Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Have you tried a click-stand? Cool little device. On Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Kelly wrote: > > > > Did I mention I don't get many miles out of kickstands.. they get loosey > goosey and bend and then useless... and I despise the two legged stands as > I break them and they fall over more on me than a single. > > Oh I'm sorry I have a Blue Ram instead of an Orange one.. > > Night folks. > > Kelly > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
A decade ago you were almost 30 years older? How does that work? Does Rivendell now sell the Fountain of Youth? On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM, George Schick wrote: > Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with > "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person..." > And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth > noting: > > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on > their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and > weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I > ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to > them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable > on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says > the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete > bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and > regretted it UNTIL ... > > 2) about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less > flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels > and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP > is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't > feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way > 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, > and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all > shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every > day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, > wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique > them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years > ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from > the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly > comfortable with it. > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely >> a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What >> is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, >> but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or >> perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain >> riders and their Rams. >> >> Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an >> indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many >> ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and >> saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact >> with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is >> interacting with it. >> >> I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least >> started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the >> characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone >> with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a >> light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well >> find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals >> fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. >> >> Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build >> and pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate >> "suspicions". >> >> Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest >> feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam >> Hill felt more sl
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I find that the load and torque vector on a single legged kickstand causes the bolt to come loose over time, whereas the bolt has never come loose on my double legger. YMMV I guess On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Kelly wrote: > My 68cm RAM is my go fast bike. I'm 235 and usually in the 225 weight > class. The bike comes in at about 25lbs with everything on it, and feel > great to me.May not be for everyone but it feel quick and nimble and > actually rides very well.I am in the wonderful position of being a > perfect fit for Grants system. I run my bars about seat height, and at > 6'5" the larger 67 AHH / 68 RAM / 64 Bomba give me three bikes that make me > debate what to ride often. They each have specialities.. but overlap > enough on meandering that sometimes it's just which one has a big enough > bag for the day . > > I run the Gran Boise 32 that measure about 30 on the Ram > the 70x37 Panaracer on the AHH great tire fyi.. so freaking smooth. > and the the 700x50 Supreme and Big Apple on the Bomba.. I think I like the > ride of the old style big apple better. .. but the supreme took me through > alaska and many tours including goat head country with maybe 3 flats over > the last 4 years. > > the AHH is my go to this week.. the only thing I miss on my ram is a > kickstand... I mean I really really really really really miss my > kickstand.. did I mention that it needs a kickstand.. > > Did I mention I don't get many miles out of kickstands.. they get loosey > goosey and bend and then useless... and I despise the two legged stands as > I break them and they fall over more on me than a single. > > Oh I'm sorry I have a Blue Ram instead of an Orange one.. > > Night folks. > > Kelly > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- "I want the kind of six pack you can't drink." -- Micah -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
My 68cm RAM is my go fast bike. I'm 235 and usually in the 225 weight class. The bike comes in at about 25lbs with everything on it, and feel great to me. May not be for everyone but it feel quick and nimble and actually rides very well.I am in the wonderful position of being a perfect fit for Grants system. I run my bars about seat height, and at 6'5" the larger 67 AHH / 68 RAM / 64 Bomba give me three bikes that make me debate what to ride often. They each have specialities.. but overlap enough on meandering that sometimes it's just which one has a big enough bag for the day . I run the Gran Boise 32 that measure about 30 on the Ram the 70x37 Panaracer on the AHH great tire fyi.. so freaking smooth. and the the 700x50 Supreme and Big Apple on the Bomba.. I think I like the ride of the old style big apple better. .. but the supreme took me through alaska and many tours including goat head country with maybe 3 flats over the last 4 years. the AHH is my go to this week.. the only thing I miss on my ram is a kickstand... I mean I really really really really really miss my kickstand.. did I mention that it needs a kickstand.. Did I mention I don't get many miles out of kickstands.. they get loosey goosey and bend and then useless... and I despise the two legged stands as I break them and they fall over more on me than a single. Oh I'm sorry I have a Blue Ram instead of an Orange one.. Night folks. Kelly -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
What you're remembering as "sport-touring" were pretty spindly race-type bikes in comparison to the stouter Rom/Ram/AHH "all day" bicycles that Rivendell focuses on. And they had the consequent skinny tires which Riv eschews, too. Those 80's/90's bikes have their place and can be great fun to ride, but - in my opinion - your Rambouillet was not designed to mimic them. On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:07:09 PM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: > > For what it's worth, I (the original poster) am around 6' tall, 230 lbs., > pretty beefy and broad (big shoulders, etc.). I would characterize myself > as a masher, I guess, since I cut my teeth on mountain biking and never > really developed a glassy-smooth pedal stroke. > > I guess I was just really surprised by some of the ride characteristics of > the bike... I was expecting something like the sport-tourers of the 80's > and early 90's, not so much the handling of a loaded touring bike or early > 80's klunker. I do suspect there are some real fit issues with this > frameset for me -- most of my bikes are kind of on the small side, some > almost comically so. > > I appreciate how open minded all you Riv devotees have been through this > discussion, though -- no one telling me my perceptions are just wrong, etc. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
tires are gone On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 7:05:26 PM UTC-7, bo richardson wrote: > > i have some 32 grand bois cypres > i think > i love them but there is too much glass on my circuit > i am pulling them off tomorrow and would > sell both for fifty plus shipping > call it sixty even > almost new although the front hs had glass pulled out of it > bo richardson > 360 676 4838 > i love my rambouillet > and if anything will make you love this bike > it is these tires > if not sell the bike with these tires -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
