
> sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy upright
> position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) involves
> getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the case of
> Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It would
> make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, the
> bike design should take this into account.
>
> -John
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality
> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:
>
> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the
> frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance)
> ride very, very nicely.
>
>
> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more
> than I dislike the extended variety.
>
> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find
> myself drawn to even longer.
>
> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say,
> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look
> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though.
>
> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier,
> bouncier tread. But that's another topic.
>
> - Chris
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your
> perspective."
>
> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are
> you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS
> of the T 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Kim H.]

@Joel,
You are more than welcome. 
I was very fortunate to find this very quill stem. I could not bring myself 
to go threadless, after over 40 years going used to quill stems. I am very 
slow to change, by the way. I am very happy with the The Nitto Technomic 
NTC-280 stem. 

Kim Hetzel. 


On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 4:27:13 PM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the longest 
available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first road I 
used the shorter Technomic deluxe. 

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:

@Joel,
The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of the 
Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of 
11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.

This is where I bought mine:
https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1

Kim Hetzel. 
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:


Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I 
never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I 
think Riv now calls the Tallux. 


On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:

@John,
>From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the 
rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright 
riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself 
very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo 
MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the 
my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic 
NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all 
works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior 
cyclist.  

Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]

On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:

I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the 
aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said) 
once you're riding. 

I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but one 
thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you want 
those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than with 
a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward on 
your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes intuitive 
sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy upright 
position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) involves 
getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the case of 
Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It would 
make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, the 
bike design should take this into account.

-John 
On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality 
equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:

I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the 
frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance) 
ride very, very nicely. 


That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more 
than I dislike the extended variety. 

My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find myself 
drawn to even longer. 

What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, 
anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look 
nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. 

Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, 
bouncier tread. But that's another topic. 

- Chris 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
perspective."  

You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
 





On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
Complex!  


BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[J S]

Thanks Kim. I have only used Technomic stems because they were the longest
available when I started with Riv in ‘97 or so. I think on my first road I
used the shorter Technomic deluxe.

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:23 PM Kim H.  wrote:

> @Joel,
> The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of the
> Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of
> 11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.
>
> This is where I bought mine:
> https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1
>
> Kim Hetzel.
> On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I
>> never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I
>> think Riv now calls the Tallux.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>>
>>> @John,
>>> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the
>>> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright
>>> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself
>>> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo
>>> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the
>>> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic
>>> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all
>>> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior
>>> cyclist.
>>>
>>> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>>>
 I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the
 aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said)
 once you're riding.

 I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but
 one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you
 want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than
 with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward
 on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes
 intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy
 upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes)
 involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the
 case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It
 would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back,
 the bike design should take this into account.

 -John
 On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality
> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:
>
> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of
> the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for
> instance) ride very, very nicely.
>
>
> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far
> more than I dislike the extended variety.
>
> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find
> myself drawn to even longer.
>
> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use,
> say, anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look
> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, 
> though.
>
> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier,
> bouncier tread. But that's another topic.
>
> - Chris
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your
>> perspective."
>>
>> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.
>> Are you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build
>> concept?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years
>>> ago do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing 
>>> themselves
>>> as PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date
>>> Industrial Complex!
>>>
>>>
>>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread
>>> and largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think
>>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. 
>>> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Kim H.]

@Joel,
The  Nitto Technomic NTC-280 stemis very much different than that of the 
Nitto Technomic Tallux in that the NTC-280 stem's quill is a length of 
11.02 inches, while the Tallux stem's quill length is shorter, 10.3 inches.

This is where I bought mine:
https://alexscycle.com/products/nitto-technomic-ntc-280-stem-1

Kim Hetzel. 
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Kim, is this  NITTO Technomic NTC-280 Stem the same as the Technomic? I 
> never heard the NTC-280 part before. The Technomic is the old high stem I 
> think Riv now calls the Tallux. 
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Kim H.  wrote:
>
>> @John,
>> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the 
>> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright 
>> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself 
>> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo 
>> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the 
>> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic 
>> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all 
>> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior 
>> cyclist.  
>>
>> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>>
>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the 
>>> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said) 
>>> once you're riding. 
>>>
>>> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but 
>>> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you 
>>> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than 
>>> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward 
>>> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes 
>>> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy 
>>> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) 
>>> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the 
>>> case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It 
>>> would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, 
>>> the bike design should take this into account.
>>>
>>> -John 
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality 
 equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:

 I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of 
 the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for 
 instance) ride very, very nicely. 


 That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more 
 than I dislike the extended variety. 

 My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find 
 myself drawn to even longer. 

 What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, 
 say, anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look 
 nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, 
 though. 

 Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, 
 bouncier tread. But that's another topic. 

 - Chris 
 On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
> perspective."  
>
> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  
> Are you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build 
> concept?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years 
>> ago do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing 
>> themselves 
>> as PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date 
>> Industrial Complex!  
>>
>>
>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread 
>> and largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, 
>> I 
>> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad 
>> I 
>> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while 
>> working 
>> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 
>> bars 
>> and 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Max S]

The longest chainstay Rivs I have are Yves Gomes and the HubbuhHubbuh 
tandem. The latter especially so, when I ride it without a stoker. Then I 
really feel the wheelflop. When my youngest kid rides on the back, the 
wheelflop is less noticeable, and when the oldest kid gets on, it just 
about goes away. 

So, what John said above regarding position and balance resonates with me. 

Here's how I think the design proceeds... 

Say I want a bike that will feel easier to get on and off of, and will be 
retain its line / stability over bumps and downhill. This suggests: 

   1. a relatively low bottom bracket (easier to put a foot down) 
   2. a slacker head angle (better over bumps and turn-in)
   3. a longer trail (less likely to shimmy downhill) 
   
The combo of 2 and 3 yields greater wheelflop, which would create 
troublesome handling under many circumstances (for my taste). So, now I 
want to shift the rider weight back to unload the front wheel. I'll wind up 
with more saddle setback. But if I'm just sitting over the rear wheel, 
it'll be a harsher ride. Furthermore, if I intend to run a wider tire on a 
700c wheel, yet maintain a narrow Q – that's easier to accomplish with 
longer chainstays. As the rear wheels go further back, there's more of a 
"middle of the bus" (vs. back of the bus) feeling for the rider. Of course 
I still have to fix the longer reach, which I can do with swept-back bars. 

So, I think Grant arrived at a nice design window for these "hillibikes" 
that really works well for the kinds of riding scenarios and load placement 
that they (and many of their customers) engage in. 

One more thing from my personal experience... I used to live in NorCal and 
rode on the "flowy", soft trails there. I also rode my road bike up and 
down steep hills. Then I moved East, and got a chance to race road bikes 
for a few years, including crits – lots of fast, sharp turns, etc. The 
bikes I raced had 41 cm chainstays and skinny tires, and my weight was 
pretty low and forward. Nowadays I don't race, and avoid riding on roads 
altogether. I've come to appreciate longer chainstays for the dirt roads. 
But... I'm not completely in the upright / sit up camp, because when I ride 
harder, I feel like putting more of my glutes into the pedal stroke. It's 
worth checking out these videos 
 by a cycling coach 
on pedaling technique to appreciate that, depending on which muscle groups 
you want to engage, will also dictate something about your fore-aft 
positioning, as well as the type of handlebar you're likely to want to use. 
Drop bars didn't evolve in a vacuum – they're a solution to a specific 
problem of allowing the rider to maintain control over the bike when 
lunging forward onto the pedals with greater force, but also allowing the 
rider to "chill" with their hands on the tops when they're pedaling with 
smaller downforce. Same with chainstays. As Richard Sachs likes to say, the 
frame is the frame; the frame is not the bike. 

- Max "IMHO, IME, ATMO, YMMV, horses for courses, chainstays and handlebars 
go together" in A2


On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-5 krhe...@gmail.com wrote:

> @John,
> From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the 
> rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright 
> riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself 
> very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo 
> MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the 
> my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic 
> NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all 
> works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior 
> cyclist.  
>
> Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh.jpg]
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote:
>
>> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the 
>> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said) 
>> once you're riding. 
>>
>> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but 
>> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you 
>> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than 
>> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward 
>> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes 
>> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy 
>> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) 
>> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the 
>> case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It 
>> would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, 
>> the bike design should take this into account.
>>
>> -John 
>> On 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Large volume tire is amazing on pavement. Given you’re not racing. 
The larger the tire, the more imperative you get the PSI right. I usually 
use the Silca calculator. 
Generally, if I’m riding pavement (and pavement around here can be pretty 
rough), I’m at 18-20psi on 700x60 tires. 
Get some nice and light fat tires. Set it up with tubeless or latex tubes. 
Like riding on a cloud. 

https://silca.cc/pages/pro-tire-pressure-calculator?PPC_source=1=CjwKCAiAi6uvBhADEiwAWiyRdqe4PHAgPpTdJ2LVbBwxfqt3e8vuukn-sZWWY-bxbG5OL-roKC6f6BoCuPQQAvD_BwE_adid=_campaign=18309541113_source=google
On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 6:50:38 AM UTC-7 Chris Halasz wrote:

> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the 
> frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance) 
> ride very, very nicely. 
>
> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more 
> than I dislike the extended variety. 
>
> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find 
> myself drawn to even longer. 
>
> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, 
> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look 
> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. 
>
> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, 
> bouncier tread. But that's another topic. 
>
> - Chris 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
>> perspective."  
>>
>> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
>> you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago 
>>> do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as 
>>> PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
>>> Complex!  
>>>
>>>
>>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
>>> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
>>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
>>> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
>>> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
>>> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
>>> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
>>> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
>>> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
>>> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
>>> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
>>> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
>>> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
>>> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/db083303-bc86-4235-a4b9-c3e04ec0f930n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[John Johnson]

I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the 
aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said) 
once you're riding. 

