Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Yes,as Steve pointed out, Rivendells use oversized tubing. My Homer is perhaps stiffer than my 155 lb body needs. I read with great interest Jan's writings on frame flex and planing with standard diameter tubing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Me too! Thanks for the clarification, Steve! On Friday, May 10, 2013 5:28:09 PM UTC-5, Evan wrote: > > Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail vs. > geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!) > >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Comments on two prior posts. Yes Rene, I've enjoyed it also. I drooled over Rivendells when I first saw a Romulus ad. The first production bike that would fit me "off the rack" though was a smaller Rambouillet, so I got one at the end of 2006. 10,000 miles later, I still love it. Later, I started to read Jan's observations and bought his tires for my 2d bike, a Saluki. They continue to ride well. The next bike was more Jan-ish I think, a late 70s or early 80s UJB crit racer that a prior owner had converted to 650B. It's Riv-sih nod is M-bars on a high Nitto Dynamic stem. Higher BB and lower trail, it's a great bike for shorter, spirited rides. It can't touch the Ram or Saluki for all day comfort though. The Saluki, with lower trail than the Ram, handles a small front load well. I did not like the Ram with a load on the Mark's rack I tried, and then sold. With long chain stays, both bike do rear weight fine. Steve: The Ram has two wheel sets. One has 28mm Conti Gatorskins and the other 37mm Panaracer Paselas. Changing between them gives no noticeable steering feel change to me. The 28s are faster by 1 - 2 mph on avg. I've told a co worker I'd bring fatter tires to work next week so we can do some fire road rides. Which bike/tires to bring? :) A delicious quandary. (Ram with Paselas, Saluki with Oursons, Crit bike with pari motos?) On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:09 PM, René Sterental wrote: > What a great discussion > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > >> >> Tire width has a small inpact on geometric trail. Tire width has a >> large impact on pneumatic trail. The two combine to produce overall >> trail. When you widen the tires and increase pneumatic trail, you need >> to reduce geometric trail, or else you end up with excessive trail and >> the bike feel sluggish. When you narrow the tires you need to increase >> the geometric trail, or you may end up with insufficient stability. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
My experience doesn't reflect this. I recently picked up a low trail Rawland Nordavinvden, and it handles very well with no load and high, wide bars (above saddle by maybe 1.5") I actually haven't even ridden it with any front load yet. Though I also like my higher trail, stiffer tubed Crosscheck as well. Eric Daume Dublin, OH On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: > > I don't know if that is entirely true. Certainly, lower trail bikes favor > having a load at the front to feel "normal", at least for me. Without a > load, low trail bikes are squirrely. That means lower trail bikes favor a > more front-biased weight distribution to feel "normal", including perhaps > by having a lower handlebar. That also means that lower trail bikes will > probably feel squirrely with Bosco or other upright bars (speculation; > haven't tested). > > Of course, one can get used to either low or high trail bikes and once > that happens, whichever one that's familiar will feel "normal". > > -- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:27:02 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > Handlebar position has nothing to do with whether a bike has low, medium > or high trail. > I don't know if that is entirely true. Certainly, lower trail bikes favor having a load at the front to feel "normal", at least for me. Without a load, low trail bikes are squirrely. That means lower trail bikes favor a more front-biased weight distribution to feel "normal", including perhaps by having a lower handlebar. That also means that lower trail bikes will probably feel squirrely with Bosco or other upright bars (speculation; haven't tested). Of course, one can get used to either low or high trail bikes and once that happens, whichever one that's familiar will feel "normal". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 20:09 -0600, René Sterental wrote: > > - Had I discovered Jan's low trail randonneurs instead of Grant's > versatile Rivendell mid-trail bikes, I would have completely missed > the boat and would have become convinced that riding any bike > pain-free was an utopic dream (for me). > - Grant's philosophy of bike design, construction and most importantly > fit, allowed me to make that utopic dream a reality with its higher > handlebars and other details. All of the low-trail rando bikes I've > seen are set up with bars lower than the saddle, which triggers a lot > of pain for me and would have made it impossible to enjoy. Handlebar position has nothing to do with whether a bike has low, medium or high trail. It also has nothing to do with whether a bike is suitable for doing long rides, other than as it affects the comfort of the rider, which is individual. For that matter, how much trail a bike may have has nothing to do with whether it's suitable for doing long rides, although it may affect where you would carry the baggage. > Remember, just low trail on a Rivendell bike, not the rest of the > light tubing rando philosophy. Light tubing has nothing to do with "rando philosophy." Plenty of racing bikes in the pro peloton back in the day were made with light tubing. > I think that when I lose the weight, I'll try to discover what the > whole light-tube-low-trail-rando-bike is all about and enrich myself > in the process. You might do better experimenting with one variable at a time. > I am thankful I first discovered Rivendell and Grant. Thanks to him > and what he stands for, a full and rich horizon in my cycling has > opened up for me. One that will always keep the Rivendell philosophy > at its core, no matter where the road takes me. And it includes Jan's > philosophy as well. And much more. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
What a great discussion. As someone who has changed two of his four Rivendell bikes to low trail forks to try to discover what the whole trail thing was about, I can say the following in a completely subjective manner: - Had I discovered Jan's low trail randonneurs instead of Grant's versatile Rivendell mid-trail bikes, I would have completely missed the boat and would have become convinced that riding any bike pain-free was an utopic dream (for me). - Grant's philosophy of bike design, construction and most importantly fit, allowed me to make that utopic dream a reality with its higher handlebars and other details. All of the low-trail rando bikes I've seen are set up with bars lower than the saddle, which triggers a lot of pain for me and would have made it impossible to enjoy. - It took me several years of riding Grant's bikes and making adjustments progressively to get to the point where I could ride pain free for a couple of hours (the current limit of my fitness/endurance) and enjoy the total ride. It's one thing to suffer for lack of fitness, which you can improve, and another to suffer due to incorrect fit/position due to your body characteristics. I can't explain why I was so slow in adopting the RBW fit philosophy in its totality, but for some reason something in me kept resisting the upright swept-back bars until I finally gave in when Grant launched the Bosco bars. I kept trying to get comfortable on drop bars (and not finding it) and also didn't like the Moustache and Albatross bars when I tried them. - It was only when able to ride pain-free due to Grant's bike philosophy, that exploring other dimensions like low trail finally made sense for me. Remember, just low trail on a Rivendell bike, not the rest of the light tubing rando philosophy. I have the set the goal of trying it out as a reward when I manage to lose around 70-80 lbs. - Will I convert the other two Rivendell bikes to low trail? Not likely. The two issues that triggered this quest for me were shimmy when carrying any load and the desire to carry loads on the front in addition to the rear on my Atlantis and my Hunqapillar. As a bonus, I discovered I not only really like carrying front loads on those bikes, I also enjoy how they ride unloaded as well. - The Betty Foy and the Homer ride very well as they are, and I don't really load them. The Betty is the lowest trail of all the Rivendell bikes I have, and handles beautifully with rear panniers and a commute load. The Homer I pretty much ride unloaded. Is it worth getting a low trail fork for it? I don't think so. I think that when I lose the weight, I'll try to discover what the whole light-tube-low-trail-rando-bike is all about and enrich myself in the process. Until then, I have what I need, and plenty of tweaking and experimenting to do in the meantime! I am thankful I first discovered Rivendell and Grant. Thanks to him and what he stands for, a full and rich horizon in my cycling has opened up for me. One that will always keep the Rivendell philosophy at its core, no matter where the road takes me. And it includes Jan's philosophy as well. And much more. René On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 06:43 -0700, Chris Lampe 2 wrote: > > Some of the things that influence trail include: > > > > fork rake > > head tube angle > > tire width > > rim diameter > > > > I suspect that the following influence the "feel" of trail: > > > > handlebar height > > handlebar width > > point-of-balance on the bicycle > > and amount of load and where carried > > > > > > I've used the trail calculator linked in this thread quit a bit and > > fork rake and head tube each have a significant impact for a given rim > > diameter. Tire width as a small impact. > > Tire width has a small inpact on geometric trail. Tire width has a > large impact on pneumatic trail. The two combine to produce overall > trail. When you widen the tires and increase pneumatic trail, you need > to reduce geometric trail, or else you end up with excessive trail and > the bike feel sluggish. When you narrow the tires you need to increase > the geometric trail, or you may end up with insufficient stability. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Dave Moulton's blog (http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/) discusses trail toward the bottom where a link takes you to an earlier entry on trail -- and that in turn to a yet older one. I can't say if he is right, but he has certainly ridden a lot and built a lot of bikes. At any rate, an interesting perspective with reference to history (he started racing in the early 1950s). On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Evan wrote: > Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail vs. > geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!) > >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 15:28 -0700, Evan wrote: > Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail > vs. geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!) The end result -- intuitive handling -- is easy. The variables to get you there are subtle. It's only simple if you narrow the range of possibilities considerably: say, for example, considering only racing bikes with 23mm tires. Then things get simpler. Throw in different tire sizes, bikes intended to carry heavy loads, etc., things get a lot more complicated, and not necessarily in an obvious way. If you're interested, there are several highly interesting articles in Bicycle Quarterly on this subject. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Thanks, everyone, for your answers regarding trail. (Pneumatic trail vs. geometric trail? Whoa. It's even more complicated than I thought!) > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 06:43 -0700, Chris Lampe 2 wrote: > Some of the things that influence trail include: > > fork rake > head tube angle > tire width > rim diameter > > I suspect that the following influence the "feel" of trail: > > handlebar height > handlebar width > point-of-balance on the bicycle and amount of load and where carried > > I've used the trail calculator linked in this thread quit a bit and > fork rake and head tube each have a significant impact for a given rim > diameter. Tire width as a small impact. Tire width has a small inpact on geometric trail. Tire width has a large impact on pneumatic trail. The two combine to produce overall trail. When you widen the tires and increase pneumatic trail, you need to reduce geometric trail, or else you end up with excessive trail and the bike feel sluggish. When you narrow the tires you need to increase the geometric trail, or you may end up with insufficient stability. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Indeed. Reminds me of a quote I read in a novel, something like "Academic infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small." B-) Steve On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, RonaTD wrote: > I am completely baffled by people who seem determined to pick a fight over > Jan vs Grant. I know them both, have been in fun discussions with them about > bikes, read a lot of what they have written, and can't for the life of me > figure out why people think there is some sort of holy war worth fighting > here. My bike selection includes a Riv custom road bike with a (relatively) > modern Campy group, a Heron road with plastic fenders and typical end-o-era > Suntour parts, a Riv custom ATB with an eclectic mix, a Quickbeam with > plastic fenders and front and rear racks and battery lights, a Protovelo > Bleriot with S&S couplers, plastic fenders, small rear rack, dyno lights, and > a handlebar bag, a Terraferma 650B skinny tube brevet bike with aluminum > fenders, dyno lights, and a handlebar bag, and a couple of tandems. (And a > Moto Guzzi, but we'll stick to bicycle bikes here). > > The two bikes that get the most mileage these days are the Protovelo and the > Terraferma. Both 650B with 38-42 mm tires, fenders, and dyno lights. I > wouldn't hesitate to take the Protovelo on a brevet. In fact, I did a solo > 600km ride on it and didn't once think, gee, I wish this thing was lighter > and more responsive. But now that I have the Terraferma, it's my first choice > for a long ride. Point is, I really like them both, am very happy with them > both, and don't understand anyone who says it has to be one or the other. If > you can't afford both, pick one and ride the heck out of it. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Some of the things that influence trail include: fork rake head tube angle tire width rim diameter I suspect that the following influence the "feel" of trail: handlebar height handlebar width point-of-balance on the bicycle I've used the trail calculator linked in this thread quit a bit and fork rake and head tube each have a significant impact for a given rim diameter. Tire width as a small impact. On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:27:58 AM UTC-5, Evan wrote: > Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started a > new follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions about > trail? > > 1. Does fork rake/offset alone determine trail? > > 2. If so, how much rake is low trail? About 45mm? > > 3. How much rake is mid trail? About 55mm? > > 4. How much rake is high trail? About 65mm? > > (I'd love to hear, in hard numbers if possible, what constitutes > low-medium-high trail. Otherwise the distinctions blur too much to be > useful.) > > 5. If I had, say, a Hilsen, could I simply buy the Soma forks that Seth > mentioned (http://www.somafab.blogspot.com/2013/05/low-trail-forks.html), > install them, and have an instant low-trail > Hilsen--with no complications? > > Don't get me wrong. I love Riv and Riv bikes and have no desire to mess > with their trail. I'm just curious, is all. Thanks! > > > >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Thanks, Jan-terrific reading, and it informs the discussion to have it direct from (one of) "the horses mouth" as it were... Steve On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Jan Heine wrote: > I think there is less difference between Grant's ideas and Bicycle Quarterly > than many surmise. We both want versatile and durable bikes that are fun to > ride and look nice. Whether it's a fully integrated 650B randonneur bike or > a Homer Hilsen, both machines allow you to ride in places where 99% of > commercially available bikes will be compromised. > > From a technical perspective, I also agree more with Grant than most people > realize. Grant's vision is a versatile, affordable bike, which can be > modified to suit. If you want plastic fenders one year, wooden fenders the > next, a front rack today and a rear rack tomorrow, then Grant's designs > provide a platform that can handle it all. It's sort of like a > separate-frame 1950s car, which can be equipped with a sports car body, a > convertible body, a sedan body or a pickup body, all on the same chassis. > Grant's bikes can do that. They can be ridden by a variety of riders, > equipped with a variety of tire sizes. They are a modular platform for > experimentation. They don't lock you into a single way of riding, like a > narrow-tire racing bike would. > > Compared to the 1950s car, a modern car's body is load-bearing, so you can't > change it easily. The suspension is designed for a certain tire size, so you > shouldn't put on wider tires or bigger wheels without changing the setup. > Even the seats are specific, and putting in different ones would be > difficult. The fully integrated constructeur bike is similar. It is > optimized for a certain rider, a certain tire size, a certain load and even > a certain fender style. > > The integrated design still can be very versatile – you can take a modern > BMW M3 on a race track or commute in it to work. Our second tester Mark has > ridden his 650B randonneur bike in brevets, commuting, in pacelines with > racers, and on camping tours. The difference is that you achieve that > versatility within its original design. Mark's bike works well with a > handlebar bag and front low-riders, but a rear rack would not work well at > all. His bike handles with precision under a rider who has a light touch on > the handlebars, but would not work for somebody who grips the bars with more > force. Its geometry is optimized for 40 mm tires, but with 32s, it wouldn't > be so much fun. On the plus side, its performance is superior to that of the > "adaptable" design, which by definition cannot be optimized for a single > setup. On the down side, a constructeur bike is much more expensive, because > everything has to be designed specifically for the bike. > > So it's really about choice: If you want something that is affordable and > can grow with you as you experiment with new ways of riding and new ways of > setting up your bike, then a Rivendell is an excellent choice. If you are an > experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride enough that the high > cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, then the constructeur > machine offers a performance that is without equal. > > Jan Heine > Editor > Bicycle Quarterly > www.bikequarterly.com > > Follow our blog at www.janheine.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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
actually the smaller wheel diameter of the 650B reduces the trail on the example provided. The mechanical trail per Jim's calculator is 43 mm for the 700c wheel and 40 mm for the 650B wheel. Both would be considered low trail. ~mike > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Soma forks have 1-1/8 > threadless steerers - too big to fit in Riv frames, which are made for 1" > steerers. So converting your Riv to low trail isn't quite that easy. I do not know about Soma, but the Rene Herse store currently has 1" threadless Boulder canti forks on sale. http://www.renehersestore.com/servlet/the-1002/Boulder-Bicycle-Fork-700c/Detail These are painted already black. If you want a low trail fork painted to Rivendell standards you would need to have it sand blasted first. Believe Waterford makes the Boulder forks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 22:27 -0700, Evan wrote: > Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started > a new follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions > about trail? This may help: http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php > > > 1. Does fork rake/offset alone determine trail? No. See the variables in the above calculator. > > > 2. If so, how much rake is low trail? About 45mm? > > > 3. How much rake is mid trail? About 55mm? > > > 4. How much rake is high trail? About 65mm? > > > (I'd love to hear, in hard numbers if possible, what constitutes > low-medium-high trail. Otherwise the distinctions blur too much to be > useful.) Varies by wheel size/tire width. A value that would be low trail for a bike equipped with 700Cx32mm would be mid trail for one with 42x650B. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Soma forks have 1-1/8 threadless steerers - too big to fit in Riv frames, which are made for 1" steerers. So converting your Riv to low trail isn't quite that easy. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Evan wrote: > > Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started a new > follow-up post -- > may I ask you-all some very basic questions about trail? You can get back issues of Bike Quarterly for a reasonable price. A good geometry primer is included in http://www.bikequarterly.com/bq102.html. Jan's Raid Pyrénéen is a great story in that issue, too. Best, joe broach portland, or -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Now that this thread has cooled off -- and also because Grant started a new follow-up post -- may I ask you-all some very basic questions about trail? 1. Does fork rake/offset alone determine trail? 2. If so, how much rake is low trail? About 45mm? 3. How much rake is mid trail? About 55mm? 4. How much rake is high trail? About 65mm? (I'd love to hear, in hard numbers if possible, what constitutes low-medium-high trail. Otherwise the distinctions blur too much to be useful.) 5. If I had, say, a Hilsen, could I simply buy the Soma forks that Seth mentioned (http://www.somafab.blogspot.com/2013/05/low-trail-forks.html), install them, and have an instant low-trail Hilsen--with no complications? Don't get me wrong. I love Riv and Riv bikes and have no desire to mess with their trail. I'm just curious, is all. Thanks! > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
“He delighted to tread upon the brink of meaning”. (Dr. Johnson of John Dryden.) Patrick Moore, saying it affectionately and not at all deprecatingly of Garth. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Garth wrote: > > This is apples and oranges ... that's all. There is no "one" right way for > all only the ways it works for each as themselves. We each have our > purpose ... our reasons for riding ... for living as we do... and no one > needs to justify or give reasons as to why they choose what they choose. > If you want to do that, okay . but no choice is superior or inferior to > another . > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Thanks, Steve. Those are some awesome looking bikes (and rides). Perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I can't argue with that! I'm glad you meant that; I'd be disappointed if you meant the other. I sincerely think BQ is one of the best, possibly the best, cycling mag out today and I'm glad you keep an open mind to your tests. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jan Heine wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:15:52 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >> I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, >> this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want >> to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred >> types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and >> money to get what they really want. Not proven! >> >> I am sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say is this: > If you know what you want, then a bike optimized specifically for your > preferences will usually be superior to a "jack-of-all-trades" that is > designed to work with many configurations. > > What that configuration is depends on the rider and their preferences. For > example, if you ride a lot out of the saddle, a front load usually is > superior as it doesn't have the "tail wagging the dog" feel. If you like to > ride no-hands at relatively low speeds, a rear load is better, because a > front load needs a certain speed to become stable no-hands. And then there > are simply preferences of what you like a bike to feel like. > > Jan Heine > Editor > Bicycle Quarterly > www.bikequarterly.com > > Follow our blog at www.janheine.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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
There is one bike. It's whichever one I happen to be riding RIGHT NOW. :) And then I change bikes then it's THAT ONE. :) -sv On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < thill@gmail.com> wrote: > There really is no one bike to rule them all. That's why I have > approximately 10 bikes. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