For what it's worth I went through 4 different Rivendell frames before I found one I loved. But me and the Bombadil are a happy pair now. On Apr 8, 2014 10:05 PM, "bo richardson" wrote: > i have some 32 grand bois cypres > i think > i love them but there is too much glass on my circuit > i am pulling them off tomorrow and would > sell both for fifty plus shipping > call it sixty even > almost new although the front hs had glass pulled out of it > bo richardson > 360 676 4838 > i love my rambouillet > and if anything will make you love this bike > it is these tires > if not sell the bike with these tires > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
i have some 32 grand bois cypres i think i love them but there is too much glass on my circuit i am pulling them off tomorrow and would sell both for fifty plus shipping call it sixty even almost new although the front hs had glass pulled out of it bo richardson 360 676 4838 i love my rambouillet and if anything will make you love this bike it is these tires if not sell the bike with these tires -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Och, Jeff! Figuring out a bike is a very personal journey comprised of lots of wee journeys (rides), with input from others, but ultimately it's you and the bike. I took a year to get to know my Hunqapillar and learning how to ride a mammoth, refining things along the way. In my case, my second year was vastly under biking using my touring set-up tires and handlebars last year on single track and lots of bikepacking trips. I learned that's the type of riding I want to do, so This year (year three) is going to be a change in the cockpit, saddle, and drivetrain to match that discovery. For me the Hunqapillar is the perfect bike for what I thought I would be doing, as well as the perfect bike for what I will be doing. Whatever you decide to do, your journey will continue and you will move closer toward matching your riding and your bike and how it's set up. That's all part of the fun. One of the gifts Grant and this group has given me is permission to play and to under bike, because I always have my LCG (lowest common gear) with me, so can walk whatever is too much. No biggie. On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:07:09 PM UTC-6, Jeff Ong wrote: > > For what it's worth, I (the original poster) am around 6' tall, 230 lbs., > pretty beefy and broad (big shoulders, etc.). I would characterize myself > as a masher, I guess, since I cut my teeth on mountain biking and never > really developed a glassy-smooth pedal stroke. > > I guess I was just really surprised by some of the ride characteristics of > the bike... I was expecting something like the sport-tourers of the 80's > and early 90's, not so much the handling of a loaded touring bike or early > 80's klunker. I do suspect there are some real fit issues with this > frameset for me -- most of my bikes are kind of on the small side, some > almost comically so. > > I appreciate how open minded all you Riv devotees have been through this > discussion, though -- no one telling me my perceptions are just wrong, etc. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
For what it's worth, I (the original poster) am around 6' tall, 230 lbs., pretty beefy and broad (big shoulders, etc.). I would characterize myself as a masher, I guess, since I cut my teeth on mountain biking and never really developed a glassy-smooth pedal stroke. I guess I was just really surprised by some of the ride characteristics of the bike... I was expecting something like the sport-tourers of the 80's and early 90's, not so much the handling of a loaded touring bike or early 80's klunker. I do suspect there are some real fit issues with this frameset for me -- most of my bikes are kind of on the small side, some almost comically so. I appreciate how open minded all you Riv devotees have been through this discussion, though -- no one telling me my perceptions are just wrong, etc. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
True, but even if I swap out for a different frameset (Mercian Audax?), the tires will be put to good use. I'll give it a shot. On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:48:33 PM UTC-7, Brian Campbell wrote: > > Sounds like you know what you like and the Ram is not it. I would sell it. > There may be no mystery to solve. Not every bike is for every person. >> >> -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
The "no warranty warranty" :) On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote: > > I believe you can put drop bars on any Rivendell without voiding the > warranty. > On Apr 7, 2014 9:10 PM, "George Schick" > > wrote: > >> Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty >> much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the >> Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the >> largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really >> probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that >> had me on a 23" when I really should've been on a 21". One size does NOT >> fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the >> human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, >> flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse >> through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several >> decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured "drop" type >> bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar >> height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since >> has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, >> with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and >> aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work >> here... >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: >>> >>> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with >>> Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just >>> perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to >>> dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me >>> when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size >>> up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere >>> near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way >>> round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. >>> >>> With abandon, >>> patrick >>> >>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth noting: 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and regretted it UNTIL ... 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, and the perception. I
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I believe you can put drop bars on any Rivendell without voiding the warranty. On Apr 7, 2014 9:10 PM, "George Schick" wrote: > Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty > much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the > Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the > largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really > probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that > had me on a 23" when I really should've been on a 21". One size does NOT > fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the > human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, > flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse > through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several > decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured "drop" type > bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar > height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since > has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, > with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and > aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work > here... > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with >> Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just >> perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to >> dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me >> when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size >> up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere >> near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way >> round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. >> >> With abandon, >> patrick >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >>> >>> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with >>> "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person..." >>> And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth >>> noting: >>> >>> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv >>> on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and >>> weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different >>> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't >>> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >>> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the >>> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size >>> "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So >>> they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their >>> PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was >>> considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my >>> height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my >>> arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've >>> been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable >>> years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types >>> talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. >>> Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg >>> off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to >>> accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I >>> ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to >>> them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable >>> on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says >>> the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete >>> bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and >>> regretted it UNTIL ... >>> >>> 2) about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less >>> flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels >>> and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP >>> is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't >>> feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way >>> 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, >>> and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all >>> shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every >>> day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, >>> wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not abo
