Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Thanks, Keith; noted about the spec limits of those bikes. I'll be interested to hear of your experiences as you continue to modify yours. And yes, nothing like a test ride. But fully 3" 622 tires are non-negotiable in my instance, so I'll regretfully rule out Hillibikes. Add to this another commentator's opinion that the Hillibikes do not lend themselves to a pedaling style that favors saddle-back, torso-forward, low-cadence torquing at low r's pm; and that is the way I ride, particularly since the hypothesized bike in question, a Monocog replacement, would be geared at about 65" yet still have to negotiate sand up to 4" deep. On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:39 PM iamkeith wrote: > Patrick, > > Also remember that the hillibikes were designed with 2.6" MAX tires in > mind. At some point, using wheels/rubber with a different overall diameter > than intended is going to negatively affect the way a bike is > experienced. It could work both ways (whether you go bigger or smaller), > but will alter trail/steering, bb height/center of gravity, and probably > some less obvious things that I'm not considering. The availability of > suitable rims and brakes undoubtedly had something to do with the design > choices, but there always has to be a narrow, "optimal" size range. I > wouldn't be surprised if this is why Grant so often makes the fork crown > the critical clearance spot: extra width helps in the case of a bent rim, > but extra height only encourages too-big tires. > > I'm not totally comfortable telling you how you might like the bike, > because I'm still dialing it in myself. I pushed the tire size moslty > because I couldn't find a slick tire in 29x2.6, so I might end up with > something smaller but more aggressive than I thought I wanted, before > settling on the optimum solution. I'll probably end up with a different > handlebar, too. ( I went through half a dozen on my Clem, before I ended > up with the ones currently transfered to my Susie - but they're different > bikes.) > > I think you should see if someone on the list has one in your area that > you could try. I'd be willing to bet that a good, supple, 2.6 tire could > give you exactly what you want, if the rest of the fit and handling are to > your liking. I'm heavier than you, so *everything* should work better > for you. But, bottom line again is this: if you really want 3" or bigger > tires, you probably want a bike designed around them. > > > > > On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 9:36:47 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> OK, I understand you now: 3" fit fine **except** under the fork crown. >> Too bad. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:13 PM iamkeith wrote: >> >>> No way three inch tires are fitting under the fork crown on Susie. >>> Here's a pic from a ride last eek (snow came very late this year, and I >>> regretfully decided to push my luck on a wet, dirt road.) >>> >>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 6:49:14 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: >>> Keith: Thanks for this, very good to know. You said that 75 mm tires (2.95") fit with ample room to spare on the Susie Longbolts; thus true 3 inchers -- 76 mm -- should fit at more than a pinch; right? (That's a question, asking for an answer.) So, I hope that the Suzy is a true option for a sand cruiser, as far as tire width goes. Next question: You say, Rivs encourage seated pedaling. This worries me, because I like high-torque, low-rpm pedaling, and this is not for chainstay reasons, but rather because I find it more comfortable -- I feel more efficient torquing at low rpm, and I run out of breath when I sit and twiddle uphill; even in my breathless senescence, I like shoving back behind the bb and shoving forward on the pedals. Doubtless much of this is habituation; I used to be a twiddler who would maintain 21-23 mph over long distances on the flat in a 64" gear; but even in these years I'd rarely used the lower gears on my cassette, and very clearly recall standing to climb while shifting down just 5 or 10 gear inches under my 65" - 70" cruising gears (now, 25 years later, my cruising gears are more like 7--75"). At any rate, I like to torque, and find 60" a nice climbing gear for moderate, extended climbs (Tramway). I don't want a frame that makes standing and honking awkward. Can you elaborate on your observation and on my anxieties? Also, I fear bars too high. I've always been more comfortable with a sufficient bend between hips and thighs, and the few times I tried High and Close the bike has felt tippy, awkward, inefficient, hard to pedal. Note: this over decades of bike setup. Can a Susan be built to allow a comfortable forward-lean position? Must look up the Scapegoat. Would you kindly post a photo? But I dream of the superlative Rivendell handling with a bike that will take 75s and let me shove back and torque
Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