There really is no one bike to rule them all. That's why I have approximately 10 bikes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 05:50 -0700, bobish wrote: > Steve P., what are your riding? Any pics (link). MAP Randonneur: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/7252011134/in/set-72157627155309179 seen here on tour in Ohio last year Kogswell P/R: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37542512@N04/8652943777/in/pool-2169588@N24 photographed on the Delaware Water Gap tour Velo Orange Randonneur: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/sets/72157606169015639/show/ George Longstaff Custom Audax: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/4018066148/in/set-72157622475590131/ Alex Moulton AM: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97916047@N00/sets/72157624929495699/show/ and for some reason, I have no photos of my 1991 Spectrum Ti -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Steve P., what are your riding? Any pics (link). Also, anyone know if there is "low trail" google group or equivalent? (I'm already familiar with BQ and Jan but just wondering if there is a general discussion/group going on elsewhere.) Thanks, Perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
This is apples and oranges ... that's all. There is no "one" right way for all only the ways it works for each as themselves. We each have our purpose ... our reasons for riding ... for living as we do... and no one needs to justify or give reasons as to why they choose what they choose. If you want to do that, okay . but no choice is superior or inferior to another . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
What if, as an experienced rider, what you want is something that you can easily modify over time, because you've been riding long enough to know that your riding changes over the days/years/decades, your body changes, and furthermore your bike is just as likely to be ridden on rocky/root laden singletrack as on pavement, even on the way to work? Anyway I agree with what others have pointed out; most of us agree on far more than this thread would indicate (or we wouldn't be reading the RBWOB list). Count me among those who are just glad that we have both Jan and Grant's contributions to the current world of bicycling.Compared to mainstream of the past, they are WAY more similar than is worth arguing about. BQ is an awesome rag. Now, I'd like to propose a new rule for these kinds of threads, though I know it would be ignored anyway: no more comparisons between flavors of automobiles and flavors of bicycles. At best it's a ruthlessly overworked simile, at worst it's just a bummer. Matt On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:30:34 PM UTC-4, Jan Heine wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:15:52 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >> I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, >> this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want >> to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred >> types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and >> money to get what they really want. Not proven! >> >> I am sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say is this: > If you know what you want, then a bike optimized specifically for your > preferences will usually be superior to a "jack-of-all-trades" that is > designed to work with many configurations. > > What that configuration is depends on the rider and their preferences. For > example, if you ride a lot out of the saddle, a front load usually is > superior as it doesn't have the "tail wagging the dog" feel. If you like to > ride no-hands at relatively low speeds, a rear load is better, because a > front load needs a certain speed to become stable no-hands. And then there > are simply preferences of what you like a bike to feel like. > > Jan Heine > Editor > Bicycle Quarterly > www.bikequarterly.com > > Follow our blog at www.janheine.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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
The Real Soon Now models are quite popular. :-) Cheers, David On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Cecily Walker wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery > wrote: >> >> Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of >> plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort and >> sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with undersized tubes, >> and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be enjoyable. >> > > Hear, hear. One of the reasons I was drawn to my heavy Dutch bike was > because I'm a heavy rider, and I wanted to ride a bike that felt stable and > secure under my weight. After my Dutch bike was flattened by an inattentive > driver (I'm OK, though), I decided I wanted that same strength and > stability and comfort, but in a much more versatile package that could > handle Vancouver's hilly terrain. That's why I'll be putting a deposit on > a Betty Foy Real Soon Now (tm). > > I will say that though I've a difference of opinion with Velouria in the > past, I'm glad she's out there, and I'm glad she's contributing to the body > of knowledge and conversations about bicycling. That she's a woman riding > about some technical topics while not divorcing them from the sheer > enjoyment of riding inspired me to do more than just ride to/from work. > > Oh, and hi from a long-time lurker! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of > plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort and > sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with undersized tubes, > and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be enjoyable. > Hear, hear. One of the reasons I was drawn to my heavy Dutch bike was because I'm a heavy rider, and I wanted to ride a bike that felt stable and secure under my weight. After my Dutch bike was flattened by an inattentive driver (I'm OK, though), I decided I wanted that same strength and stability and comfort, but in a much more versatile package that could handle Vancouver's hilly terrain. That's why I'll be putting a deposit on a Betty Foy Real Soon Now (tm). I will say that though I've a difference of opinion with Velouria in the past, I'm glad she's out there, and I'm glad she's contributing to the body of knowledge and conversations about bicycling. That she's a woman riding about some technical topics while not divorcing them from the sheer enjoyment of riding inspired me to do more than just ride to/from work. Oh, and hi from a long-time lurker! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Personally, I really like the idea of d) all of the above. I love my Homer Hilsen and look forward to the day when i find the "right" constructeur to build a custom fully integrated bike just for me. Peace. -Jimmy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
What's funny is that Lovelybike wrote this 2 years ago. She has since sold her Sam Hillborne and bought a skinny tubed low trail Rawland with Hetres. ~mike On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, samh wrote: > > I was fascinated by the discussion here: > > > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I am completely baffled by people who seem determined to pick a fight over Jan vs Grant. I know them both, have been in fun discussions with them about bikes, read a lot of what they have written, and can't for the life of me figure out why people think there is some sort of holy war worth fighting here. My bike selection includes a Riv custom road bike with a (relatively) modern Campy group, a Heron road with plastic fenders and typical end-o-era Suntour parts, a Riv custom ATB with an eclectic mix, a Quickbeam with plastic fenders and front and rear racks and battery lights, a Protovelo Bleriot with S&S couplers, plastic fenders, small rear rack, dyno lights, and a handlebar bag, a Terraferma 650B skinny tube brevet bike with aluminum fenders, dyno lights, and a handlebar bag, and a couple of tandems. (And a Moto Guzzi, but we'll stick to bicycle bikes here). The two bikes that get the most mileage these days are the Protovelo and the Terraferma. Both 650B with 38-42 mm tires, fenders, and dyno lights. I wouldn't hesitate to take the Protovelo on a brevet. In fact, I did a solo 600km ride on it and didn't once think, gee, I wish this thing was lighter and more responsive. But now that I have the Terraferma, it's my first choice for a long ride. Point is, I really like them both, am very happy with them both, and don't understand anyone who says it has to be one or the other. If you can't afford both, pick one and ride the heck out of it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:15:52 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: > > I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, > this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want > to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred > types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and > money to get what they really want. Not proven! > > I am sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say is this: If you know what you want, then a bike optimized specifically for your preferences will usually be superior to a "jack-of-all-trades" that is designed to work with many configurations. What that configuration is depends on the rider and their preferences. For example, if you ride a lot out of the saddle, a front load usually is superior as it doesn't have the "tail wagging the dog" feel. If you like to ride no-hands at relatively low speeds, a rear load is better, because a front load needs a certain speed to become stable no-hands. And then there are simply preferences of what you like a bike to feel like. Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Sticking together is what good waffles do. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:58 PM, cyclotourist wrote: > Waffles are the best. They serve pancakes in hell. > > > > Cheers, > David > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Mike wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM UTC-7, Chris Lampe 2 wrote: >>> >>> I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. >>> >> >> Yeah, that tends to be my experience. Also, I love waffles. >> >> --mike >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Waffles are the best. They serve pancakes in hell. Cheers, David On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Mike wrote: > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM UTC-7, Chris Lampe 2 wrote: >> >> I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. >> > > Yeah, that tends to be my experience. Also, I love waffles. > > --mike > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:23:00 AM UTC-7, Chris Lampe 2 wrote: > > I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. > Yeah, that tends to be my experience. Also, I love waffles. --mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I will also add that Jan is wrong in his general conclusion (at least, this is the sensus verbi) that while other bikes are OK if you don't want to spend a lot of money or don't really know what you like, his preferred types are the only ones chosen by those who have both the knowledge and money to get what they really want. Not proven! On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:13 PM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > That is very correct. It may well be that Jan's preferred bikes are best > for randonees -- I don't know that, and it may well be that some educated > randoneurs prefer the qualities of Rivendell style bikes or racing bikes or > whatever else for the same riding. But I do know that Rivendells -- to take > one example -- have very definite positive qualities that derive from their > design and construction (I am being deliberately general) because I have > experienced them. In particular, the elusive (from my experience of > different bikes) combination of stability at speed with -- metaphor -- > "unerring" turn-in quality. Now perhaps this would be a liability at mile > 400 of a long ride, but it is most definitely not a liability for the short > distance riding some of us prefer. > > Again: a frame that can take 622 wheels with 3" tires. Doubtless there are > compromises, but one on the "plus" side is the way tall and fat tires ride > over sand. This I've tested with tires of up to 65 mm actual width -- and > am saving pennies for Knards or like. > > Again: I've not ridden a porteur -- must ride Ryan's as well as his new > Boulder. But I know that some bikes exhibit a wonderful unladen ride and > yet handle 40 lb on a light rear rack with pleasurable -- pleasurable, > repeated -- aplomb. That is a combination that has its merits for some. > > I apologize for being tetchy, and, second admission, I know I have my own > preferences and even biases. But I do know enough to know that what I know > is limited and to draw only reserved conclusions therefrom. > > I really must ride Ryan's bikes. > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > >> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:48 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: >> > Another false generalization from particular experience. >> >> Actually I think the problem is simply the omission of the phrase "and >> what you want is the sort of thing the constructeur bike offers" >> inserted between "want," and "and" in the first sentence. >> >> >> > "If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride >> > enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, >> > then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without >> > equal." >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > > http://resumespecialties.com/index.html > patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com > > Albuquerque, NM > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