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that had me on a 23" when I really should've been on a 21". One size does NOT fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured "drop" type bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work here... On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with > Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just > perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to > dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me > when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size > up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere > near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way > round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. > > With abandon, > patrick > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >> >> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with >> "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" >> And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth >> noting: >> >> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv >> on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and >> weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different >> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't >> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the >> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size >> "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So >> they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their >> PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was >> considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my >> height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my >> arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've >> been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable >> years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types >> talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. >> Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg >> off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to >> accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I >> ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to >> them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable >> on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says >> the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete >> bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and >> regretted it UNTIL ... >> >> 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less >> flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels >> and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP >> is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't >> feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way >> 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, >> and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all >> shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every >> day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, >> wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique >> them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years >> ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Forgot to mention the customs. No, we didn't. I simply sent him a photo of me on a bike whose fit I liked, and then discussed general fit and handling qualities. We ended up in all 3 cases with 8 cm extensions (and 56.5 or 57 tts with 73* seat tubes). (Note: the 1994/5 required a custom stem (it was a 54 c-c; Grant said "don't tell anyone, but hey) -- this was before Riv carried the Tech or Tallux -- but the effective extension was 8 cm.) For the record, if I were buying a bike and if Grant and I had discussed handling qualities, and further, if Grant had agreed to build me something with my desired handling qualities, and further yet, if Grant declared, "I shall build you the bike of your dreams, and said bike of dreams shall use a stem with a 1 cm extension, the which I shall supply to you; be at peace": I would sit back in great contentment and anticipate the bike with nary a qualm. But I'd have to have Grant's personal word about it. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > It's not a matter of fitting systems, scientific or otherwise, but of > weight distribution, handling, and overall feel and comfort. To take the > Sam Hill as the example, my choices were limited to using a stem long > enough to keep the weight distribution and handling and feel normal, or to > use such a short stem that these qualities were compromised, or to have the > bar too high. > > I realize that the seat tube angle plays a role here, but I am considering > only such cases where this variable has been taken into account and you are > still left with a reach from saddle (which has to be positioned first of > all, with all other variables determined in respect of this one) to bar (of > choice; again this one is another variable) that is too long. > > In short, again with my Sam Hill, with saddle in place, bar of choice (46 > cm Noodle), and bar height of choice (no more than 1" above saddle) the tt > was simply too long without using a stem so short that I anticipated (I did > not try a 6 cm stem) problems. (One of which would have been simply > finding a stem so short but with a long enough quill.) > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > >> Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the >> fancy "scientific" fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. >> Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >>> OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the >>> 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, >>> but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm >>> stems, something is less than ideal. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: >>> Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you > want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the > saddle, > then Grant's system doesn't work. > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > >> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds >> with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you >> just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then >> height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked >> with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was >> one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect >> (not >> anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the >> other >> way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted >> it. >> >> With abandon, >> patrick >> >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >>> >>> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post >>> with "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every >>> person…" And along with your list of possible variables there are two >>> others worth noting: >>> >>> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and >>> Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same >>> height >>> and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore >>> different >>> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I >>> can't >>> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >>> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were >>> the >>> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