I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but one 
thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you want 
those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than with 
a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward on 
your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes intuitive 
sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy upright 
position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) involves 
getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the case of 
Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It would 
make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, the 
bike design should take this into account.

-John 
On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality 
> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:
>
> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the 
> frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance) 
> ride very, very nicely. 
>
>
> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more 
> than I dislike the extended variety. 
>
> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find 
> myself drawn to even longer. 
>
> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, 
> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look 
> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. 
>
> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, 
> bouncier tread. But that's another topic. 
>
> - Chris 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
>> perspective."  
>>
>> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
>> you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago 
>>> do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as 
>>> PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
>>> Complex!  
>>>
>>>
>>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
>>> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
>>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
>>> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
>>> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
>>> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
>>> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
>>> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
>>> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
>>> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
>>> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
>>> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
>>> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
>>> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>>>
>> -- 
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/19c4d79e-e56c-44dd-be2d-b4013c8585ffn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/b400f81d-2050-4fe6-8749-b34a1339ffe1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high.Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz  wrote:I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance) ride very, very nicely. That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more than I dislike the extended variety. My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find myself drawn to even longer. What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, bouncier tread. But that's another topic. - Chris On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective."  You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial Complex!  BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/19c4d79e-e56c-44dd-be2d-b4013c8585ffn%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/29C12B5A-15CB-4B98-9311-2F2B176262B7%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Chris Halasz]

I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of the 
frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for instance) 
ride very, very nicely. 

That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more 
than I dislike the extended variety. 

My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find myself 
drawn to even longer. 

What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, 
anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look 
nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. 

Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, 
bouncier tread. But that's another topic. 

- Chris 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
> perspective."  
>
> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
> you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
>> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
>> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
>> Complex!  
>>
>>
>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
>> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
>> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
>> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
>> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
>> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
>> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
>> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
>> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
>> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
>> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
>> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
>> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/19c4d79e-e56c-44dd-be2d-b4013c8585ffn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your 
perspective."  

You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives.  Are 
you in the market for a new (to you) bike now?  What is your build concept?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
 





On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
> Complex!  
>
>
> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3309d98e-4cfc-4a8d-926b-c0dca9726856n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Certainly. But it wasn’t an option on the Jabberwocky being a singlespeed. 
And the fact my legs have the girth of an Andy Kapp hot fry 
Non-tech steep climbs were nice on the Clem. Spin seated and you could 
climb a wall. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 5:20:56 PM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> If I stay seated & spin (long stays) I do not spin out on steep / slightly 
> rocky climbs. Stand up & you are done. I never stand.:)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2024, at 6:12 PM, Hoch in ut  wrote:
>
> Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
>
> I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet 
> Cat geo. 
> Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
> the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
> Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
> from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
> think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 
>
> I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
>> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
>> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
>> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
>> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
>> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
>> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
>> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
>> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
>> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
>> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
>> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
>> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>>
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>>
>>
>> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>>
>> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
>> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
>> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
>> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
>> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>>
>> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
>> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>>
>> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
>> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
>> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
>> faithful to.
>>
>> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
>> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>>
>>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>>just numbers on paper.
>>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>>
>> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>>
>> *Climbing*
>> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
>> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>>
>> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you 
>> cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you 
>> rounds when the pedalin's done.
>>
>> *Descending*
>> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
>> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
>> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>>
>> *Comfort*
>> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice 
>> epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the 
>> balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will 
>> keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>>
>> *Balance*
>> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work 
>> together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er 
>> you've ridden.
>>
>> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
>> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
>> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.
>>
>> Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[藍俊彪]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:02 PM ian m  wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial
> Complex!
>
>
> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and
> largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think
> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I
> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I
> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working
> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars
> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time,
> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee
> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at
> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I
> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I
> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern
> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE.
> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial
>

I see where you're coming from but I have no idea why you'd hesitate to get
a custom built if nobody else is making what you want. With the price
increases many Rivendells are actually no cheaper than a custom frame built
by a local framebuilder.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAPh0EZ4sKZfJg7p4gv357Rz9mTuUe6jjB2GYcg1BxKpDRX1voA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

If I stay seated & spin (long stays) I do not spin out on steep / slightly rocky climbs. Stand up & you are done. I never stand.:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 6:12 PM, Hoch in ut  wrote:Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet Cat geo. Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat GeometryThe controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".When refining our exclusive WetCat Geometry, We peed in the eye of tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so faithful to.Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy Vassago riders, we confidently say;29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.29 inch wheels are the Cat's Pajamas.Long chainstays are the Bee's Knees.It's all about the rider's balance in relation to the wheels, not just numbers on paper.Slack doesn't have to mean slow.1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ersThe Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.So what can WetCat do for you?ClimbingClimb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a grandma's house. (what you never did that?)Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when the pedalin's done.DescendingStability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.Comfort9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.BalanceWhere it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've ridden.Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price tag. You'll see what we mean. A word about chainstays.Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent climbing, we focus on that.The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line when on a steep accent.To 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[ian m]

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
Complex!  


BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread and 
largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think 
there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, I 
do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I 
Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while working 
at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 bars 
and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the time, 
all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee 
paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes at 
the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I 
think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I 
lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern 
pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. 
Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/422c-7472-491e-9d4a-706e998c2b3dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[DTL]

The 62cm nor easter has 485mm chainstays - to accommodate 29 x 2.6 tires. 
Longer than a LOT of bikes. It is also a 73/73 low trail bike. (Smaller 
models have 460mm Stays and are optimized for 27.5 or 26)

On a video of PathlessPedaled talking to the Crust folks, Russ asked Matt 
to go into some details about a frames geometry (Evasion Lite maybe?) and 
Matt's response was along the line of:
"Ah I dunno, it's a bike, and if you ride it for an hour it'll just feel 
like a bike" - paraphrasing, but that was he sentiment. I like that 
sentiment.

On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 10:12:33 AM UTC+11 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
> I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet 
> Cat geo. 
> Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
> the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
> Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
> from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
> think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 
>
> I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
>> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
>> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
>> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
>> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
>> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
>> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
>> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
>> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
>> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
>> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
>> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
>> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>>
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>>
>>
>> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>>
>> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
>> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
>> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
>> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
>> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>>
>> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
>> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>>
>> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
>> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
>> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
>> faithful to.
>>
>> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
>> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>>
>>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>>just numbers on paper.
>>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>>
>> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>>
>> *Climbing*
>> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
>> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>>
>> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you 
>> cleaning sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you 
>> rounds when the pedalin's done.
>>
>> *Descending*
>> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
>> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
>> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>>
>> *Comfort*
>> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice 
>> epic ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the 
>> balanced geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will 
>> keep you cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>>
>> *Balance*
>> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work 
>> together to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er 
>> you've ridden.
>>
>> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
>> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
>> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Keith, I’m assuming you’re in the western Wyoming area? 
I actually bought a Jabberwocky back in 2010 or so. To test out the Wet Cat 
geo. 
Bike rode nice but it wasn’t for me. Ironically, I thought it excelled on 
the descents. Climbing, due to the long chainstays, did not fare so well. 
Note that the Jabberwocky was SS only (unless you got the geared hanger 
from them). Standing and climbing steep trails meant constant spin out. I 
think had I built a Bandersbatch, it would’ve performed better. 

I’m trying to remember the chainstay length. Wasn’t it close to 18”? 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 3:49:11 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
> answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
> thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
> ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
> is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
> have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
> their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
> prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
> far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
> explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
> the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
> UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
> that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/
>
>
> THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry
>
> The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
> '05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
> because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
> companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
> changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".
>
> When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
> tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.
>
> Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
> blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
> angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
> faithful to.
>
> Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
> Vassago riders, we confidently say;
>
>- 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
>- 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
>- Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
>- It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
>just numbers on paper.
>- Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
>- 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
>- The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.
>
> So what can *WetCat* do for you?
>
> *Climbing*
> Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
> grandma's house. (what you never did that?)
>
> Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
> sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
> the pedalin's done.
>
> *Descending*
> Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
> centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
> offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.
>
> *Comfort*
> 9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
> ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
> geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
> cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.
>
> *Balance*
> Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
> to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
> ridden.
>
> Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
> common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
> distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.
>
> Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
> tag. You'll see what we mean.
>
>  
>
>
> A word about chainstays.
>
> Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
> is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
> along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
> While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
> of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
> time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
> climbing, we focus on that.
>
> The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

I'm beating a dead horse here, drifting off-topic, and not really even 
answering questions that anyone has asked - but adding this excerpt for 
thread posterity in case I want to find it again.  I referred to Vassago's 
ill-fated attempt to popularize long chainstays in my first post, but this 
is a better web archive reference and the one I was thinking of.  It would 
have had a picture of a hill climb competition motorcycle, and includes 
their explanation, at the bottom, of why  THEY chose to do it - which was 
prioritizing climbing.  That's why it has always stuck with me.  I'm not 
far from Hoch and Utah and that kind of rockier trail riding, but Vassago's 
explanation really jives with my own reality.  EVERY SINGLE RIDE here, in 
the mountains of wyoming (where we live at the bottom of the valleys and go 
UP only to recreate), begins with a long, steep climb in thin mountain air 
that accounts for 3/4 or more of the total ride duration.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100724060927/http://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat-geometry/


THE ORIGINAL Vassago WetCat Geometry

The controversial 29er geometry approach that we were scorned for back in 
'05 seams to be more and more common as we enter 2010. We are OK with that 
because it means big wheels have come into their own, and the bigger 
companies are catching on. We stand by our WetCat design and haven't 
changed a thing. Here's the pitch from "back in the day".