That is very correct. It may well be that Jan's preferred bikes are best for randonees -- I don't know that, and it may well be that some educated randoneurs prefer the qualities of Rivendell style bikes or racing bikes or whatever else for the same riding. But I do know that Rivendells -- to take one example -- have very definite positive qualities that derive from their design and construction (I am being deliberately general) because I have experienced them. In particular, the elusive (from my experience of different bikes) combination of stability at speed with -- metaphor -- "unerring" turn-in quality. Now perhaps this would be a liability at mile 400 of a long ride, but it is most definitely not a liability for the short distance riding some of us prefer. Again: a frame that can take 622 wheels with 3" tires. Doubtless there are compromises, but one on the "plus" side is the way tall and fat tires ride over sand. This I've tested with tires of up to 65 mm actual width -- and am saving pennies for Knards or like. Again: I've not ridden a porteur -- must ride Ryan's as well as his new Boulder. But I know that some bikes exhibit a wonderful unladen ride and yet handle 40 lb on a light rear rack with pleasurable -- pleasurable, repeated -- aplomb. That is a combination that has its merits for some. I apologize for being tetchy, and, second admission, I know I have my own preferences and even biases. But I do know enough to know that what I know is limited and to draw only reserved conclusions therefrom. I really must ride Ryan's bikes. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:48 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > Another false generalization from particular experience. > > Actually I think the problem is simply the omission of the phrase "and > what you want is the sort of thing the constructeur bike offers" > inserted between "want," and "and" in the first sentence. > > > > "If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride > > enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, > > then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without > > equal." > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Summing up the thread neatly, it was written: > I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. Jan and Grant have both stated numerous times that the differences between them are greatly exaggerated. When I compare Rivendell to BQ to Trek to Cannondale to Blue to Kestrel... Well, then the differences between Jan and Grant shrink tremendously. IMHO anyway. Says the guy who rides a self-built 3 speed road bike with a Carradice Nelson some of the time, and whose Rivendell All-Rounder has fenders, dynamo lighting, 559 x 32 tires and a Nitto Mini front rack with a Berthoud Mini 86 bag. Tim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:48 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > Another false generalization from particular experience. Actually I think the problem is simply the omission of the phrase "and what you want is the sort of thing the constructeur bike offers" inserted between "want," and "and" in the first sentence. > "If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride > enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, > then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without > equal." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Another false generalization from particular experience. "If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without equal." -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:42 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > Right for you. Not right for everyone else. Nobody ever said "everyone else." I sure didn't. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Another generalization from particular experiences. I like narrow bars on my Rivendells. To put it in the language of this debate, "narrower bars work better with higher trail". On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > Higher trail works better with wider bars, lower > trail with narrower bars. > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Right for you. Not right for everyone else. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote: > > "So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to > > agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by > > extension that Grant was/is objectively wrong. You mean that > > subjectively, for you and the riding and characteristics you have > > evolved to prefer, Jan was right. > > > > When on one bike I can easily power up a small grade and on the other I > have to downshift downshift downshift we are beyond the realm of the > subjective, and are firmly in "objective" territory. > > So yes I do mean Jan was objectively right. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I think there is less difference between Grant's ideas and *Bicycle Quarterly* than many surmise. We both want versatile and durable bikes that are fun to ride and look nice. Whether it's a fully integrated 650B randonneur bike or a Homer Hilsen, both machines allow you to ride in places where 99% of commercially available bikes will be compromised. >From a technical perspective, I also agree more with Grant than most people realize. Grant's vision is a versatile, affordable bike, which can be modified to suit. If you want plastic fenders one year, wooden fenders the next, a front rack today and a rear rack tomorrow, then Grant's designs provide a platform that can handle it all. It's sort of like a separate-frame 1950s car, which can be equipped with a sports car body, a convertible body, a sedan body or a pickup body, all on the same chassis. Grant's bikes can do that. They can be ridden by a variety of riders, equipped with a variety of tire sizes. They are a modular platform for experimentation. They don't lock you into a single way of riding, like a narrow-tire racing bike would. Compared to the 1950s car, a modern car's body is load-bearing, so you can't change it easily. The suspension is designed for a certain tire size, so you shouldn't put on wider tires or bigger wheels without changing the setup. Even the seats are specific, and putting in different ones would be difficult. The fully integrated constructeur bike is similar. It is optimized for a certain rider, a certain tire size, a certain load and even a certain fender style. The integrated design still can be very versatile – you can take a modern BMW M3 on a race track or commute in it to work. Our second tester Mark has ridden his 650B randonneur bike in brevets, commuting, in pacelines with racers, and on camping tours. The difference is that you achieve that versatility within its original design. Mark's bike works well with a handlebar bag and front low-riders, but a rear rack would not work well at all. His bike handles with precision under a rider who has a light touch on the handlebars, but would not work for somebody who grips the bars with more force. Its geometry is optimized for 40 mm tires, but with 32s, it wouldn't be so much fun. On the plus side, its performance is superior to that of the "adaptable" design, which by definition cannot be optimized for a single setup. On the down side, a constructeur bike is much more expensive, because everything has to be designed specifically for the bike. So it's really about choice: If you want something that is affordable and can grow with you as you experiment with new ways of riding and new ways of setting up your bike, then a Rivendell is an excellent choice. If you are an experienced rider and know what you want, and you ride enough that the high cost of a constructeur bike will amortize itself, then the constructeur machine offers a performance that is without equal. Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, as well as the right to express it in a peaceful fashion. But I can't help asking ... why would someone who so blatantly feels all Rivendell frames are designed wrong spend so much time hanging out and chatting with the RBW Owner's Bunch? I just can't imagine wanting to involve myself in discussion group where the focal point is something I totally disagree with ... unless, of course, I'm simply looking for an argument. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 14:29 -0700, Brewster Fong wrote: > One difference between Riv and BQ that I may have missed is their > preference in handlebar width. Grant/Riv likes them wide like 46cm or > even 48cm. In contrast, Jan H appears to like them narrower like > 38-40cm. Could be body difference, but I'm not that clear on why. Jan has pointed out that handlebar width has changed over time, correlated with changes in trail, while body width remained fairly constant over time. Higher trail works better with wider bars, lower trail with narrower bars. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, samh wrote: > > I was fascinated by the discussion here: > > > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html > One difference between Riv and BQ that I may have missed is their preference in handlebar width. Grant/Riv likes them wide like 46cm or even 48cm. In contrast, Jan H appears to like them narrower like 38-40cm. Could be body difference, but I'm not that clear on why. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:12 -0700, Philip Williamson wrote: > This excellent summation of a randonneur bike's mission also describes > a commute bike's mission. You need to get yourself and some gear to a > destination, on time. A commuter (this one, anyway), may get a > randonneur's "five hour" feeling at the 40 minute mark. Of course, the load will be different -- at least, mine was: I carried work clothes, shoes, etc. in two small panniers, around 13 lb weight (my shoes were heavy!) and lunch in a handle bar bag. With tools and spare tubes that brought the load up to almost 20 lb. That's about twice the load you'd expect to carry on the randonneur, especially when you figure in the weight of the panniers and the rack to carry them. I realize all commutes are not the same. Many people commute wearing the clothes they will wear at work. Also distances vary. The urban commuter's route may be much shorter and may have many frequent stops at traffic lights and stop signs compared to someone riding in to work from the suburbs. The number of stops may influence the choice of drive train. An IGH makes a lot of sense for a short distance urban commute with plenty of stops, some abrupt enough you'll need to shift while stopped; much less sense for a brevet, where you wouldn't expect to stop more often than at 20-30 mile intervals, if even that often. It might also influence riding position. Riding a bicycle with a suit jacket on works fine with an upright bar like the North Road or the Albatross, but it doesn't work at all well with drop bars. If you're trying to optimize the bike for a particular mission, you do have to pick that mission apart and analyze it in detail, and it will drive design choices. If you want maximum versatility, you may have to choose configurations that will sub-optimal for some missions, maybe even marginal to poor for others. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Damn, forgot about Boulder. Their 650b lugged offering is amazing looking. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Philip Williamson < philip.william...