It's not a matter of fitting systems, scientific or otherwise, but of weight distribution, handling, and overall feel and comfort. To take the Sam Hill as the example, my choices were limited to using a stem long enough to keep the weight distribution and handling and feel normal, or to use such a short stem that these qualities were compromised, or to have the bar too high. I realize that the seat tube angle plays a role here, but I am considering only such cases where this variable has been taken into account and you are still left with a reach from saddle (which has to be positioned first of all, with all other variables determined in respect of this one) to bar (of choice; again this one is another variable) that is too long. In short, again with my Sam Hill, with saddle in place, bar of choice (46 cm Noodle), and bar height of choice (no more than 1" above saddle) the tt was simply too long without using a stem so short that I anticipated (I did not try a 6 cm stem) problems. (One of which would have been simply finding a stem so short but with a long enough quill.) On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the > fancy "scientific" fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. > Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? > > With abandon, > Patrick > > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the >> 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, >> but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm >> stems, something is less than ideal. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >>> Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. >>> >>> With abandon, >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: >>> This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds > with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you > just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then > height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked > with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was > one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect > (not > anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the > other > way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted > it. > > With abandon, > patrick > > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >> >> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with >> "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" >> And along with your list of possible variables there are two others >> worth >> noting: >> >> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and >> Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same >> height >> and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore >> different >> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I >> can't >> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were >> the >> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size >> "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So >> they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their >> PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was >> considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my >> height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my >> arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas >> I've >> been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most >> miserable >> years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types >> talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. >> Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one >> leg >> off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to >> accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I >> ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to >> them or who might've built t
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the fancy "scientific" fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > > OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 > 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but > the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, > something is less than ideal. > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick > > wrote: > >> Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >>> This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want >>> your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then >>> Grant's system doesn't work. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: >>> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: > > Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with > "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" > And along with your list of possible variables there are two others > worth > noting: > > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and > Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same > height > and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore > different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I > can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were > the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas > I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most > miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one > leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I > ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to > them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely > comfortable > on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP > says > the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete > bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and > regretted it UNTIL ... > > 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far > less flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike > feels and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old > the OP is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just > doesn't feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the > same way 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, > the aging, and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see > people > of all shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park > trail > every day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or > high, wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and > critique them and suggest something different. I've done th
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, something is less than ideal. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. > > With abandon, > Patrick > > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want >> your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then >> Grant's system doesn't work. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >>> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with >>> Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just >>> perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to >>> dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me >>> when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size >>> up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere >>> near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way >>> round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. >>> >>> With abandon, >>> patrick >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth noting: 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and regretted it UNTIL ... 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly comfortable with it. On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > > George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is > entirely a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely > legitimate.) What is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram > qualities alone, but a collect
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: > > This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want > your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then > Grant's system doesn't work. > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick > > wrote: > >> George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with >> Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just >> perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to >> dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me >> when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size >> up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere >> near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way >> round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. >> >> With abandon, >> patrick >> >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >>> >>> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with >>> "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" >>> And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth >>> noting: >>> >>> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv >>> on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and >>> weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different >>> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't >>> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >>> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the >>> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size >>> "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So >>> they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their >>> PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was >>> considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my >>> height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my >>> arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've >>> been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable >>> years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types >>> talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. >>> Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg >>> off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to >>> accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I >>> ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to >>> them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable >>> on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says >>> the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete >>> bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and >>> regretted it UNTIL ... >>> >>> 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less >>> flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels >>> and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP >>> is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't >>> feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way >>> 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, >>> and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all >>> shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every >>> day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, >>> wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique >>> them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years >>> ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from >>> the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly >>> comfortable with it. >>> >>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain riders and their Rams. Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many wa
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick wrote: > George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with > Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just > perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to > dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me > when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size > up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere > near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way > round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. > > With abandon, > patrick > > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: >> >> Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with >> "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" >> And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth >> noting: >> >> 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv >> on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and >> weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different >> frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't >> remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post >> where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the >> same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size >> "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So >> they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their >> PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was >> considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my >> height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my >> arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've >> been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable >> years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types >> talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. >> Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg >> off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to >> accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I >> ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to >> them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable >> on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says >> the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete >> bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and >> regretted it UNTIL ... >> >> 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less >> flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels >> and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP >> is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't >> feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way >> 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, >> and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all >> shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every >> day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, >> wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique >> them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years >> ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from >> the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly >> comfortable with it. >> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: >>> >>> George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is >>> entirely a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely >>> legitimate.) What is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram >>> qualities alone, but a collection of experiences that certain riders have >>> of their Rams. Or perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the >>> relationship between certain riders and their Rams. >>> >>> Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an >>> indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many >>> ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and >>> saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact >>> with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is >>> interacting with it. >>> >>> I' guessing, but I am no merely groping
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, George Schick wrote: > [...] > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on > their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and > weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. > I'm built much the same, though without the long arms. I'm an honest 5'10 in bare feet on a level, concrete floor, but when I sit on a flat, wooden bench beside my 6'1" bro in law (last name "Hansen") I am at least as tall and perhaps a wee bit taller. (I'm also better looking.) I agree about the huge importance of top tube length. Hell, forget seat tube length if tt length is OK. (That's not entirely serious, but it makes the point.) One reason I sold the 56 cm Sam Hill was that the 59 cm c-c tt was just way too long. OTOH, that old Herse, at 60 X 57 c-c, fit perfectly. (What a *nice* bike! The problem I had with it was: it was too heavy for a gofast, and it didn't handle my sort of easy-load grocery loads well, either front or rear. Oh well, the new owner loved it.) My two remaining Rivs are 57 and 58 (c-c) with 56 1/2 cm effective top tubes. The 17" c-c Fargo has a 57 cm effective top tube. When I converted various early '90s mountain bikes to drops, I needed short and steep upjutters; the last such conversion, a 20" c-c Diamond Back with flat tt and head tube cut off practically level with tt fit fine with a 10 cm Dirt Drop stem for the Noodle. > > 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less > flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels > and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP > is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't > feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way > 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, > and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all > shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every > day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, > wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique > them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years > ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from > the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly > comfortable with 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick wrote: > > Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with > "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" > And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth > noting: > > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on > their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and > weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I > ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to > them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable > on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says > the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete > bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and > regretted it UNTIL ... > > 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less > flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels > and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP > is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't > feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way > 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, > and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all > shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every > day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, > wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique > them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years > ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from > the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly > comfortable with it. > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >> George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely >> a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What >> is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, >> but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or >> perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain >> riders and their Rams. >> >> Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an >> indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many >> ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and >> saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact >> with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is >> interacting with it. >> >> I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least >> started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the >> characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone >> with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a >> li