When refining our exclusive *WetCat Geometry*, We peed in the eye of 
tradition and ignored the number-obsessed skeptics.

Our long wheelbases, steep seat tubes and slack head tubes made us true 
blasphemers in the frame design world. As the critics baulked, we honed our 
angles and tube diameters, to fully utilized the big wheels we are so 
faithful to.

Now, with so many podium finishes under our belt, and a legion of happy 
Vassago riders, we confidently say;

   - 29ers should NOT try to handle like a 26" bike..They're 29ers.
   - 29 inch wheels are the *Cat's Pajamas*.
   - Long chainstays are the *Bee's Knees*.
   - It's all about the rider's *balance* in relation to the wheels, not 
   just numbers on paper.
   - Slack doesn't have to mean slow.
   - 1996 Norba geometry theory dose not apply to 29ers
   - The Easter Bunny and Santy Claus are the same guy.

So what can *WetCat* do for you?

*Climbing*
Climb the nastiest technical sections like a wet cat climbs the drapes a 
grandma's house. (what you never did that?)

Traction to spare, and a neutralized rider position will have you cleaning 
sections you never expected, and have your buddies buyin' you rounds when 
the pedalin's done.

*Descending*
Stability is your best friend when speed is what you're looking for. The 
centrifugal force of fast spinning big hoops and the long, steel frame 
offer confidence to rival a full squishy bike at speed.

*Comfort*
9 to 5 is just plain wrong. For those of you who's therapy is an nice epic 
ride on a Sunday morning, we have your prescription. Between the balanced 
geometry and the unrivaled ridability of steel, a vassago will keep you 
cumfy in the saddle as long as your legs can keep pushing.

*Balance*
Where it all comes together. Our unique frame geometries all work together 
to provide a perfectly balanced 29er that feels like no other 29er you've 
ridden.

Forget the many tallish, slow handling 29ers that are becoming all to 
common. We center the riders weight between the wheel centers for a 
distinctive feel of riding IN the bike, not ON TOP of big tall wheels.

Test ride a Vassago and then test ride anything else with twice the price 
tag. You'll see what we mean.

 


A word about chainstays.

Generally speaking, we have noticed the media and thus the general opinion 
is that the shorter the chainstays, the better. Like we have said all 
along, our dedicated approach to designing 29ers tells us this is bullocks. 
While short stays are great on a 26" bike and enhance the characteristics 
of that type of bike, our bikes are built to climb. Since most of your 
time, blood, sweat and tears involved in a day long epic are spent 
climbing, we focus on that.

The WetCat geometry further enhance the climbing benefits of the 29" wheels 
by aligning the rider's COG (center of gravity) inside the rear axle line 
when on a steep accent.

To use another motorsport analogy, dirt bikes are converted to hill climb 
monsters by adding more power and stretching the rear wheel further out.  
When applied to mountain bikes, this means a more relaxed climbing position 
that takes the focus off of balancing the bike and lets you put all your 
energy into putting the power down.

The secondary benefit of using longer stays that you can get away with on 
29ers is the all day comfort factor. Proper butting profiles in a longer 
steel chainstay offers a level of compliance like no other

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Russell
>
> Your collection presents like an afficionado 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Haha good one.  You got me.  

It is clear and obvious that the Crust Nor'Easter came first, and it is 
obvious that Grant Petersen, devoid of ideas of his own, just copied the 
Crust Nor'Easter exactly, and renamed it the Samuel Hillborne to get rich. 
 Anybody can see that.  They are exactly the same bike.  Furthermore Crust 
invented the cream head tube aesthetic and Rivendell is just riding their 
coattails.  

BL in EC

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:33:34 PM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:

> “Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
> cream head tube.” 樂
>
> [image: IMG_3776.jpeg]
>
> [image: IMG_3777.jpeg]
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays 
>> than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "
>>
>> Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts. 
>>  Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are 
>> good bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, 
>> if they are selling what you want to buy.
>>
>> Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
>> cream head tube.  
>>
>> Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>
>>> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short 
>>> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that 
>>> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” 
>>> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed 
>>> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I 
>>> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for 
>>> my usage and terrain. 
>>> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
>>> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
>>> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
>>> bikes are now. 
>>> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
>>> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
>>> dirt roads. 
>>> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the 
>>> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk 
>>> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome 
>>> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your 
>>> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
>>> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially 
>>> ones that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. 
>>> But I’d say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an 
>>> alternative. Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter 
>>> stays than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>>
 A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) 
 vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you 
 know 
 it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely 
 hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  

 As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long 
 chain stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at 
 old 
 Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
 the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively 
 short 
 chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
 we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
 with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
 outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
 was still producing them. 

 Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
 ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer 
 ones 
 [super duper long])? 
  
 FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
 that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
 longer frame than the longest we see now?

 On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:

> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>
> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets 
> it 
> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Russell

Your collection presents like an afficionado of vintage and vintage 
inspired "classic" road bikes.  If your hypothetical Rivendell is going to 
be "at home" in that collection, it won't be something you buy from 
Rivendell currently.  It's clear to me that you'll want to find a second 
hand Rambouillet, which are well-regarded, particularly to fit that 
classic, traditional, road silhouette.  I hope you find one when you're 
ready.

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 11:32:20 AM UTC-8 Russell Duncan wrote:

> I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
> interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
> Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
> I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
> tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
> wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
> Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
> tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 
>
> For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
> measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
> wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
> measured along the seat tube CtoC
>
> 1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0
>
>
> 1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0
>
> 1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5
>
> 1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0
>
>
> 1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0
>
> 1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0
>
>
> 1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5
>
>
> 1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
> 1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
>
> mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0
>
>
> Russell Duncan
>
> Saratoga, WY
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>>> probably find 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Steven playfully spoke in code.  Steven said:

"was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well 
enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous 
Cinellis as an example."

Stevens playfully *decoded* message is: "Double top tubes are stupid and 
wrong, all the time.  Jobst rode huge stage race road bikes off road all 
the time.  Even though he broke them EVERY SINGLE SEASON, he still never 
got a second top tube because they are stupid.  He eventually got the best 
Mountain Bike Torch in the history of the world to build him a road bike 
(Tom Ritchey).  Because Jobst was shocked that it didn't break, and because 
Jobst sincerely tried to break it, that proves that the diamond frame is 
sufficient for all riders of all heights and weights, including all cargo 
formats, even when built by factory workers not named Tom Ritchey.  Those 
double-top-tube bikes all over India and China?  That's all for fashion. 
 Those cargo carriers just have the second top tube to look good at the 
chai-wallah."

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA


On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8 Steven Sweedler wrote:

> Bill, you quoted Grant :  
> When he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, 
> was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well 
> enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous 
> Cinellis as an example. 
>
> Steven Sweedler
> Plymouth, New Hampshire
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
>>> Homers.
>>>
>>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
>>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
>>> board with everything they do. 
>>>
>>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
>>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Steven Sweedler]

Bill, you quoted Grant :
When he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary,
was it necessary on any size bike, seems like the diamond frame works well
enough on some pretty large frames, just take a look a Jobst’ enormous
Cinellis as an example.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire


On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the
> bikes they sold."
>
> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email,
> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining
> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a
> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When
> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a
> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED
> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell
> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people
> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top
> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm
> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's
> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they
> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have
> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter
> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing
> for the hand wringers.
>
> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very
> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were
> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube
> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about
> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.
>>
>> That's one way to put it.
>>
>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about
>> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it.
>> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a
>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make
>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves
>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect
>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>
>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the
>> bikes they sold.
>>
>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll
>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and
>> Homers.
>>
>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and
>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on
>> board with everything they do.
>>
>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments
>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front
>> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do
>> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>>
>> cheers -mathias
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago
>>> do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as
>>> PAWNS of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial
>>> Complex!
>>>
>>> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike
>>> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>>>
>>> BL card-carrying in EC
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>>>
 Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.

 I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by
 the design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride
 that for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with
 long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing
 I need.  Yet.  :)

 Will

 On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Piaw Na]

What I’m reading is that most of you concur that Grant is not right all the 
time (with regards to bike design). Big companies are not right all the 
time. He’s right some of the time, as are the big companies. Answer, as 
always, is somewhere in the middle. 