OK, I understand you now: 3" fit fine **except** under the fork crown. Too bad. Thanks. On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:13 PM iamkeith wrote: > No way three inch tires are fitting under the fork crown on Susie. Here's > a pic from a ride last eek (snow came very late this year, and I > regretfully decided to push my luck on a wet, dirt road.) > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 6:49:14 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> Keith: Thanks for this, very good to know. You said that 75 mm tires >> (2.95") fit with ample room to spare on the Susie Longbolts; thus true 3 >> inchers -- 76 mm -- should fit at more than a pinch; right? (That's a >> question, asking for an answer.) >> >> So, I hope that the Suzy is a true option for a sand cruiser, as far as >> tire width goes. Next question: You say, Rivs encourage seated pedaling. >> This worries me, because I like high-torque, low-rpm pedaling, and this is >> not for chainstay reasons, but rather because I find it more comfortable -- >> I feel more efficient torquing at low rpm, and I run out of breath when I >> sit and twiddle uphill; even in my breathless senescence, I like shoving >> back behind the bb and shoving forward on the pedals. Doubtless much of >> this is habituation; I used to be a twiddler who would maintain 21-23 mph >> over long distances on the flat in a 64" gear; but even in these years I'd >> rarely used the lower gears on my cassette, and very clearly recall >> standing to climb while shifting down just 5 or 10 gear inches under my 65" >> - 70" cruising gears (now, 25 years later, my cruising gears are more like >> 7--75"). At any rate, I like to torque, and find 60" a nice climbing gear >> for moderate, extended climbs (Tramway). I don't want a frame that makes >> standing and honking awkward. Can you elaborate on your observation and on >> my anxieties? >> >> Also, I fear bars too high. I've always been more comfortable with a >> sufficient bend between hips and thighs, and the few times I tried High and >> Close the bike has felt tippy, awkward, inefficient, hard to pedal. Note: >> this over decades of bike setup. Can a Susan be built to allow a >> comfortable forward-lean position? >> >> Must look up the Scapegoat. Would you kindly post a photo? But I dream of >> the superlative Rivendell handling with a bike that will take 75s and let >> me shove back and torque ... >> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 5:58 PM iamkeith wrote: >> >>> Patrick, >>> >>> Answering your second question: I had 2.4 and 2.3 tires on my Clem, >>> with fenders. It might have fit some 2.5 tires, but probably would have >>> required ditching the fenders. I mostly used the excellent Schwalbe Super >>> Motos, which you're fond of too if I recall correctly. Since these have >>> shallow treads, most of that width is true casing volume, so they're good >>> sand floatation tires. In fact as you probably know, that's why they were >>> invented - for beach races popular in Europe. Having liked those, I >>> wanted something similar but with even bigger volume for my Susie >>> Longbolts, so I'm using V Speedsters. They're labeled 2.8 but measure 75mm >>> even at moderate inflation pressures. This combination also fits fine, >>> with way more than 3mm of clearance to the stays and fork blades. On both >>> bikes though, be aware that it's actually the fork crown that is/was the >>> tight clearance point. There's no way I'd be able to fit a 3" tire on the >>> front - even without fenders. >>> >>> Addressing but not answering your first question: I think one of the >>> nice things about Rivendell's long-chainstay bikes is that you don't NEED >>> to stand up and grind. I sort of wonder if I got in the habit of standing >>> on climbs because my bikes always used to have too-short chainstays, and it >>> was necessary in order to keep the front wheel planted. I can still stand >>> (and occasionally like to) on the Rivs, but think they prefer to be ridden >>> seated. They're generally more forgving though, and the fore-aft balance >>> point isn't nearly as critical. Cockpit / handlebar choice is more >>> important the the bike/frame design to me. >>> >>> If you're hell-bent on using 3" or wider tires, I have a Crust Scapegoat >>> that I can't say enough good about. Very Riv-inspired fit (shallow seat >>> tube/low bottom bracket), but conventionally short chainstays. And ugly >>> as sin. And heavier. On that bike, I have 3.25 tires + 3X drivetrain + >>> fenders, however! >>> >>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:33:31 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: >>> Slight tangent to thread -- but broad views are the sign of a liberally educated person. I note that the Wolbis or whateverthehellitiscalled is described as a Gus for lighter riders. Given Grant's penchant for overbuilding, I'd guess that the Wolbis is fine for a 170-lb rider who never gets pinch flats. So, question to those of you who can compare the Wolbis, Gus, Clem, and Platypus
Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Keith: Thanks for this, very good to know. You said that 75 mm tires (2.95") fit with ample room to spare on the Susie Longbolts; thus true 3 inchers -- 76 mm -- should fit at more than a pinch; right? (That's a question, asking for an answer.) So, I hope that the Suzy is a true option for a sand cruiser, as far as tire width goes. Next question: You say, Rivs encourage seated pedaling. This worries me, because I like high-torque, low-rpm pedaling, and this is not for chainstay reasons, but rather because I find it more comfortable -- I feel more efficient torquing at low rpm, and I run out of breath when I sit and twiddle uphill; even in my breathless senescence, I like shoving back behind the bb and shoving forward on the pedals. Doubtless much of this is habituation; I used to be a twiddler who would maintain 21-23 mph over long distances on the flat in a 64" gear; but even in these years I'd