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person…" And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth noting: 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and regretted it UNTIL ... 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly comfortable with it. On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > > George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely > a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What > is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, > but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or > perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain > riders and their Rams. > > Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an > indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many > ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and > saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact > with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is > interacting with it. > > I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least > started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the > characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone > with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a > light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well > find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals > fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. > > Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build and > pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate > "suspicions". > > Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest > feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam > Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" > was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd > choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the > lack of spritelines
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Patrick: I warned you about leaving your garage door open. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > To clarify: this Motobecane (Eric stole it from me) felt fast and lively. My > point is that it didn't feel any faster and livelier than other bikes that > had oversized and (since they are Rivs) doubtless sturdier tubing. Hell, the > Herse I mentioned felt at least as fast with the same IRC Tandem (30 mm > labeled, 28-9 mm actual) tires. > > Of course, I was usually carrying 15 to 40 lb on the back of the Motobecane, > so who knows. > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eric Norris wrote: > My '73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily similar > to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. Switching > from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires (700x32) made a > big difference--much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. > > P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn't had a flat yet > with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the (rear) > tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from home. A less > quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. > > --Eric N > campyonly...@me.com > Web: www.campyonly.com > Twitter: @campyonlyguy > Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com > > On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely a >> personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What is >> in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, but a >> collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or perhaps >> more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain riders >> and their Rams. >> >> Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an indefinite >> number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many ways in >> which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and saddle >> setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact with the >> bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is interacting with >> it. >> >> I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least >> started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the >> characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone >> with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a >> light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well >> find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals >> fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. >> >> Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build and >> pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate >> "suspicions". >> >> Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest >> feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam >> Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" >> was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd >> choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the lack >> of spriteliness). Likewise, the Fargo shod with 35 mm Kojaks felt >> considerably less spritely than the Ram shod with the very same pair. >> >> Of which speaking: can anyone tell me the particular specs of the tubing for >> a 1973 Motobecane Grande Record? I know it is light 531, but what gauge and >> butts? I ask because of all the bikes I've owned in the last 5-6 years, this >> had the lightest frame of any bike that I've owned (frameset considerably >> lighter by heft, anyway, than either of my 2 remaining Riv customs), but I >> didn't experience any particular feeling of speed with it (granted there are >> all sorts of other factors here), while a stout tubed and very definitely >> heavier Herse that others had found sluggish (I think I am accurate with >> that qualifier) felt, to me, particularly spritely. >> >> Oh my, all of this hurts my little head. >> >> Patrick Moore, fighting spring headwinds and wishing dead-feeling frames >> were his only obstacle in ABQ, NM. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, George Schick wrote: >> I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started last >> Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see if >> maybe I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I >> figured it would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life >> of me I can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except >> maybe the pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). >> Mine is a 54c
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
To clarify: this Motobecane (Eric stole it from me) felt fast and lively. My point is that it didn't feel any faster and livelier than other bikes that had oversized and (since they are Rivs) doubtless sturdier tubing. Hell, the Herse I mentioned felt at least as fast with the same IRC Tandem (30 mm labeled, 28-9 mm actual) tires. Of course, I was usually carrying 15 to 40 lb on the back of the Motobecane, so who knows. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eric Norris wrote: > My ’73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily > similar to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. > Switching from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires > (700x32) made a big difference—much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. > > P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn’t had a flat > yet with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the > (rear) tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from > home. A less quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. > > --Eric N > campyonly...