I think it's laughable to think that there can exist such a thing as 
"right" with regards to bike design. It's always "right" for the intended 
rider's use. Some bikes have a very wide performance envelop or some users 
have a very narrow use case but demand perfection within that use case 
(think racers or downhill MTB folks). Not everyone will value the same 
thing. A beginner might not care for the refined Rivendell ride or even 
appreciate it for the carefully thought through geometry (which includes 
selection of tubing). An experienced rider might still consider weight far 
more important than the aesthetics that Grant values.

I consider myself very fortunate in that my use cases match almost 
precisely with the performance envelope Grant designs his bikes for. It 
didn't take long after I first test rode a 1993 Bridgestone RB-1 that I'd 
realized that this was a bike I could live with forever.  30 years later, 
his follow on bikes ride very similarly and are (for my use cases) even 
better. But that's a good 30 years in which I wasn't a Rivendell customer 
and was happily riding various other bikes (one of which is still my 
favorite 1993 Bridgestone RB-1 geometry with minor tweaks). But I have no 
illusions that what works for me works for others. My wife tried a Cheviot 
and immediately bought one because it felt like the bike she'd been riding 
all her life. My friend Arturo tried a Roadeo and immediately tried to buy 
one but since the wait time was too long ended up with a custom Lynskey 
built to the Roadeo's geometry. But a third friend tried my son's Roadini, 
and said something like: "Oh. It's in between my Trek FX2 and my Canyon 
Ultimate." She didn't think it was anything special and I think that's OK. 
What matters is that Rivendell bikes aren't everything for all people (and 
even for myself a big Rivendell fan, not all Rivendell bikes are for me). 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e396e20c-81e7-4ac5-aced-223941438bbcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

What I’m reading is that most of you concur that Grant is not right all the 
time (with regards to bike design). Big companies are not right all the 
time. He’s right some of the time, as are the big companies. Answer, as 
always, is somewhere in the middle. 

It’s a good time to be a cyclist right now with so many choices. I can do a 
fast 40 mile loop on my road bike with all modern components. Then go for a 
leisurely ride with my wife on her Betty Foy on the MUP. What great world 
we live in right now. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:32:20 PM UTC-7 rus...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
> interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
> Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
> I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
> tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
> wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
> Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
> tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 
>
> For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
> measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
> wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
> measured along the seat tube CtoC
>
> 1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0
>
>
> 1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0
>
> 1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5
>
> 1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0
>
>
> 1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0
>
> 1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0
>
>
> 1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5
>
>
> 1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
> 1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0
>
>
> mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0
>
> 1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0
>
>
> Russell Duncan
>
> Saratoga, WY
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold."
>>
>> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
>> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
>> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
>> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
>> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
>> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
>> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
>> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
>> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
>> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
>> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
>> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
>> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
>> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
>> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
>> for the hand wringers.  
>>
>> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
>> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
>> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
>> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
>> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>>
>>> That's one way to put it.
>>>
>>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited 
>>> about them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about 
>>> it. This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>>
>>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>>> bikes they sold. 
>>>
>>> In five years, the dust will have settled on 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Russell Duncan]

I’ve not yet bitten the bullet to buy a Rivendell. I am very much 
interested in owning one, and I really enjoy this discussion group as I do 
Classic Rendevous. First, I would like to get a Waterford built Rivendell. 
I currently own a Waterford 1200 with 753 tubing and I love it. The widest 
tires that I can fit on it are 700 x 26. I have both clincher and tubular 
wheel sets for it and the tubulars are more comfortable. I use Grand Bois 
Cerf Blue label clinchers. They ride well enough but I always return to the 
tubulars when I ride the Waterford. 

For your information here’s a list of my bicycles with chain stay length 
measurements (as measured from center of the BB to the center of the rear 
wheel axle — midway in the dropout if adjustable. The bicycle sizes are 
measured along the seat tube CtoC

1964 58 cm Jack Taylor Sports 45.0


1966 56 cm Raleigh Sports 3-speed 45.0

1973 56 cm Raleigh RRA 42.5

1978 58 cm Raleigh Pro V 42.0


1972/73 56 cm Schwinn (Panasonic) World Voyageur 44.0

1973 58 cm Schwinn Paramount P15 45.0


1977 58 cm Trek TX500 44.5


1972 58 cm Masi GC 42.0

1983 58 cm Masi GC 42.0


mid-1990s 58 cm Davidson Discovery 44.0

1996 58 cm Mercian 44.0

1996 58 cm Waterford 1200 42.0


Russell Duncan

Saratoga, WY

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> "That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
> bikes they sold."
>
> LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
> describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
> resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
> double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
> he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
> fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
> about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
> probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
> hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
> tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
> Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
> half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
> sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
> double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
> "Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
> for the hand wringers.  
>
> I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
> much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
> offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
> Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
> it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>>
>> That's one way to put it.
>>
>> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
>> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
>> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
>> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
>> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
>> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
>> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>>
>> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
>> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
>> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
>> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
>> bikes they sold. 
>>
>> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
>> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
>> Homers.
>>
>> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
>> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
>> board with everything they do. 
>>
>> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
>> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
>> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
>> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>>
>> cheers -mathias
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> All those wanting Rivendell to 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

"That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
bikes they sold."

LOLOLOL!!  Not only do I remember.  I just answered an off-list email, 
describing this thread, and I told them the chain stay complaining 
resembles the same level of handwringing that happened when Grant put a 
double top tube on ONE medium sized Sam Hillborne (it was the 56cm).  When 
he did it, Grant said it was for fun and said it wasn't necessary, but a 
fringe of conventionally minded former Riv fans were absolutely FREAKED 
about it.  The other "culprit" size was the 52cm Bombadil.  Rivendell 
probably made fewer than 10 52cm Bombadil's, but man, were people 
hysterical about it.  The TALL (100PBH) Riv users loved their double top 
tubes, and the hand wringers declared that was OK, but that 56cm 
Hillborne!?! that was TOO FAR!.  And now, in the rear view mirror, it's 
half the bikes they sold?  Spoiler alert: it was not half the bikes they 
sold.  Spoiler alert #2: two Atlantis sizes and one Hilsen size still have 
double top tubes.  The Hillborne doesn't, but it's made with stouter 
"Silver" tubing which is stouter.  That's another cause for handwringing 
for the hand wringers.  

I own a 2009 56cm Hillborne with a single top tube, and I like it very 
much.  I did not want to buy one with a double top tube when they were 
offered.  To those people reading this thread who own a double top tube 
Hillborne: your bike is excellent, despite what somebody else may say about 
it.  You get to decide whether or not your bike looks right or wrong.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:52:22 AM UTC-8 mathiass...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bill wrote:
> >> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   
>
> That's one way to put it.
>
> The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
> them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
> This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
> monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
> your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
> of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
> for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.
>
> That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
> thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
> looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
> the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
> bikes they sold. 
>
> In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll 
> probably find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and 
> Homers.
>
> Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
> made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
> board with everything they do. 
>
> This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
> against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
> wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
> deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.
>
> cheers -mathias
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
>> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
>> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
>> Complex!  
>>
>> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike 
>> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>>
>> BL card-carrying in EC
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>>
>>> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>>>
>>> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by 
>>> the design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride 
>>> that for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
>>> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
>>> I need.  Yet.  :)
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
 chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
 sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
 is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
 chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
 flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 

 On Wednesday, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mathias Steiner]

Bill wrote:
>> Grant's tastes keep evolving.   

That's one way to put it.

The thing with Grant is that he HAS ideas, and that he gets excited about 
them, and that he's put himself in a position to do something about it. 
This is all positive and deserving of respect. Anyone who collects a 
monthly paycheck would do well to picture what it would be like to make 
your income by selling things. Whether it's $4k new bicycles or $8 loaves 
of artisan bread, do some math and you'll come away with a lot of respect 
for people who put their liivelihood on the line like that.

That said, some valid ideas veer into the direction of overdoing a good 
thing. Remember double top tubes on 57 cm Sam Hillbornes? Those never 
looked right to me, and the whole concept has quietly disappeared except on 
the largest frames. And yet, for  a while double tubes were on half the 
bikes they sold. 

In five years, the dust will have settled on chainstays, and we'll probably 
find them still super long on Clems, and less so on Sams and Homers.

Rivendell's philosophy has influenced my riding in a number of ways, and 
made it more enjoyable, for which I'm grateful. That doesn't mean I'm on 
board with everything they do. 

This has been a useful thread to me, because the two counterarguments 
against long chain stays -- maneuverability & being able to lift the front 
wheel -- hadn't occurred to me. I don't do real off-road riding but I do 
deal with curbs a lot, so that's good to know.

cheers -mathias

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
> NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
> of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
> Complex!  
>
> If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike 
> Snob reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)
>
> BL card-carrying in EC
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:
>
>> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>>
>> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
>> design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
>> for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
>> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
>> I need.  Yet.  :)
>>
>> Will
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
>>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
>>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
>>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
>>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
>>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern 
 frame/parts design Bil"

 I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
 distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
 of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
 self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who 
 have 
 always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
 vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
 kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
 chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
 Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  

 That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
 that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
 is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
 aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
 continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
 energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
 at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
 they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
 would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
 making their dream happen.  Keep it up!

 Bill Lindsay
 El Cerrito, CA

 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:

>
> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
> @Bikeforums.net in 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Victor Hanson]

snicker.this is leaning into the disk brakes are better than rim brake
argument!