@gmail.com> wrote: > Boulder <http://renehersebicycles.com/> and Box > Dog<http://www.boxdogbikes.com/products-the-bdb-pelican/>bikes both sell > off-the-peg randonneuses. Some older bikes are low trail > (my old Ross), or a used Kogswell, or re-raking a fork on an under-used > bike are some low-cost ways to try out the idea. > > Philip > www.biketinker.com > > > > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:53:22 AM UTC-7, Peter M wrote: > >> I have never read BQ, but it is my understanding that they are >> recommending a type of bike that isn't off the peg or readily available, >> the "Classic Randonneur" so as pointed out on the Lovely Bicycle blog it >> might be hard for a lot of us to make a comparison. Maybe the VO >> Polyvalent? >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Warren wrote: >> >>> >>> Very thorough description. Describing the mission is a good way to >>> highlight a point that has already been made: Rivendells are designed for >>> riding that doesn't resemble that description. So comparing Rivendells to >>> BQ bikes is an apples/oranges thing. >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> >From: Steve Palincsar >>> >Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM >>> >To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com >>> >Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes >>> > >>> >On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: >>> >> What actually is a Randonneur frame? >>> > >>> >> Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it >>> more suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - >>> fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? >>> > >>> >Think about the mission. >>> > >>> >You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't >>> >fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is >>> >going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're >>> >riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling >>> >that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. >>> > >>> >You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through >>> >the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some >>> >places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You >>> >can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can >>> >stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry >>> >the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. >>> >"More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have >>> >to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when >>> >you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a >>> >pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. >>> > >>> >On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll >>> >need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of >>> >battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or >>> >will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. >>> > >>> >Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country >>> >spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it >>> >rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst >>> >part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and >>> >to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also >>> >should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. >>> >That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike >>> >should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. >>> > >>> >All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time >>> >allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too >>> >slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in >>> >mountainous country,
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Boulder <http://renehersebicycles.com/> and Box Dog<http://www.boxdogbikes.com/products-the-bdb-pelican/>bikes both sell off-the-peg randonneuses. Some older bikes are low trail (my old Ross), or a used Kogswell, or re-raking a fork on an under-used bike are some low-cost ways to try out the idea. Philip www.biketinker.com On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:53:22 AM UTC-7, Peter M wrote: > > I have never read BQ, but it is my understanding that they are > recommending a type of bike that isn't off the peg or readily available, > the "Classic Randonneur" so as pointed out on the Lovely Bicycle blog it > might be hard for a lot of us to make a comparison. Maybe the VO > Polyvalent? > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Warren > > > wrote: > >> >> Very thorough description. Describing the mission is a good way to >> highlight a point that has already been made: Rivendells are designed for >> riding that doesn't resemble that description. So comparing Rivendells to >> BQ bikes is an apples/oranges thing. >> >> >> -Original Message----- >> >From: Steve Palincsar > >> >Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM >> >To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com >> >Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes >> > >> >On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: >> >> What actually is a Randonneur frame? >> > >> >> Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it >> more suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - >> fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? >> > >> >Think about the mission. >> > >> >You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't >> >fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is >> >going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're >> >riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling >> >that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. >> > >> >You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through >> >the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some >> >places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You >> >can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can >> >stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry >> >the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. >> >"More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have >> >to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when >> >you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a >> >pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. >> > >> >On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll >> >need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of >> >battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or >> >will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. >> > >> >Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country >> >spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it >> >rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst >> >part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and >> >to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also >> >should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. >> >That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike >> >should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. >> > >> >All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time >> >allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too >> >slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in >> >mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you >> >can climb long, steep hills. >> > >> >Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. >> >Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises >> >will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so >> >few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the >> >ru
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
These types of threads are equivalent to arguing over which is the better type of screw dirver, flat head or phillips head? Whichever best suites the job you want to accomplish. A true rando bike is a purpose built machine. Riv's are not built as rando bikes (integrated lights, front loading specific, etc.). You can use most any bike to do whatever ever you want. Can you ride a brevet on a Riv. ? Sure. Can you commute on a Rene Herse? Sure. It is up to the rider to determine what works works best for them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I tend to waffle between Grant's and Jan's viewpoints on bicycles. I think part of that is curiosity about the type of ride that Rivendell's provide. I've heard so many glowing reports that I want to experience it for myself. Also, I'm an uber-clydesdale and I trust Rivendell bicycles to be robust enough for me more than I do a lot of others. On the other hand, if I weighed 180 and was in good shape.I would be all about performance but even then I think a Roadeo would fit my needs better than a dedicated Randonneur. I don't plan on ever carrying anything on my bike so I think low trail would be detrimental to me. Light steel frame? Sporty geometry? Light, high performance tires? All of those would be my preference if I was light enough to take advantage of them. On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:00:05 PM UTC-5, samh wrote: > I was fascinated by the discussion here: > > > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
This excellent summation of a randonneur bike's mission also describes a commute bike's mission. You need to get yourself and some gear to a destination, on time. A commuter (this one, anyway), may get a randonneur's "five hour" feeling at the 40 minute mark. In the bigger debate, I don't really see a debate at all. You take what's useful, and make it your own. All of my bikes owe a lot to both Grant and Jan's ideas. Except the mountain bike - that's more a Keith Bontrager / Charlie Cunningham joint. And the Gravel Roadster is sort of a Sheldon Brown / Jeff Jones thing... But the way I set up the Quickbeam and the Ross low-trail fixed gear bikes surely owes a lot to both Jan and Grant. And Sheldon. Philip www.biketinker.com On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:03:19 AM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: > > What actually is a Randonneur frame? > > > Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more > suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - > fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? > > Think about the mission. > > You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't > fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is > going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're > riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling > that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. > > You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through > the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some > places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You > can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can > stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry > the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. > "More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have > to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when > you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a > pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. > > On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll > need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of > battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or > will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. > > Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country > spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it > rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst > part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and > to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also > should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. > That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike > should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. > > All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time > allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too > slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in > mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you > can climb long, steep hills. > > Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. > Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises > will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so > few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the > rules to make them optional. Some people do without them. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