rarely used the lower gears on my cassette, and very clearly recall standing to climb while shifting down just 5 or 10 gear inches under my 65" - 70" cruising gears (now, 25 years later, my cruising gears are more like 7--75"). At any rate, I like to torque, and find 60" a nice climbing gear for moderate, extended climbs (Tramway). I don't want a frame that makes standing and honking awkward. Can you elaborate on your observation and on my anxieties? Also, I fear bars too high. I've always been more comfortable with a sufficient bend between hips and thighs, and the few times I tried High and Close the bike has felt tippy, awkward, inefficient, hard to pedal. Note: this over decades of bike setup. Can a Susan be built to allow a comfortable forward-lean position? Must look up the Scapegoat. Would you kindly post a photo? But I dream of the superlative Rivendell handling with a bike that will take 75s and let me shove back and torque ... On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 5:58 PM iamkeith wrote: > Patrick, > > Answering your second question: I had 2.4 and 2.3 tires on my Clem, with > fenders. It might have fit some 2.5 tires, but probably would have > required ditching the fenders. I mostly used the excellent Schwalbe Super > Motos, which you're fond of too if I recall correctly. Since these have > shallow treads, most of that width is true casing volume, so they're good > sand floatation tires. In fact as you probably know, that's why they were > invented - for beach races popular in Europe. Having liked those, I > wanted something similar but with even bigger volume for my Susie > Longbolts, so I'm using V Speedsters. They're labeled 2.8 but measure 75mm > even at moderate inflation pressures. This combination also fits fine, > with way more than 3mm of clearance to the stays and fork blades. On both > bikes though, be aware that it's actually the fork crown that is/was the > tight clearance point. There's no way I'd be able to fit a 3" tire on the > front - even without fenders. > > Addressing but not answering your first question: I think one of the nice > things about Rivendell's long-chainstay bikes is that you don't NEED to > stand up and grind. I sort of wonder if I got in the habit of standing on > climbs because my bikes always used to have too-short chainstays, and it > was necessary in order to keep the front wheel planted. I can still stand > (and occasionally like to) on the Rivs, but think they prefer to be ridden > seated. They're generally more forgving though, and the fore-aft balance > point isn't nearly as critical. Cockpit / handlebar choice is more > important the the bike/frame design to me. > > If you're hell-bent on using 3" or wider tires, I have a Crust Scapegoat > that I can't say enough good about. Very Riv-inspired fit (shallow seat > tube/low bottom bracket), but conventionally short chainstays. And ugly > as sin. And heavier. On that bike, I have 3.25 tires + 3X drivetrain + > fenders, however! > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:33:31 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> Slight tangent to thread -- but broad views are the sign of a liberally >> educated person. >> >> I note that the Wolbis or whateverthehellitiscalled is described as a Gus >> for lighter riders. Given Grant's penchant for overbuilding, I'd guess that >> the Wolbis is fine for a 170-lb rider who never gets pinch flats. >> >> So, question to those of you who can compare the Wolbis, Gus, Clem, and >> Platypus in a useful way, either because you've ridden several of them, or >> because you can intelligently extrapolate from one to the other: >> >> ->>> Question: If you want that signature Riv handling for upright >> riding in sandy conditions with tire width maxed out (full2.8"/70 mm), you >> tend to torque higher gears instead of twiddling lower gears, you want a >> single speed drivetrain (~65" for flatland sandy riding, would rather stand >> and grunt instead of downshifting and spinning), and you will not be >> carrying loads (have other bikes for that -- no damned Wald baskets): which >> model
Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Patrick, Answering your second question: I had 2.4 and 2.3 tires on my Clem, with fenders. It might have fit some 2.5 tires, but probably would have required ditching the fenders. I mostly used the excellent Schwalbe Super Motos, which you're fond of too if I recall correctly. Since these have shallow treads, most of that width is true casing volume, so they're good sand floatation tires. In fact as you probably know, that's why they were invented - for beach races popular in Europe. Having liked those, I wanted something similar but with even bigger volume for my Susie Longbolts, so I'm using V Speedsters. They're labeled 2.8 but measure 75mm even at moderate inflation pressures. This combination also fits fine, with way more than 3mm of clearance to the stays and fork blades. On both bikes though, be aware that it's actually the fork crown that is/was the tight clearance point. There's no way I'd be able to fit a 3" tire on the front - even without fenders. Addressing but not answering your first question: I think one of the nice things about Rivendell's long-chainstay bikes is that you don't NEED to stand up and grind. I sort of wonder if I got in the habit of standing on climbs because my bikes always used to have too-short chainstays, and it was necessary in order to keep the front wheel planted. I can still stand (and occasionally like