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:42 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> "Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than
> Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "
>
> Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts.
> Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are good
> bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, if
> they are selling what you want to buy.
>
> Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a
> cream head tube.
>
> Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short
>> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that
>> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17”
>> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed
>> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I
>> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for
>> my usage and terrain.
>> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the
>> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the
>> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain
>> bikes are now.
>> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited
>> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth
>> dirt roads.
>> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the
>> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk
>> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome
>> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your
>> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt.
>> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially
>> ones that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes.
>> But I’d say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an
>> alternative. Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter
>> stays than Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>>
>>> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase)
>>> vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know
>>> it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely
>>> hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long
>>> chain stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old
>>> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of
>>> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short
>>> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths
>>> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted
>>> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is
>>> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan
>>> was still producing them.
>>>
>>> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional"
>>> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones
>>> [super duper long])?
>>>
>>> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics
>>> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even
>>> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>>>
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>>
 I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the
 original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike.

 I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a
 mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it
 to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay
 Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth
 dirt single track, from what I’ve seen.
 We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require
 some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections.
 Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a
 problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and
 get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my
 modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But
 why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter
 wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me.
 All this to say, it depends where you 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

"Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. "

Absolutely true.  Riv employees who want bikes of that kind buy Crusts. 
 Riv-fans who want bikes of that kind should also buy Crusts.  They are 
good bikes and nice people at Crust.  Rivendell also lustily endorses Soma, 
if they are selling what you want to buy.

Riv is not in business to sell you a more expensive lugged Crust with a 
cream head tube.  

Bill "5 Rivendells, 4 Black Mountains, 2 Crusts" Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:

> JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short 
> chainstay bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that 
> point in time. But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” 
> (~430mm) to be short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed 
> it with 16.5” chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I 
> felt it was too short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for 
> my usage and terrain. 
> I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
> “revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
> 90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
> bikes are now. 
> As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
> garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
> dirt roads. 
> And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the 
> length. I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk 
> about a looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome 
> and if the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your 
> weight back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
> Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially ones 
> that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. But I’d 
> say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an alternative. 
> Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
> Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
>
>> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) 
>> vs. long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know 
>> it when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely 
>> hear about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>>
>> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
>> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
>> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
>> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
>> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
>> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
>> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
>> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
>> was still producing them. 
>>
>> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
>> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
>> [super duper long])? 
>>  
>> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
>> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
>> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>
>>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>>
>>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type 
>>> of trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago do 
NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as PAWNS 
of the T IC.  Resist the pressures of the Time and Date Industrial 
Complex!  

If you don't get the reference then you are neither a blagh nor a Bike Snob 
reader and SHOULD have your Riv card revoked.  :)

BL card-carrying in EC

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-8 Will Boericke wrote:

> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>
> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
> design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
> for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
> I need.  Yet.  :)
>
> Will
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
>>> design Bil"
>>>
>>> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
>>> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
>>> of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
>>> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
>>> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
>>> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
>>> kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
>>> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
>>> Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  
>>>
>>> That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
>>> that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
>>>  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
>>> is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
>>> aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
>>> continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
>>>  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
>>> energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
>>> at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
>>> they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
>>> would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
>>> making their dream happen.  Keep it up!
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>

 People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
 @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
 makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
 prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
 couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling 
 publications 
 like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
 Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
 to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that 
 has 
 the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
 vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
 love anything "new" and lots that don't. 

 The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
 beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
 crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
 triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 

 As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames 
 and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
 interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
 non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short chainstay 
bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that point in time. 
But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” (~430mm) to be 
short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed it with 16.5” 
chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I felt it was too 
short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for my usage and 
terrain. 
I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the 
“revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the 
90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain 
bikes are now. 
As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited 
garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth 
dirt roads. 
And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the length. 
I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk about a 
looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome and if 
the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your weight 
back far enough to bite down on the dirt. 
Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially ones 
that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. But I’d 
say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an alternative. 
Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than 
Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them. 

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:

> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) vs. 
> long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know it 
> when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely hear 
> about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>
> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
> was still producing them. 
>
> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
> [super duper long])? 
>  
> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>
>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
>> trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
>> glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
>> Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
>> Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv 
>> enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and 
>> Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, 
>> really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB 
>> with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
>>> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[George Schick]

Ian sez, "...I still daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could 
ride forever, I understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and 
embrace change, and know that change is the only real constant, but it's 
not always for the better"

I began serious riding in the midst of the early 70's "bike boom" and have 
owned and ridden probably a dozen different bikes in the 50+ years since.  
Prior to that, I've had bikes ever since the mid-50's - a cantilever framed 
Schwinn with 24" wheels to start, then a 3-speed IGH Raleigh knock-off, 
then a cheap 10-speed.  I, too, have always been in search of the "perfect" 
bike that I could ride for the remainder of my life.  I finally dialed in 
on such a bike when I bought my Ram back in '04.  I'm approaching 75 now 
(IOW, "middle" old age) and still find it perfect fit.  I wish I would have 
had that bike way back when I began riding more seriously. It was basically 
a production model of what Riv called the "long low."  Everything about it 
is just perfect (for me anyway).

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:46:56 AM UTC-6 ian m wrote:

> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:11:06 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  
>
>
>  I too had the same Clem origin story. I had always wanted a Riv but 
> couldn't afford one at the time while I was daily riding, touring, and 
> offroading an my '90 Fisher MTB. When the Clem was announced I was over the 
> moon, it sounded like it was designed just for me and the lower price point 
> meant I could stop dreaming of falling into some money to buy a Hunq and 
> get my first Riv. I think it's unfortunate that it was designed around the 
> Bosco bars which made it impossible for me to get a good fit with less 
> aggressively upright bars, and soon found out the extra long chainstays 
> made it a chore to lift the front end even enough to clear sharp tree roots.
> With the Clem not being up to off-road duty where I live I picked up a 
> Jones Plus LWB to hit the trails on and what a revelation. Similar 
> wheelbase length but it's the front center that is extended rather than the 
> rear triangle, so the bike felt incredibly nimble and handled 
> fantastically. Really smart design. Unfortunately I had to sell a bike to 
> free up some funds and chose the Jones over the Clem which I regret.
>
> I also wish that not every Riv model had growing chainstays. I still 
> daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could ride forever, I 
> understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and embrace change, and 
> know that change is the only real constant, but it's not always for the 
> better.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bdb7cfa2-bc3c-40f5-98f3-f29a9096d4b3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

the "long" chainstays on the pictured Atlantis, referred to in the picture 
of highlighted text, were "long" at the time, because the manufacturers who 
made those frames (Toyo and Waterford) had chain stays that long.  They 
would either cut them down to the desired length or leave them that length. 
 There was no such thing as longer than that from those two manufacturers. 
 Grant was designing bikes in a phone booth of manufacturing constraints.  

Grant's current manufacturer relationship has fewer constraints in some 
places, and more constraints in others.  He's still designing in a phone 
booth, but it's a different phone booth.  

What Grant comes up with in the future depends on the size and shape of the 
phone booth in the future.  

Grant's tastes keep evolving.  Those waiting for Grant's tastes to revert 
to some other time in Riv-history, or return back to some previous 
conventional forms are probably going to have to be very patient.  Whatever 
he comes up with next, I would be willing to bet it has never existed 
before.  If you are waiting for Rivendell to release a lugged clone of some 
other bike, that's not their jam.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:55:01 AM UTC-8 J J wrote:

> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) vs. 
> long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know it 
> when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely hear 
> about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.  
>
> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain 
> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old 
> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of 
> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short 
> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths 
> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted 
> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is 
> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan 
> was still producing them. 
>
> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional" 
> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones 
> [super duper long])? 
>  
> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics 
> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even 
> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 
>>
>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require 
>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. 
>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a 
>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and 
>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my 
>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But 
>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter 
>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. 
>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
>> trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
>> glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
>> Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
>> Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv 
>> enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and 
>> Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, 
>> really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB 
>> with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
>>> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
>>> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
>>> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
>>> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
>>> morphed into something else, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

I think Riv are pretty transparent about their intentions with the Gus/Susie bikes. They came up with “Hillibike” to differentiate from true (modern) mountain bikes. I too had a Jones 29 - not the spaceframe - a Diamond frame with Unicrown fork. Its modern equivalent is a Jones SWB. It was indeed a very fun, capable & versatile bike. For various reasons - some legit, some not - I decided I needed full suspension. I got this Ibis Mojo3, 27.5+ bike. On the trails I frequent, with lots of roots, some rocks, some switchbacks & generally pretty rowdy - but nothing like Utah - I was faster on the Ibis. But, I was not very comfortable. Because I had the Ibis I sold the Jones. I bought my Clem L to take its place as my everything except mountain biking duties. The Clem was transformational comfort wise. And, it is indeed capable & fun on mild trails. It convinced me I needed a Gus. I find the Gus & Clem similar but very different. The higher bottom bracket, stiffer frame & 29’er wheels make it a singletrack delight. Slower & less nimble than the Jones or Ibis? Probably. But I just don’t care. It’s just such a blast & oh so comfortable. The first time I did a serious trail on it (35 miles!) I called Riv to share my enthusiasm. Will answered. I told him they (Riv) could call their bikes anything they wanted to but it (my Gus) is a mountain bike!The transparency part is this; Riv does not endorse the thought that anything you can walk you should be able to ride. As I near 70 years of age, I endorse that notion. If I cannot clear a section on the Gus, I probably should not be doing it anyway!:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 9:08 AM, Hoch in ut  wrote:I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me. All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't feel the need to produce that particular tool.If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.    Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[ian m]

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:11:06 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote:

Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  


 I too had the same Clem origin story. I had always wanted a Riv but 
couldn't afford one at the time while I was daily riding, touring, and 
offroading an my '90 Fisher MTB. When the Clem was announced I was over the 
moon, it sounded like it was designed just for me and the lower price point 
meant I could stop dreaming of falling into some money to buy a Hunq and 
get my first Riv. I think it's unfortunate that it was designed around the 
Bosco bars which made it impossible for me to get a good fit with less 
aggressively upright bars, and soon found out the extra long chainstays 
made it a chore to lift the front end even enough to clear sharp tree roots.
With the Clem not being up to off-road duty where I live I picked up a 
Jones Plus LWB to hit the trails on and what a revelation. Similar 
wheelbase length but it's the front center that is extended rather than the 
rear triangle, so the bike felt incredibly nimble and handled 
fantastically. Really smart design. Unfortunately I had to sell a bike to 
free up some funds and chose the Jones over the Clem which I regret.