>I said there's a real, objective difference. It's not just "subjective." I'm >not imagining it. It's real. Agreed -- the "real" difference you've identified is an improvement in climbing efficiency (or maybe more generally, pedaling efficiency overall). I wasn't suggesting that it was imagined -- in fact I suggested it could probably be measured. >Now as to trade-offs and costs vs benefits: I'm unaware of having given up >anything as a result of this change. I won't even call it a trade-off, >>because that implies you're giving up something to get something else. I don't doubt that you're unaware of having given up anything that's of value to you as a result of the change from the Saluki to the MAP. That was my point in qualifying my statement about giving up other desirable characteristics of a bicycle with the parenthetical "which in your subjective view may be very little" (I should have gone further and acknowledged that in your subjective view it could be nil). But I have to say that I'm skeptical that every rider will exactly share your view about the trade-off -- Jim Thill, for example, seems to have at least a somewhat different view of the trade-off. As many people have said on this list in many different contexts, bicycle design involves endless compromises, and different riders I think inevitably will prefer different sets of compromises for different uses. Having said all that, I do very much appreciate the detail with which you've laid out the reasons for your preferences -- it's very informative, and helps me think more clearly about what I like in a bike, and why. Back to work. -Original Message- From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Palincsar Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:47 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 19:40 +, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote: > It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's > all you've said -- is that you personally (and subjectively) value the > incremental benefit in climbing/pedaling efficiency (relative to the > efficiency of your Saluki) more than you value whatever is given up in > other desirable characteristics of a bicycle (which in your subjective > view may be very little; others might take a different view) to > achieve that incremental efficiency. We can objectively measure that > incremental pedaling efficiency. It's a lot harder (I think I would > say impossible) to make an objective judgment of the net value to all > riders (as opposed to any one individual rider) of the costs and > benefits of any isolated design decision. > I said there's a real, objective difference. It's not just "subjective." I'm not imagining it. It's real. Now as to trade-offs and costs vs benefits: I'm unaware of having given up anything as a result of this change. I won't even call it a trade-off, because that implies you're giving up something to get something else. I'll come right out with it: the notion that all stiffness is good, and that infinite stiffness is infinitely good is just plain wrong. There's no doubt that for some loadings, some frames will have insufficient stiffness and that some additional amount will provide just enough; but going beyond that point into the realm of "more" does not provide additional benefit, even though it is measurable. -- 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<mailto:rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com<mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. **
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
...very few people have ridden a bike like Jan suggests so it's hard to accept that there is a difference. A standard dia. 531 tubed bike is built stiffer than Jan's performance based Randonneuring bikes. While I believe humans can adapt to most any thing, there are subtle advantages to the low trail lightweight bike. If all you ride is an Atlantis or LHT you believe that it works well and are probably happy. Through my own experimentation I have found that on mostly road and smooth dirt the lightweight tubed and low trail bikes are optimal for me. When I get in the rougher dirt or for loaded touring it makes less of a difference. ~mike Carlsbad Ca. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 19:40 +, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote: > It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's > all you've said -- is that you personally (and subjectively) value the > incremental benefit in climbing/pedaling efficiency (relative to the > efficiency of your Saluki) more than you value whatever is given up in > other desirable characteristics of a bicycle (which in your subjective > view may be very little; others might take a different view) to > achieve that incremental efficiency. We can objectively measure that > incremental pedaling efficiency. It's a lot harder (I think I would > say impossible) to make an objective judgment of the net value to all > riders (as opposed to any one individual rider) of the costs and > benefits of any isolated design decision. > I said there's a real, objective difference. It's not just "subjective." I'm not imagining it. It's real. Now as to trade-offs and costs vs benefits: I'm unaware of having given up anything as a result of this change. I won't even call it a trade-off, because that implies you're giving up something to get something else. I'll come right out with it: the notion that all stiffness is good, and that infinite stiffness is infinitely good is just plain wrong. There's no doubt that for some loadings, some frames will have insufficient stiffness and that some additional amount will provide just enough; but going beyond that point into the realm of "more" does not provide additional benefit, even though it is measurable. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's all you've said -- is that you personally (and subjectively) value the incremental benefit in climbing/pedaling efficiency (relative to the efficiency of your Saluki) more than you value whatever is given up in other desirable characteristics of a bicycle (which in your subjective view may be very little; others might take a different view) to achieve that incremental efficiency. We can objectively measure that incremental pedaling efficiency. It's a lot harder (I think I would say impossible) to make an objective judgment of the net value to all riders (as opposed to any one individual rider) of the costs and benefits of any isolated design decision. -Original Message- From: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Palincsar Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:28 PM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote: > "So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to > agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. " > > > > > > > Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by > extension that Grant was/is objectively wrong. You mean that > subjectively, for you and the riding and characteristics you have > evolved to prefer, Jan was right. > When on one bike I can easily power up a small grade and on the other I have to downshift downshift downshift we are beyond the realm of the subjective, and are firmly in "objective" territory. So yes I do mean Jan was objectively right. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof. Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. == -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, William wrote: > "So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to > agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. " > > > > > > > Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by > extension that Grant was/is objectively wrong. You mean that > subjectively, for you and the riding and characteristics you have > evolved to prefer, Jan was right. > When on one bike I can easily power up a small grade and on the other I have to downshift downshift downshift we are beyond the realm of the subjective, and are firmly in "objective" territory. So yes I do mean Jan was objectively right. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
"So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. " Of course you don't mean that Jan was objectively right, and by extension that Grant was/is objectively wrong. You mean that subjectively, for you and the riding and characteristics you have evolved to prefer, Jan was right. Right? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 09:03 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > Steve P: I used the term "undersized" in reference to tubing because > the smaller tubing diameter has become nonstandard over the last 20 or > so years. You can switch it around and refer to that which is the > current norm as "oversized" if you prefer, but that seems like too > much effort swimming upstream, not to mention meaningless when the old > standards are pretty much extinct. I vote that we trash all these > judgmental words and just use numbers. > "Undersized" implies too small, insufficient, wrong. If you object to calling the smaller diameter tubing "standard" then the best thing would be to specify the tubing diameter. That's not value-laden. > I would add that our physical preferences arise in our heads. If we're > predisposed to identifying with Jan's personality and attitude, then > we'll bring that predisposition with us when we ride the bikes Jan > likes. If we are more in tune with GP's style, then, gosh darn it, > that Riv is the best bike one could imagine. > Not applicable here. I was totally on board with GP's choices when I bought the Rambouillet and the Saluki. Experience showed me those frames were too stiff for me. I had a couple of good comparisons: a Merlin-built Titanium Spectrum custom, and a George Longstaff that was very similar in concept to the Rambouillet, only made with a light gauge standard diameter tubing. I could see how much better the Spectrum and the Longstaff did on hills, and when Jan came along and gave what I was experiencing a name, it all became crystal clear. So you can forget about predispositions here. My experience parallels what Jan wrote in his blog about the "journey of discovery." Yes, I fell in love with the look of a couple of Jack Taylors I saw at GEAR 1975 with Lefol fenders and TA handlebar bags. I put a handlebar bag on my Paramount, rode it that way for a few years, and then when the bracket broke and I removed the bag, was shocked to see how much that bag caused the handling to degrade; from that point on and for the next 15 years or so I was totally against handlebar bags. And then I rode some centuries with a Carradice on days that switched from sunny to cloudy to rain to overcast to sunny on about a 60 minute cycle, and found having to stop to park the bike and get my sun glasses out of the rear bag and then after a half hour stop to put them away was driving me totally crazy. Obviously, having the sun glasses up front was the way to go, you didn't have to dismount, park the bike and rummage around in a rear bag. But what about that awful handling deterioration? And then I read about those little racks supporting the handlebar bags. And the changes in fork rake that eliminated the feeling of the weight of the bag through the steering. So no, I wasn't predisposed to agree with Jan; I was predisposed to agree with Grant. Experience taught me that Jan was right. > As for the Surly LHT, I ride one almost daily. It suits me. It's tough and as > fast as I care to be on a bicycle. I can beat the Hell out of it, and if it > somehow doesn't survive, I can buy a new one this afternoon without losing > much sleep. But yes, I also sell the LHT, and often I'm asked about its > weight. I always tell people that if weight is a concern, even an imaginary > one, the LHT isn't for them. But hey, the Cross-check is kinda the same, but > lighter. The comments I've heard about LHT handling had nothing to do with weight, but rather a feeling of ponderousness. But, as I say, I've never ridden one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I am somewhat contrarian - at least from the Riv / BQ perspective. In the nine years now I've been without a car, I have come to the conclusion that I far prefer a a low trail bike with porteur style rack for urban commuting and errand running. For me it is easier popping my things and purchases into a front mounted porteur bag. Unless absolutely necessary, I do not drive on vacations either. For cycle vacations I like a bike with lower Mid-trail geometry with luggage in panniers weight divided 60 front / 40 back. I currently have a custom for this, but previously toured on a Hilsen worked great. My third and purely recreational bike has higher trail '80s Italian race bike geometry. I use this mainly for weekend fun rides. This bike has no provisions for fenders or racks. If the weather is absolutely certain to be dry for the weekend, I have loaded a change of clothes in a large Carradice saddle bag and ridden up to my Dad's house (about 70 miles a way) no problem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I've never given this whole debate much thought. I like Rivendell bikes because when I manage to squeeze two or three hours out of my busy schedule on a weekend for a ride in the local mountains, I want to ride a "road bike" that will take me anywhere, including rocky trails if the notion grabs me. I hardly ever ride with other people, so speed is irrelevant. For commuting, I've been doing the rear load thing for at least 20 years (I still use my early '90s Overland panniers every day!), so the idea of a front load bike doesn't do much for me, although it seems that people carry front loads on Rivs and they seem to work fine for that, too. > > Bryan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Steve P: I used the term "undersized" in reference to tubing because the smaller tubing diameter has become nonstandard over the last 20 or so years. You can switch it around and refer to that which is the current norm as "oversized" if you prefer, but that seems like too much effort swimming upstream, not to mention meaningless when the old standards are pretty much extinct. I vote that we trash all these judgmental words and just use numbers. I would add that our physical preferences arise in our heads. If we're predisposed to identifying with Jan's personality