to) on the Rivs, but think they prefer to be ridden seated. They're generally more forgving though, and the fore-aft balance point isn't nearly as critical. Cockpit / handlebar choice is more important the the bike/frame design to me. If you're hell-bent on using 3" or wider tires, I have a Crust Scapegoat that I can't say enough good about. Very Riv-inspired fit (shallow seat tube/low bottom bracket), but conventionally short chainstays. And ugly as sin. And heavier. On that bike, I have 3.25 tires + 3X drivetrain + fenders, however! On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 3:33:31 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > Slight tangent to thread -- but broad views are the sign of a liberally > educated person. > > I note that the Wolbis or whateverthehellitiscalled is described as a Gus > for lighter riders. Given Grant's penchant for overbuilding, I'd guess that > the Wolbis is fine for a 170-lb rider who never gets pinch flats. > > So, question to those of you who can compare the Wolbis, Gus, Clem, and > Platypus in a useful way, either because you've ridden several of them, or > because you can intelligently extrapolate from one to the other: > > ->>> Question: If you want that signature Riv handling for upright > riding in sandy conditions with tire width maxed out (full2.8"/70 mm), you > tend to torque higher gears instead of twiddling lower gears, you want a > single speed drivetrain (~65" for flatland sandy riding, would rather stand > and grunt instead of downshifting and spinning), and you will not be > carrying loads (have other bikes for that -- no damned Wald baskets): which > model would you choose? And if you'd choose a model from another maker, > please explain why. > > And: Go beyond the published specs: Can any Riv model take a true 3"/76 mm > tire with at least 3 mm to stays? > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 9:56 AM iamkeith wrote: > >> I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: >> >> >> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 >> > -- 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/9cc20b2e-8bbe-42e1-9157-641b56f7d16en%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
FTR the current (I didn't reread the old mock brochure) weight limit on Susie is 205 lbs. If you're under that limit and like quill stems, there ya go. Joe Bernard On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 2:33:31 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote: > Slight tangent to thread -- but broad views are the sign of a liberally > educated person. > > I note that the Wolbis or whateverthehellitiscalled is described as a Gus > for lighter riders. Given Grant's penchant for overbuilding, I'd guess that > the Wolbis is fine for a 170-lb rider who never gets pinch flats. > > So, question to those of you who can compare the Wolbis, Gus, Clem, and > Platypus in a useful way, either because you've ridden several of them, or > because you can intelligently extrapolate from one to the other: > > ->>> Question: If you want that signature Riv handling for upright > riding in sandy conditions with tire width maxed out (full2.8"/70 mm), you > tend to torque higher gears instead of twiddling lower gears, you want a > single speed drivetrain (~65" for flatland sandy riding, would rather stand > and grunt instead of downshifting and spinning), and you will not be > carrying loads (have other bikes for that -- no damned Wald baskets): which > model would you choose? And if you'd choose a model from another maker, > please explain why. > > And: Go beyond the published specs: Can any Riv model take a true 3"/76 mm > tire with at least 3 mm to stays? > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 9:56 AM iamkeith wrote: > >> I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: >> >> >> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 >> > -- 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/87552ab6-c3a5-4db9-9510-1d23c91f2002n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Slight tangent to thread -- but broad views are the sign of a liberally educated person. I note that the Wolbis or whateverthehellitiscalled is described as a Gus for lighter riders. Given Grant's penchant for overbuilding, I'd guess that the Wolbis is fine for a 170-lb rider who never gets pinch flats. So, question to those of you who can compare the Wolbis, Gus, Clem, and Platypus in a useful way, either because you've ridden several of them, or because you can intelligently extrapolate from one to the other: ->>> Question: If you want that signature Riv handling for upright riding in sandy conditions with tire width maxed out (full2.8"/70 mm), you tend to torque higher gears instead of twiddling lower gears, you want a single speed drivetrain (~65" for flatland sandy riding, would rather stand and grunt instead of downshifting and spinning), and you will not be carrying loads (have other bikes for that -- no damned Wald baskets): which model would you choose? And if you'd choose a model from another maker, please explain why. And: Go beyond the published specs: Can any Riv model take a true 3"/76 mm tire with at least 3 mm to stays? On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 9:56 AM iamkeith wrote: > I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: > > > https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 > -- 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/CALuTfgvvKwT1dunc5FkGX-uXq-ZjWRUg%2BLR_82TUS6j%3D4ftU1w%40mail.gmail.com.
[RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Thank you Keith, I recall seeing mention of Genghis and the Mongolian horseman/women but not all of this info in one place. Cheers, Ray On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:34:17 AM UTC-8 eric...@gmail.com wrote: > Wow this is really awesome! Thanks Keith B) > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote: > >> I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: >> >> >> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 >> >> It's really rough, and he originally shared it warts-and-all, in the >> spirit of openness and fun. Some people have trouble with that, and feel >> compelled to criticize or correct, which wasn't the point. I doubt that's >> why it hasn't been finished yet, but read it in that vein. >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7 eric...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Do you have any of those files, Johnny? >>> >>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote: >>> They released the working files I believe but an official brochure was never finalized. On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:05:36 PM UTC-5 Ray Varella wrote: > I know there have been several times it was mentioned but I don’t > recall seeing a catalog devoted to the Hillibikes. > I’m sure if it exists, it would contain some worthwhile information. > > Can anyone confirm whether or not it was produced? > > Thank you > Ray > -- 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/5cba3a49-064b-4684-b4bf-7d787b138650n%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Wow this is really awesome! Thanks Keith B) On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote: > I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: > > > https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 > > It's really rough, and he originally shared it warts-and-all, in the > spirit of openness and fun. Some people have trouble with that, and feel > compelled to criticize or correct, which wasn't the point. I doubt that's > why it hasn't been finished yet, but read it in that vein. > > > > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7 eric...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Do you have any of those files, Johnny? >> >> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote: >> >>> They released the working files I believe but an official brochure was >>> never finalized. >>> >>> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:05:36 PM UTC-5 Ray Varella wrote: >>> I know there have been several times it was mentioned but I don’t recall seeing a catalog devoted to the Hillibikes. I’m sure if it exists, it would contain some worthwhile information. Can anyone confirm whether or not it was produced? Thank you Ray >>> -- 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/7c124f3f-6a7f-4722-8127-d0a3b2be2b29n%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
I hope Grant doesn't get mad at me, but I think this is one version: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/files/THIS_ONE_Hilliworker_October_9.pdf?364 It's really rough, and he originally shared it warts-and-all, in the spirit of openness and fun. Some people have trouble with that, and feel compelled to criticize or correct, which wasn't the point. I doubt that's why it hasn't been finished yet, but read it in that vein. On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7 eric...@gmail.com wrote: > Do you have any of those files, Johnny? > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote: > >> They released the working files I believe but an official brochure was >> never finalized. >> >> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:05:36 PM UTC-5 Ray Varella wrote: >> >>> I know there have been several times it was mentioned but I don’t recall >>> seeing a catalog devoted to the Hillibikes. >>> I’m sure if it exists, it would contain some worthwhile information. >>> >>> Can anyone confirm whether or not it was produced? >>> >>> Thank you >>> Ray >>> >> -- 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/decc55f9-e298-4647-8034-a91812a31978n%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
Do you have any of those files, Johnny? On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 8:58:11 AM UTC-5 Johnny Alien wrote: > They released the working files I believe but an official brochure was > never finalized. > > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:05:36 PM UTC-5 Ray Varella wrote: > >> I know there have been several times it was mentioned but I don’t recall >> seeing a catalog devoted to the Hillibikes. >> I’m sure if it exists, it would contain some worthwhile information. >> >> Can anyone confirm whether or not it was produced? >> >> Thank you >> Ray >> > -- 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/d0daf354-69f9-49b1-ac77-402b3f619014n%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Did Rivendell publish a Hillibike catalog?
They released the working files I believe but an official brochure was never finalized. On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 10:05:36 PM UTC-5 Ray Varella wrote: > I know there have been several times it was mentioned but I don’t recall > seeing a catalog devoted to the Hillibikes. > I’m sure if it exists, it would contain some worthwhile information. > > Can anyone confirm whether or not it was produced? > > Thank you > Ray > -- 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/fc58d3af-bd95-4efc-9b72-5a1945d80677n%40googlegroups.com.