I also wish that not every Riv model had growing chainstays. I still 
daydream of owning a beautiful lugged Riv that I could ride forever, I 
understand and appreciate their drive to innovate and embrace change, and 
know that change is the only real constant, but it's not always for the 
better.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3d7bc671-7dfa-488e-8e89-6536c072bd4en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the 
original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike. 

I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a 
mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it 
to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay 
Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth 
dirt single track, from what I’ve seen. 
We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require some 
tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections. Whooptie 
doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a problem for 
the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and get off and 
walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my modern mountain 
bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But why walk when you 
can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter wheelbase bikes. 
Not fun. For me. 
All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of 
trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that. 
Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m 
glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles. 
Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate. 
Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv enthusiasts, 
I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and Wolbis are 
almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis, really. Will said 
the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB with 2.4” tire 
clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :) 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones 
> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of 
> it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved 
> that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  
>
> Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's 
> comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're 
> talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through 
> scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I 
> think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream 
> sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't 
> feel the need to produce that particular tool.
>
> If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' 
> bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to 
> make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's 
> what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.
> Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of 
> every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big 
> wheels into as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube 
> and re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work 
> with the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now 
> commonplace.
>
> The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely 
> mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance 
> and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The 
> "riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be 
> perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I 
> have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)
>
> The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and, 
> arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for 
> others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away 
> from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now 
> evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and 
> buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40 
> years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer, 
> slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike 
> industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas, 
> now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.  
>
> I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also 
> from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Richard Rose]

You don’t know you “need” it until you’ve lived with it.:)Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 7, 2024, at 1:36 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:Eric D asked what model Treks.  Good question, as I just walked in on the sout side of the store and exited on the north side. The bikes are lined up in the 2-stack wall-mounted stands. Flat bars, sloping top tube, tall headtube, flat black with large diameter tubes, disc brakes, nothing I am going to do a double take on, for sure. But since the shop is on the other side of town and it is fun to look at the Paramount, and Cinelli, and Colnago in there, might as well take a gander at the long chainstay bikes. I can always ask about the mt bike rentals too. FYI, Foothill Cycles on Foothill in SLO towards the campus side of town. Mike SLO CA. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:What Treks did you see? Looking at their website, I don't see anything that long, outside their Electra cruisers. Trek has a LOT of models though, so it's easy to overlook something.EricOn Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:Went to my LBS looking for a bike box, and there is one wall with new long-chain stay-wheelbase Treks ready to ride out the door. I figured someone would copy Riv sooner or later. People have been copying Riv since late in the last century, much like folks are copying RH tires since about 2010. I guess they know a good thing when they ride it.Mike SLO CA On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who love anything "new" and lots that don't. The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have bailed on Specialized entirely.  What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth.  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike.  There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Will Boericke]

Here's an example of an extra long MTB, Esker's Hayduke.  I think there's a
shorter version but this one is definitely long.

Will

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024, 2:11 AM iamkeith  wrote:

> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones
> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.
>
> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated,
> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because
> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I
> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of
> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of
> it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved
> that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.
>
> Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's
> comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're
> talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through
> scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I
> think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream
> sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't
> feel the need to produce that particular tool.
>
> If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones'
> bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to
> make a 29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's
> what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.
> Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of
> every other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big
> wheels into as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube
> and re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work
> with the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now
> commonplace.
>
> The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely
> mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance
> and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The
> "riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be
> perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I
> have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)
>
> The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and,
> arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for
> others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away
> from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now
> evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and
> buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40
> years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer,
> slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike
> industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas,
> now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.
>
> I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also
> from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that approached
> the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and criticized to no
> end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and wheelbases - to the
> point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold the company.  They
> were probably on the right track years early, but closed-minded critics and
> a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and progress for a decade and a
> half or more.  I had to go to the wayback machine to find this, but here
> they talk about that battle.  It's interesting to read in retrospect.
> (This was the real point of my now long-winded post.)(The other interesting
> thing to look at would be the relentless vassago hate threads from
> contemporary mtbr forums.):
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html
>
> I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when, in
> reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things,
> opinions of others be damned.  And Jones, on a whole other track.
>
> Last thought:  I have several older more-traditional rivendell models,
> with short stays and near-level top tubes.  I'm so accustomed to them after
> years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever
> upgrade.  But they look dated to my eye - not "classic."  Longer stays,
> sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me.  It's  a bit
> form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones?
>> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[iamkeith]

Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones LWB, 
or a Clem or other Rivendell model?  Your post brings up some thoughts.

Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated, 
proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because 
that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant.   But I 
admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe.  So it kind of 
morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding.  Then I got rid of 
it to get a Susie.  It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved 
that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that.  I was lucky to get it back.  

Different tools  for different tasks.  But along the lines of Bill's 
comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're 
talking about:  Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops,"  riding through 
scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,.  I 
think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream 
sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't 
feel the need to produce that particular tool.

If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones' bikes 
was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to make a 
29er ride like a 26er  (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's what 
people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.Every 
bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of every 
other bike.  Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big wheels into 
as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube and 
re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work with 
the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork.  All features that are now 
commonplace.

The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that closely 
mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like balance 
and better rider body position,  comfort, and fore-aft weighting.  The 
"riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor.  Again, the result might not be 
perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary.  (Disclaimer:  I 
have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)

The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and, 
arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for 
others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away 
from the copy-cat mindset.  That's why mountain bike design is still now 
evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and 
buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't  advanced for 40 
years.  (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer, 
slacker front ends.)  You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike 
industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar.  Whereas, 
now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.  

I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though.  Vassago - also 
from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that approached 
the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and criticized to no 
end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and wheelbases - to the 
point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold the company.  They 
were probably on the right track years early, but closed-minded critics and 
a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and progress for a decade and a 
half or more.  I had to go to the wayback machine to find this, but here 
they talk about that battle.  It's interesting to read in retrospect.  
(This was the real point of my now long-winded post.)(The other interesting 
thing to look at would be the relentless vassago hate threads from 
contemporary mtbr forums.):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html

I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when, in 
reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things, 
opinions of others be damned.  And Jones, on a whole other track.

Last thought:  I have several older more-traditional rivendell models, with 
short stays and near-level top tubes.  I'm so accustomed to them after 
years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever 
upgrade.  But they look dated to my eye - not "classic."  Longer stays, 
sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me.  It's  a bit 
form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.


On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:

> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones? 
> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like crazy. 
> Switchbacks and tight turns were a chore. Up and down techy Boulder 
> sections, the bash guard was getting a workout. Stopped me dead in my 
> tracks a few times. 
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Do 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mike Godwin]

Eric D asked what model Treks.  Good question, as I just walked in on the 
sout side of the store and exited on the north side. The bikes are lined up 
in the 2-stack wall-mounted stands. Flat bars, sloping top tube, tall 
headtube, flat black with large diameter tubes, disc brakes, nothing I am 
going to do a double take on, for sure. But since the shop is on the other 
side of town and it is fun to look at the Paramount, and Cinelli, and 
Colnago in there, might as well take a gander at the long chainstay bikes. 
I can always ask about the mt bike rentals too. FYI, Foothill Cycles on 
Foothill in SLO towards the campus side of town. 
Mike SLO CA. 

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-8 Eric Daume wrote:

> What Treks did you see? Looking at their website, I don't see anything 
> that long, outside their Electra cruisers. Trek has a LOT of models though, 
> so it's easy to overlook something.
>
> Eric
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:
>
>> Went to my LBS looking for a bike box, and there is one wall with new 
>> long-chain stay-wheelbase Treks ready to ride out the door. I figured 
>> someone would copy Riv sooner or later. People have been copying Riv since 
>> late in the last century, much like folks are copying RH tires since about 
>> 2010. 
>>
>> I guess they know a good thing when they ride it.
>> Mike SLO CA 
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
>>> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
>>> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
>>> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
>>> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
>>> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
>>> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
>>> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
>>> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
>>> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
>>> love anything "new" and lots that don't. 
>>>
>>> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
>>> beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
>>> crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
>>> triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 
>>>
>>> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
>>> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
>>> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
>>> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
 themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.  
 It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.  
 There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
 griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
 bailed on Specialized entirely.  