and attitude, then we'll bring that predisposition with us when we ride the bikes Jan likes. If we are more in tune with GP's style, then, gosh darn it, that Riv is the best bike one could imagine. As for the Surly LHT, I ride one almost daily. It suits me. It's tough and as fast as I care to be on a bicycle. I can beat the Hell out of it, and if it somehow doesn't survive, I can buy a new one this afternoon without losing much sleep. But yes, I also sell the LHT, and often I'm asked about its weight. I always tell people that if weight is a concern, even an imaginary one, the LHT isn't for them. But hey, the Cross-check is kinda the same, but lighter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Randonneur is the new cyclocross. Nothing wrong with either, but like 10 years ago it seemed everyone started making cyclocross bikes and everybody started racing, now it has shifted to Rando. But I agree with Jim Thill, get a nice bike you like and JUST RIDE! On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 10:39:16 AM UTC-4, Michael wrote: > > What actually is a Randonneur frame? > > Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more > suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - > fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I have never read BQ, but it is my understanding that they are recommending a type of bike that isn't off the peg or readily available, the "Classic Randonneur" so as pointed out on the Lovely Bicycle blog it might be hard for a lot of us to make a comparison. Maybe the VO Polyvalent? On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Warren wrote: > > Very thorough description. Describing the mission is a good way to > highlight a point that has already been made: Rivendells are designed for > riding that doesn't resemble that description. So comparing Rivendells to > BQ bikes is an apples/oranges thing. > > > -Original Message- > >From: Steve Palincsar > >Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM > >To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com > >Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes > > > >On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: > >> What actually is a Randonneur frame? > > > >> Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more > suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - > fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? > > > >Think about the mission. > > > >You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't > >fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is > >going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're > >riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling > >that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. > > > >You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through > >the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some > >places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You > >can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can > >stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry > >the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. > >"More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have > >to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when > >you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a > >pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. > > > >On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll > >need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of > >battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or > >will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. > > > >Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country > >spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it > >rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst > >part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and > >to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also > >should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. > >That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike > >should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. > > > >All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time > >allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too > >slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in > >mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you > >can climb long, steep hills. > > > >Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. > >Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises > >will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so > >few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the > >rules to make them optional. Some people do without them. > > > > > > > >-- > >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > >Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > &qu
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Very thorough description. Describing the mission is a good way to highlight a point that has already been made: Rivendells are designed for riding that doesn't resemble that description. So comparing Rivendells to BQ bikes is an apples/oranges thing. -Original Message- >From: Steve Palincsar >Sent: May 8, 2013 8:03 AM >To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com >Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes > >On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: >> What actually is a Randonneur frame? > >> Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more >> suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - >> fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? > >Think about the mission. > >You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't >fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is >going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're >riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling >that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. > >You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through >the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some >places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You >can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can >stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry >the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. >"More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have >to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when >you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a >pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. > >On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll >need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of >battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or >will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. > >Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country >spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it >rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst >part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and >to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also >should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. >That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike >should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. > >All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time >allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too >slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in >mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you >can climb long, steep hills. > >Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. >Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises >will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so >few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the >rules to make them optional. Some people do without them. > > > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW >Owners Bunch" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I too have no interest in riding a randeneur, but if I did I am quite certain that either my Rambouillet or Saluki would be great choices, and I am pretty sure Jan would agree with that statement. GP doesn't go out of his way to design for a large front end load but both of these bikes handle my Acorn Randeneur Bag just fine. I don't think Jan intends to dis very good bikes, but he is in pursuit of the best, and that is a very worthwhile goal. My life experience has taught me that in virtually everything the price performance curve gets very steep at the top. There's nothing wrong with buying at the top of the curve if you can afford it, but know that at some point each additional dollar spent brings less and less benefit. If I spend $250 for a pair of Paul's brakes I can be sure they will work great and last a lifetime. What more will I get for $400? Esthetics, a few grams of weight saving, maybe some ever so slight improvement in modulation? Time to go riding. Michael On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:03:19 AM UTC-4, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: > > What actually is a Randonneur frame? > > > Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more > suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - > fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? > > Think about the mission. > > You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't > fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is > going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're > riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling > that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. > > You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through > the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some > places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You > can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can > stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry > the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. > "More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have > to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when > you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a > pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. > > On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll > need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of > battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or > will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. > > Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country > spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it > rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst > part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and > to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also > should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. > That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike > should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. > > All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time > allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too > slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in > mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you > can climb long, steep hills. > > Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. > Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises > will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so > few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the > rules to make them optional. Some people do without them. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 07:39 -0700, Michael wrote: > What actually is a Randonneur frame? > Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more > suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - > fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? Think about the mission. You need a bike that's comfortable for long distance riding, that won't fatigue you because it rides roughly. You can expect that the rider is going to be tired and inattentive at some point (inevitable if you're riding through the night) so you can't tolerate hair-trigger handling that will get away from you if you're slow and inattentive. You can expect to start at 7 am and, for the longer rides, ride through the heat of the day, past sundown, and into the chill of night. In some places, that can mean as much as a 25-30 degree temperature range. You can't do that with a pair of arm warmers and leg warmers that you can stick in a jersey pocket, so you're going to have to be able to carry the clothing you needed when it was cold during the heat of the day. "More than you can stick in a jersey pocket" means you're going to have to carry bags of some kind. The more accessible those bags are when you're riding (so you don't have to stop and park the bike to put on a pair of sun glasses, for example) the better. On the longer rides you will have to ride at night. That means you'll need a lighting system. The really long rides will outlast the range of battery-operated systems, so either you'll need to replace batteries or will have to rely on bicycle-powered systems that don't need batteries. Randonneuring is a spring-time sport, and in most areas of the country spring is a rainy season. You can't skip out on a ride because it rains, so the bike is going to have to go in bad weather. The worst part about riding in the rain is getting chilled because you're wet, and to deal with that you'll not only need suitable rain clothing, you also should find a way to keep the worst of it, spray from the road, off you. That means you'll need to mount fenders, and that in turn means the bike should have the room to fit them and the attachment points to fit them. All that said, it's a sport that is run against a time limit. Time allowed is based on distance, with no consideration for terrain. Go too slow and you won't finish in time. Also, the rides are typically in mountainous country, so the bike is going to have to be set up so you can climb long, steep hills. Basically, any bike that can meet those functional requirements will do. Many bikes can't meet them all but can do some, and often compromises will be made. In fact, the rules used to mandate fenders but since so few bicycles made recently can actually fit fenders, they relaxed the rules to make them optional. Some people do without them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
What actually is a Randonneur frame? Meaning, what is it about its geometry and materials that makes it more suited to this activity over other traditionally styled road bikes - fenderability and tire width and ad- ons capability excluded? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
This is all a matter of taste, I think. I'm 170 - 175, and my custom Rivs ride just fine -- I've never felt that they are sluggish in any way, and this compared to other bikes with the old standard sized and all 531 tubing.* My seat-of-the-pants test is how fast I can turn the cranks in a given gear in given conditions and, #2, how well they do on hills in a 65" to 75" gear. Of course, there are so many variables that this sort of discussion is almost like shouting into an abyss, but I do know that, for me, the two remaining customs have stood out for the *feeling* of speed and efficiency for 10+ years (one is 10 years old, the other 14 years old). Funny,. the two customs feel faster than the Ram, even with the Ram shod with Paris-Roubaix tires. The Sam Hill felt like the Fargo -- not bad, but not exactly sprightly. Jim Thill: why the animus against "French"? *And yet this particular bike (1973 Motobecane Grand Record, toute 531 racing bike) was one of the best load carriers I've ridden. Go figure. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 20:09 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of > > plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort > > and sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with > > undersized tubes, and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be > > enjoyable. > > I really don't like your use of the term "undersized." Riv tubes are > OVERsize. That's what it was called when it was introduced, and that's > still what it's known as. The stuff that's even larger diameter is > known as "over-over-size". You can have high-bar comfort without > excessive stiffness; the two are not inextricably linked. > > Furthermore, there's a lot of difference between a 190-220 lb "plus > size" rider and the 270 pounder you write about. I haven't seen too > many 270 pounders, but plenty of those in the 0.1 ton category > (including myself), and we do not necessarily need the excessive > stiffness Rivs now provide. In fact, that excessive stiffness takes > away a good deal of enjoyment in my opinion, especially by making the > bikes reluctant climbers. > > > I come down on the Riv side. I shy away from the faintest whiff of > > daintiness and anything that seems French. I draw a lot more parallels > > between RBW and Surly than I do between RBW and the integrated rando > > bike concept. > > > > And you know what people say about the Surly LHT: rides like a tank, way > overbuilt for unloaded riding. I've never ridden a Surly LHT, but I > have owned two Rivendells. While I think they were excessively stiff, > they definitely didn't ride like tanks. > > While many randonneurs have turned Rivs into rando bikes, Rivendells are > perhaps the exact opposite of "integrated." Doug Brooks called it > "resourceful" vs "resolved." > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 20:09 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of > plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort > and sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with > undersized tubes, and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be > enjoyable. I really don't like your use of the term "undersized." Riv tubes are OVERsize. That's what it was called when it was introduced, and that's still what it's known as. The stuff that's even larger diameter is known as "over-over-size". You can have high-bar comfort without excessive stiffness; the two are not inextricably linked. Furthermore, there's a lot of difference between a 190-220 lb "plus size" rider and the 270 pounder you write about. I haven't seen too many 270 pounders, but plenty of those in the 0.1 ton category (including myself), and we do not necessarily need the excessive stiffness Rivs now provide. In fact, that excessive stiffness takes away a good deal of enjoyment in my opinion, especially by making the bikes reluctant climbers. > I come down on the Riv side. I shy away from the faintest whiff of > daintiness and anything that seems French. I draw a lot more parallels > between RBW and Surly than I do between RBW and the integrated rando > bike concept. > And you know what people say about the Surly LHT: rides like a tank, way overbuilt for unloaded riding. I've never ridden a Surly LHT, but I have owned two Rivendells. While I think they were excessively stiff, they definitely didn't ride like tanks. While many randonneurs have turned Rivs into rando bikes, Rivendells are perhaps the exact opposite of "integrated." Doug Brooks called it "resourceful" vs "resolved." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I think I posted into the comments when that article originally came out. I have to go through it though. I believe she went and bought herself a seven axiom and has since sold the Hillborne. I remember her saying that she never really did carry much in the way of gear on the bike and never took it camping or touring really and there were better bikes for the riding she liked and planned to do. Those being paceline riding and brevets. I agree that with the hillborne she was on the wrong bike for that kind of stuff. I have never had a handling issue with my Hillborne and only bought another riv(Roadeo) because I wanted a quick bike that would be setup for club riding. I personally fall on the Riv side of things and a lot of it has to do with the bike's versatality and handling. On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:00:05 PM UTC-5, samh wrote: > I was fascinated by the discussion here: > > > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
Jan and Grant remind me of old "Outdoor Life" writers like Jack O'Connor who brought romance and excitement to their sport (hunting). They promote the sport they love through their ideas and designs, but both love different things about the sport/lifestyle. I generally love reading everything they write. They are both right on for their respective audiences. We would be a poorer group if either was gone, and it will be a sad day when they retire from the bike world. Brian Seattle, WA On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:47 PM, samh wrote: > --She's done a decently balanced review. > > I think the really interesting stuff is in the comments. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
--She's done a decently balanced review. I think the really interesting stuff is in the comments. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
+1 on what Jim said. I love my Hilsen and still learning about it's behavior which so far is stable and nimble enough. Hugh Sunland, CA On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > I'm a strong advocate of not reading too much navel-gazing analyses of > geometry and other BS, and JUST RIDE. That said... > > It could be that what makes an optimal bike for brevets in the Cascades is > somewhat different than what goes into GP's family of all-rounders that get > tested on the rocky goat paths of Shell Ridge in Walnut Creek. Sure, a lot > of Riv owners and enthusiasts get seduced by the romance of brevets, but > I've never read GP expressing much interest in brevets, or in optimizing > his bikes for Jan's front-loaded version of brevets. Undersized tubing? > Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of plus-sized people are > drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort and sturdiness. Put some > chugging 270-pounder on a bike with undersized tubes, and it's likely to > get a bit too exciting to be enjoyable. > > I come down on the Riv side. I shy away from the faintest whiff of > daintiness and anything that seems French. I draw a lot more parallels > between RBW and Surly than I do between RBW and the integrated rando bike > concept. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I agree with your points on lighter or thinner tubing, Jim, One thing I have considered, thought, is sending off the romulus and getting a new fork made for it in what would be a decidedly high rake (low trail) bike. Like Rene has done on this list. I think that would be a better test to see if I'm happier with it or not - independent of tubing and other choices. That's why when I saw this post from soma I was fairly excited http://www.somafab.blogspot.com/2013/05/low-trail-forks.html They will likely only make them for 1-1/8" threadless but I'd think about picking up a cross check or a pacer or a double cross to try that out. Having said that whenever I ride the hilsen or the romulus I'm reminded that it is really super pleasant to ride the way it is and leaving it alone doesn't cost anything, then I think about other things and then I notice a coffee shop and my mind slips to other things altogether. :) -sv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
I'm a strong advocate of not reading too much navel-gazing analyses of geometry and other BS, and JUST RIDE. That said... It could be that what makes an optimal bike for brevets in the Cascades is somewhat different than what goes into GP's family of all-rounders that get tested on the rocky goat paths of Shell Ridge in Walnut Creek. Sure, a lot of Riv owners and enthusiasts get seduced by the romance of brevets, but I've never read GP expressing much interest in brevets, or in optimizing his bikes for Jan's front-loaded version of brevets. Undersized tubing? Maybe it's not obvious to everybody, but a lot of plus-sized people are drawn to Riv by the promise of high-bar comfort and sturdiness. Put some chugging 270-pounder on a bike with undersized tubes, and it's likely to get a bit too exciting to be enjoyable. I come down on the Riv side. I shy away from the faintest whiff of daintiness and anything that seems French. I draw a lot more parallels between RBW and Surly than I do between RBW and the integrated rando bike concept. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Interesting discussion: Riv bikes v. BQ bikes
She's done a decently balanced review. I love my Atlantis (now well over 40,000 miles) and anxiously await every issue of BQ. I do not agree completely with either Grant or Jan but both have well substantiated arguments for their philosophies. To me, it boils down to Grant's statement (somewhere?) that "...a bike frame is a place to hang the parts you want..." and Jan's belief that one must start with the wheel & tire size and design an integrated bicycle from there, considering rider weight, luggage, racks, lights, etc. Grant's approach demands versatility whereas Jan's seems to lean toward specificity. Granted Jan's ideas lead to a bike that's still quite versatile, but bikes built to his ideal will be more rider specific; i.e., built for one rider's height, weight, etc. I've learned a lot from both of these guys, and they both contribute real, useful information. I'm glad we've got resources such as Grant & Jan in the bicycle world. They are both into real world cycling that we can relate to and actually enjoy. Thumbs up to Lovely Bicycle for a great article. dougP On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, samh wrote: > > I was fascinated by the discussion here: > > > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/02/choosing-your-gospel-rivendell-vs.html > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