 What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want 
 to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like 
 any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does 
 not 
 care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
 and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
  
 Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.  
 They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
 out 
 making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going 
 to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
 somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
 bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else 
 and/or 
 have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
 like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
 Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
 for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If 
 you 
 want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, 
 and 
 be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  

 The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 
 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
 keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike. 
  
 There is 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones? 
For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like crazy. 
Switchbacks and tight turns were a chore. Up and down techy Boulder 
sections, the bash guard was getting a workout. Stopped me dead in my 
tracks a few times. 

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  
>
> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
> design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
> for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
> I need.  Yet.  :)
>
> Will
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
>>> design Bil"
>>>
>>> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
>>> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
>>> of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
>>> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
>>> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
>>> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
>>> kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
>>> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
>>> Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  
>>>
>>> That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
>>> that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
>>>  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
>>> is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
>>> aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
>>> continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
>>>  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
>>> energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
>>> at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
>>> they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
>>> would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
>>> making their dream happen.  Keep it up!
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>

 People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
 @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
 makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
 prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
 couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling 
 publications 
 like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
 Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
 to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that 
 has 
 the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
 vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
 love anything "new" and lots that don't. 

 The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
 beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
 crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
 triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 

 As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames 
 and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
 interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
 non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
 On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
>  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
> griping about 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Will Boericke]

Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question?  Heresy.  

I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by the 
design.  My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride that 
for dirt touring.  It is interesting to see some small mtb makers with 
long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there.  Just not a thing 
I need.  Yet.  :)

Will

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:

> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
>> design Bil"
>>
>> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
>> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
>> of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
>> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
>> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
>> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
>> kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
>> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
>> Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  
>>
>> That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of 
>> that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
>>  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
>> is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
>> aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
>> continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
>>  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
>> energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
>> at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
>> they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
>> would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
>> making their dream happen.  Keep it up!
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
>>> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
>>> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
>>> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
>>> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
>>> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
>>> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
>>> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
>>> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
>>> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
>>> love anything "new" and lots that don't. 
>>>
>>> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
>>> beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
>>> crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
>>> triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 
>>>
>>> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
>>> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
>>> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
>>> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
 I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
 themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
 griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
 bailed on Specialized entirely.  

 What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want 
 to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like 
 any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does 
 not 
 care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
 and pay their people 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Piaw Na]

My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm 
chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more 
sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour 2cm 
is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm 
chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for 
flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen. 

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
> design Bil"
>
> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
> of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
> kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
> Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  
>
> That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of that 
> pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
>  Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
> is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
> aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
> continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
>  That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
> energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
> at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
> they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
> would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
> making their dream happen.  Keep it up!
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>
>>
>> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
>> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
>> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
>> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
>> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
>> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
>> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
>> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
>> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
>> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
>> love anything "new" and lots that don't. 
>>
>> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far 
>> beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest 
>> crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and 
>> triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 
>>
>> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
>> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
>> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
>> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
>>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>>>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
>>>  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
>>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
>>> bailed on Specialized entirely.  
>>>
>>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want 
>>> to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like 
>>> any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
>>> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
>>> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
>>>  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow. 
>>>  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
>>> out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always 
>>> going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
>>> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
>>> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
>>> have never been made 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern frame/parts 
design Bil"

I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers.  The 
distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a forum 
of users like Rivendell.  In this Riv Group, the participants 
self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who have 
always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now 
vigorously disapprove of Rivendell.  There's no other brand that gets that 
kind of devotion.  There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720, 
chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your 
Emonda!  Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"  

That was point #1.  Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware of that 
pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that person. 
 Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.  Rivendell 
is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your Bombadil, and so 
aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them -AND- 
continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving you are. 
 That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and appreciates the 
energy.  They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want to yell 
at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the forum, 
they love it.  When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and PRAYED that it 
would be loved and ridden for a century.  You are well on your way to 
making their dream happen.  Keep it up!

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:

>
> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
> love anything "new" and lots that don't. 
>
> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far beyond 
> anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest crank 
> manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and triples and 
> they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 
>
> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
>>  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
>> bailed on Specialized entirely.  
>>
>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to 
>> exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any 
>> of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
>> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
>> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
>>  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow. 
>>  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
>> out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always 
>> going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
>> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
>> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
>> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
>> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
>> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
>> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you 
>> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and 
>> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  
>>
>> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 
>> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
>> keyboard 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Eric Daume]

What Treks did you see? Looking at their website, I don't see anything that
long, outside their Electra cruisers. Trek has a LOT of models though, so
it's easy to overlook something.

Eric

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:50 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:

> Went to my LBS looking for a bike box, and there is one wall with new
> long-chain stay-wheelbase Treks ready to ride out the door. I figured
> someone would copy Riv sooner or later. People have been copying Riv since
> late in the last century, much like folks are copying RH tires since about
> 2010.
>
> I guess they know a good thing when they ride it.
> Mike SLO CA
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>
>>
>> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it
>> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage
>> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much
>> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a
>> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications
>> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time.
>> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work
>> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has
>> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into
>> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who
>> love anything "new" and lots that don't.
>>
>> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far
>> beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest
>> crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and
>> triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them.
>>
>> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and
>> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses
>> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and
>> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for.
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather
>>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.
>>> It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.
>>> There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are
>>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have
>>> bailed on Specialized entirely.
>>>
>>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want
>>> to exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like
>>> any of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not
>>> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on
>>> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth.
>>> Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.
>>> They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan out
>>> making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going
>>> to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that
>>> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The
>>> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or
>>> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes
>>> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so
>>> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic
>>> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you
>>> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and
>>> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.
>>>
>>> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built
>>> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their
>>> keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike.
>>> There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel
>>> like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something
>>> else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic
>>> Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of
>>> traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's
>>> not what they felt like doing.
>>>
>>> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the
>>> bikes you like, buy them and ride them.
>>>
>>> Bill Lindsay
>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that
 is as long as I need.

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:

> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the

[RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Hoch in ut]

I’m not a fan of long chainstays, either, FOR MY TYPE OF RIDING. 
When I’m cruising around on bike paths and paved roads, long chainstays are 
fine. For everything else, I much prefer the typical 430-440mm chainstays, 
like the older Rivendells. 
I sold my old Hunqapillar and bought a Clem. And very much regret it. 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7:27:30 AM UTC-7 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:

> I tried an Atlantis but was not enamored. Sold it and got a Hillborne 
> which I love but still not as much as my finally found Saluki but like it a 
> lot. I am probably in the minority here but I know there must be others who 
> share my sentiments. I have had so many Rivs, 2 roads, one custom when they 
> were custom Roads, Ram, Saluki, Bleriot, Atlantis, AR. I know I am leaving 
> some out but you get the picture. The shorter wheelbase suits me well and 
> is easier to manage bringing it into my sunroom and basement. 
>
> Not meant to offend anyone, just my preference. 
>
> Joel
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/90ef9d3b-2a20-4b79-a82e-4c83ff9c2f6dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mike Godwin]

Went to my LBS looking for a bike box, and there is one wall with new 
long-chain stay-wheelbase Treks ready to ride out the door. I figured 
someone would copy Riv sooner or later. People have been copying Riv since 
late in the last century, much like folks are copying RH tires since about 
2010. 

I guess they know a good thing when they ride it.
Mike SLO CA 
On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:

>
> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
> @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
> love anything "new" and lots that don't. 
>
> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far beyond 
> anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest crank 
> manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and triples and 
> they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 
>
> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
> makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
> interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
> non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
>>  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
>> bailed on Specialized entirely.  
>>
>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to 
>> exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any 
>> of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
>> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
>> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
>>  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow. 
>>  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
>> out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always 
>> going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
>> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
>> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
>> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
>> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
>> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
>> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you 
>> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and 
>> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  
>>
>> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 
>> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
>> keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike. 
>>  There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel 
>> like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something 
>> else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic 
>> Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of 
>> traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's 
>> not what they felt like doing.  
>>
>> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the 
>> bikes you like, buy them and ride them.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that 
>>> is as long as I need. 
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:
>>>
 I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the 
 Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. 
 I 
 found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
 This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
 bike. If I had 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Garth]

People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do it 
@Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All vintage 
makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much 
prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF. There's a 
couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling publications 
like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the time. 
Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they work 
to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community that has 
the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down into 
vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders who 
love anything "new" and lots that don't. 

The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far beyond 
anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest crank 
manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and triples and 
they manufacture Riv's cranks for them. 

As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta frames and 
makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other people/businesses 
interested in having steel frames(stock and custom), friction shifters and 
non-disc hubs made so there's very little if anything I shop @Riv for. 
On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
>  It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
>  There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
> bailed on Specialized entirely.  
>
> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to 
> exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any 
> of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
>  Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow. 
>  They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
> out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always 
> going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you 
> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and 
> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  
>
> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 
> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
> keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike. 
>  There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel 
> like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something 
> else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic 
> Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of 
> traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's 
> not what they felt like doing.  
>
> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the 
> bikes you like, buy them and ride them.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that 
>> is as long as I need. 
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:
>>
>>> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the 
>>> Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I 
>>> found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
>>> This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
>>> bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have 
>>> available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter 
>>> frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a 
>>> regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my 
>>> Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that 
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Armand Kizirian]

I bought my Platypus because the long chainstays were part of having a 
bicycle that is designed around the upright riding position, 
differentiating it from the 80's mtb's I've turned into upright commuters 
in the past. 

If you have multiple Rivendells and wish to buy one with shorter 
chainstays, sounds like a quality problem to me. ;) 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8 vhans...@gmail.com wrote:

> that's shear brilliance!   Long chainstays don't matter a  single 
> attribute.  It's the complete frame design that matters.  At any rate 
> design and fit are the second most important.  A kook taught me: "first 
> you; then style and fit, then stuff
>
> VTW
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:13 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.  
>> It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.  
>> There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
>> bailed on Specialized entirely.  
>>
>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to 
>> exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any 
>> of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
>> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
>> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth.  
>> Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.  
>> They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan out 
>> making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going 
>> to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
>> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
>> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
>> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
>> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
>> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
>> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you 
>> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and 
>> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  
>>
>> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 
>> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
>> keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike.  
>> There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel 
>> like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something 
>> else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic 
>> Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of 
>> traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's 
>> not what they felt like doing.  
>>
>> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the 
>> bikes you like, buy them and ride them.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that 
>>> is as long as I need. 
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:
>>>
 I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the 
 Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. 
 I 
 found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
 This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
 bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have 
 available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter 
 frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a 
 regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride 
 my 
 Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that 
 situation.


 -- 
 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/P5Cfxk3lrN8/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
 rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>>
> You 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Victor Hanson]

that's shear brilliance!   Long chainstays don't matter a  single
attribute.  It's the complete frame design that matters.  At any rate
design and fit are the second most important.  A kook taught me: "first
you; then style and fit, then stuff

VTW

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:13 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather
> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes.
> It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.
> There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are
> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have
> bailed on Specialized entirely.
>
> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to
> exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any
> of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not
> care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on
> and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth.
> Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow.
> They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan out
> making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always going
> to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that
> somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The
> bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or
> have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes
> like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so
> Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic
> for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you
> want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and
> be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.
>
> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built
> 3x1 road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their
> keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike.
> There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel
> like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something
> else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic
> Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of
> traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's
> not what they felt like doing.
>
> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the
> bikes you like, buy them and ride them.
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that
>> is as long as I need.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:
>>
>>> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the
>>> Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I
>>> found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track.
>>> This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the
>>> bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have
>>> available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter
>>> frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a
>>> regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my
>>> Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/P5Cfxk3lrN8/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/179740ec-1a1a-470f-8da4-f6737c2d20a7n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
*VIctor R. Hanson*
*Gen Mgr*
*Schmier Industrial 

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Bill Lindsay]

I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather 
themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer makes. 
 It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get. 
 There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans are 
griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias.  All those nostalgic cyclists have 
bailed on Specialized entirely.  

What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they want to 
exist.  If you like one and want to buy it, great.  If you don't like any 
of them and buy something else, that's also great.  They (Riv) does not 
care about making money, except to the extent they can keep the lights on 
and pay their people a modest living wage.  They do not care about growth. 
 Actually, they probably have made up their minds that they can't grow. 
 They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to sell, and they plan 
out making that many bikes.  That very limited number of bikes is always 
going to be "whatever they feel like making".  They count on the fact that 
somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for them.  The 
bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere else and/or 
have never been made before.  When they made the Saluki circa 2007, bikes 
like the Saluki didn't exist.  Today, bikes like the Saluki do exist, so 
Riv doesn't have to make them.  The fact that some Riv-fans are nostalgic 
for former models is touching, but they don't make nostalgia models. If you 
want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride the heck out of it, and 
be happy.  That's what Riv would tell you.  

The Roaduno is the classic, IMO.  They love the idea of a purpose built 3x1 
road bike.  Nobody...not a single person on earth is pounding on their 
keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1 road bike. 
 There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway, because they feel 
like it.  If you buy it, great.  If you don't, they hope you find something 
else that you do want to buy.  It's perfectly logical for you nostalgic 
Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money and did a run of 
traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis"  Yep, they could have.  That's 
not what they felt like doing.  

My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv.  Seek out the 
bikes you like, buy them and ride them.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com wrote:

> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that is 
> as long as I need. 
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:
>
>> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the 
>> Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I 
>> found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
>> This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
>> bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have 
>> available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter 
>> frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a 
>> regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my 
>> Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that 
>> situation.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/P5Cfxk3lrN8/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/179740ec-1a1a-470f-8da4-f6737c2d20a7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Eric Daume]

My guess is that Grant thinks the long chainstays are the clear winner, so
why make a lesser design? (I completely understand they aren't a clear win
for everybody)

It's also a way to differentiate Riv products--there aren't that many long
chainstay bikes around.

Eric

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 11:56 AM Brian Turner  wrote:

> I've groused about this before a bit, - it's more about the fact that I
> think that design characteristic is great for certain models, but doesn't
> need to be applied to the majority of the Rivendell lineup, IMO. As the
> owner of a Gus, I think it's great for that bike and it's intended purpose.
> It's extremely comfortable to ride, both on and especially off road. Same
> with Susie of course, and also Clems and Joes. What I can't understand is,
> instead of having two such similarly designed and equipped models as the
> Atlantis and Appaloosa, why not have just the Appaloosa be the long-stay
> version for those who want that feature in a touring-capable, all-purpose
> frame? I just don't understand this, given how they couldn't justify having
> both the Gus and the Susie / Wolbis and ended up discontinuing the Gus. At
> least with those models there was more distinct differences than I can find
> in the Atlantis and the Appaloosa. I think the venerated Atlantis should be
> returned to its more traditional touring frame geometry with stays that are
> closer in length to say, a Sam Hillborne.
>
> The super-long wheelbase does make traveling with, and storing the bike a
> lot more cumbersome. I understand how it affects the ride and handling of
> the bike, but to me, I'm not sure it is enough of a selling point to make
> me want to purchase any other Riv with long chainstays.
>
> Brian
> Lex KY
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/95dae2b8-41fc-4b97-9eab-e94df7a187edn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAHFNW5B4%2BSShtoi22Lc_HiF4UKS%2B9sx3VXHMsRWVZH4n65NetQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[J S]

I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well but that is
as long as I need.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham  wrote:

> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the
> Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I
> found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track.
> This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the
> bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have
> available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter
> frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a
> regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my
> Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that
> situation.
>
>
> --
> 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/P5Cfxk3lrN8/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAPjfky_OD43UA8hTKq_aFnMi99cvQndPgEp%3D0-ASCAE3ZOsbWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Mackenzy Albright]

for an upright bike I *love* the long chain stays on my Clementine for off 
road climbing and descending. I don't struggle much with technical riding - 
except it can be a little more hard to avoid certain roots or rocks. The 
29er tires eat that up though. 

I *do* miss having a short wheelbase nimble bike for more spirited riding. 
I would choose my Clem if I could only have one bike. I definitely prefer 
having a short wheelbase bike around though. 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:00:28 AM UTC-8 Tim Bantham wrote:

> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the 
> Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I 
> found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
> This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
> bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have 
> available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter 
> frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a 
> regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my 
> Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that 
> situation.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/58f6594e-8374-4901-8cd5-eb0f250e05fbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Tim Bantham]

I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For example, the Clem 
I bought a few years ago was intended to be an analog mountain bike. I 
found the long chainstays to be a liability for east coast single track. 
This is especially the case with tight turns and the need to carry the 
bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB riding that I have 
available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and a lighter 
frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as compared to a 
regular road/gravel  bike. Definitely noticeable on the descents. I ride my 
Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay really shines in that 
situation.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Anyone else not a fan of the very long chainstays?

[Brian Turner]

I've groused about this before a bit, - it's more about the fact that I 
think that design characteristic is great for certain models, but doesn't 
need to be applied to the majority of the Rivendell lineup, IMO. As the 
owner of a Gus, I think it's great for that bike and it's intended purpose. 
It's extremely comfortable to ride, both on and especially off road. Same 
with Susie of course, and also Clems and Joes. What I can't understand is, 
instead of having two such similarly designed and equipped models as the 
Atlantis and Appaloosa, why not have just the Appaloosa be the long-stay 
version for those who want that feature in a touring-capable, all-purpose 
frame? I just don't understand this, given how they couldn't justify having 
both the Gus and the Susie / Wolbis and ended up discontinuing the Gus. At 
least with those models there was more distinct differences than I can find 
in the Atlantis and the Appaloosa. I think the venerated Atlantis should be 
returned to its more traditional touring frame geometry with stays that are 
closer in length to say, a Sam Hillborne.

The super-long wheelbase does make traveling with, and storing the bike a 
lot more cumbersome. I understand how it affects the ride and handling of 
the bike, but to me, I'm not sure it is enough of a selling point to make 
me want to purchase any other Riv with long chainstays.

Brian
Lex KY


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/95dae2b8-41fc-4b97-9eab-e94df7a187edn%40googlegroups.com.