@me.com > Web: www.campyonly.com > Twitter: @campyonlyguy > Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com > > On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > > George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely > a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What > is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, > but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or > perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain > riders and their Rams. > > Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an > indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many > ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and > saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact > with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is > interacting with it. > > I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least > started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the > characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone > with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a > light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well > find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals > fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. > > Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build and > pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate > "suspicions". > > Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest > feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam > Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" > was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd > choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the > lack of spriteliness). Likewise, the Fargo shod with 35 mm Kojaks felt > considerably less spritely than the Ram shod with the very same pair. > > Of which speaking: can anyone tell me the particular specs of the tubing > for a 1973 Motobecane Grande Record? I know it is light 531, but what gauge > and butts? I ask because of all the bikes I've owned in the last 5-6 years, > this had the lightest frame of any bike that I've owned (frameset > considerably lighter by heft, anyway, than either of my 2 remaining Riv > customs), but I didn't experience any particular feeling of speed with it > (granted there are all sorts of other factors here), while a stout tubed > and very definitely heavier Herse that others had found sluggish (I think I > am accurate with that qualifier) felt, to me, particularly spritely. > > Oh my, all of this hurts my little head. > > Patrick Moore, fighting spring headwinds and wishing dead-feeling frames > were his only obstacle in ABQ, NM. > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, George Schick wrote: > >> I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started >> last Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see >> if maybe I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I >> figured it would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life >> of me I can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except >> maybe the pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). >> Mine is a 54cm shod with 32mm Paselas (standard, not TG's). Maybe the >> larger 58cm frame makes a difference? Maybe the headset or its adjustment? >> Dunno. But, yes it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for >> every person. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
My '73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily similar to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. Switching from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires (700x32) made a big difference--much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn't had a flat yet with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the (rear) tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from home. A less quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: > George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely a > personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What is in > question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, but a > collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or perhaps > more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain riders and > their Rams. > > Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an indefinite > number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many ways in > which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and saddle > setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact with the > bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is interacting with > it. > > I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least > started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the > characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone > with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a > light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well > find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals > fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. > > Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build and > pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate > "suspicions". > > Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest > feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam > Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" > was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd > choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the lack > of spriteliness). Likewise, the Fargo shod with 35 mm Kojaks felt > considerably less spritely than the Ram shod with the very same pair. > > Of which speaking: can anyone tell me the particular specs of the tubing for > a 1973 Motobecane Grande Record? I know it is light 531, but what gauge and > butts? I ask because of all the bikes I've owned in the last 5-6 years, this > had the lightest frame of any bike that I've owned (frameset considerably > lighter by heft, anyway, than either of my 2 remaining Riv customs), but I > didn't experience any particular feeling of speed with it (granted there are > all sorts of other factors here), while a stout tubed and very definitely > heavier Herse that others had found sluggish (I think I am accurate with that > qualifier) felt, to me, particularly spritely. > > Oh my, all of this hurts my little head. > > Patrick Moore, fighting spring headwinds and wishing dead-feeling frames were > his only obstacle in ABQ, NM. > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, George Schick wrote: > I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started last > Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see if maybe > I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I figured it > would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life of me I > can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except maybe the > pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). Mine is a 54cm > shod with 32mm Paselas (standard, not TG's). Maybe the larger 58cm frame > makes a difference? Maybe the headset or its adjustment? Dunno. But, yes > it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person. > > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain riders and their Rams. Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is interacting with it. I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build and pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate "suspicions". Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the lack of spriteliness). Likewise, the Fargo shod with 35 mm Kojaks felt considerably less spritely than the Ram shod with the very same pair. Of which speaking: can anyone tell me the particular specs of the tubing for a 1973 Motobecane Grande Record? I know it is light 531, but what gauge and butts? I ask because of all the bikes I've owned in the last 5-6 years, this had the lightest frame of any bike that I've owned (frameset considerably lighter by heft, anyway, than either of my 2 remaining Riv customs), but I didn't experience any particular feeling of speed with it (granted there are all sorts of other factors here), while a stout tubed and very definitely heavier Herse that others had found sluggish (I think I am accurate with that qualifier) felt, to me, particularly spritely. Oh my, all of this hurts my little head. Patrick Moore, fighting spring headwinds and wishing dead-feeling frames were his only obstacle in ABQ, NM. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, George Schick wrote: > I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started > last Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see > if maybe I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I > figured it would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life > of me I can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except > maybe the pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). > Mine is a 54cm shod with 32mm Paselas (standard, not TG's). Maybe the > larger 58cm frame makes a difference? Maybe the headset or its adjustment? > Dunno. But, yes it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for > every person. > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started last Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see if maybe I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I figured it would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life of me I can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except maybe the pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). Mine is a 54cm shod with 32mm Paselas (standard, not TG's). Maybe the larger 58cm frame makes a difference? Maybe the headset or its adjustment? Dunno. But, yes it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person. On Sunday, April 6, 2014 5:55:17 PM UTC-5, Jeff Ong wrote: > > OK, you guys talked me into trying a different set of tires before I boot > this frameset to the curb. I did tour on the Paselas (on an old Trek 520) > and found them both amazingly flat-resistant and super boring to ride, so > I'm willing to buy that they could be making the Ram handle like a Trek > Navigator. > > I've been planning on trying either a Compass or Grand Bois tire, but I'm > nervous about flatting way too often. I am already the most flat-prone guy > I know (riding 23s doesn't help, of course), and I've heard mixed things > about these tires. I do know how much difference a decent tire can make, > though. > > Thanks for all the thorough and thoughtful responses -- really great > feedback. I appreciate it. > > - Jeff > > > On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: >> >> So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional >> "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are >> mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that >> I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe >> Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. >> >> About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who >> knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My >> idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in >> Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with >> a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform >> pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, >> bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and >> ahs over it, etc. >> >> The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, >> wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get >> terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried >> to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm >> out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough >> mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think >> this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is >> a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to >> compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike >> isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my >> bikes are around that weight or heavier. >> >> Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is >> there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and >> ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier >> and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm >> tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights >> would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I have the grand bois cyprès 32 on my 58 orange Rambouillet. I've done a couple of 200k rides, a few shorter weekend rides, and commuted for a few months. So far, no flats. I like the ride a lot. So far, my favorite bike I've ever owned, but I'm not a performance cyclist. Michael Allen On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: > > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
OK, you guys talked me into trying a different set of tires before I boot this frameset to the curb. I did tour on the Paselas (on an old Trek 520) and found them both amazingly flat-resistant and super boring to ride, so I'm willing to buy that they could be making the Ram handle like a Trek Navigator. I've been planning on trying either a Compass or Grand Bois tire, but I'm nervous about flatting way too often. I am already the most flat-prone guy I know (riding 23s doesn't help, of course), and I've heard mixed things about these tires. I do know how much difference a decent tire can make, though. Thanks for all the thorough and thoughtful responses -- really great feedback. I appreciate it. - Jeff On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: > > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Sounds like you know what you like and the Ram is not it. I would sell it. There may be no mystery to solve. Not every bike is for every person. > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Comparing the Grand Bois Stampede Pass to the Pasela TG tire is not night and day, but almost. The Stampede Pass just rolls better, easier, and more comfortablethe bike is sprightly-er now. On Saturday, April 5, 2014 11:30:36 PM UTC-5, oldmangabe wrote: > > As an aside to this discussion, I personally don't see why people are > dogging on the Pasela TG tires. I've ridden a heap of different tires over > a heap of miles myself (ranging the whole spectrum), and have found the > TG's to be much better than most. I know that everyone's expreiences are > more or less distinct which are in turn affected by various unique factors, > but as I said, from my experiences I just don't agree with the seemingly > general opinion that the TG's are heavy, slow, stiff, poor handling tires. > YMMV and all that, but it's bizarre to me to be located on the periphery of > opinion regarding the TG tire. Blah, blah, blah... > > If a bike isn't making you happy, don't feel bad passing it on. You will > find another bike that will stoke you out more in the long term. > > Grumpy out. > > Gabe > > On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: >> >> So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional >> "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are >> mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that >> I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe >> Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. >> >> About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who >> knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My >> idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in >> Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with >> a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform >> pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, >> bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and >> ahs over it, etc. >> >> The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, >> wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get >> terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried >> to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm >> out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough >> mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think >> this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is >> a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to >> compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike >> isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my >> bikes are around that weight or heavier. >> >> Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is >> there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and >> ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier >> and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm >> tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights >> would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
As an aside to this discussion, I personally don't see why people are dogging on the Pasela TG tires. I've ridden a heap of different tires over a heap of miles myself (ranging the whole spectrum), and have found the TG's to be much better than most. I know that everyone's expreiences are more or less distinct which are in turn affected by various unique factors, but as I said, from my experiences I just don't agree with the seemingly general opinion that the TG's are heavy, slow, stiff, poor handling tires. YMMV and all that, but it's bizarre to me to be located on the periphery of opinion regarding the TG tire. Blah, blah, blah... If a bike isn't making you happy, don't feel bad passing it on. You will find another bike that will stoke you out more in the long term. Grumpy out. Gabe On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: > > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I'll echo what Andy has said, in that I keep a minimal stable and also that I find my Ram works for me. Mine is a 66cm, so perhaps a different frame flex feel factor than the same bike might have in the smaller sizes. It's possible the Ram's OS tubing is more compliant in the taller versions (no DTTs here, darn it). I ride mine on all kinds of terrain, so a bit of robustness is welcome, considering its duties. I run mine with Jack Brown Greens, and it's been fast and fun. No complaints really, except my outstanding wonderin's of whether it will accept those new Compass phatties ... KJ On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:41:36 PM UTC-4, ascpgh wrote: > > I've had my orange Rambouillet since the evening before riding across the > country from Yorktown. My '92 RB-1 got twitchy after four hours and I got > tight, achy shoulders from riding it that long despite bar and stem > experiments. Funding the Rambouillet was its highest and best use. > > The Ram was and has been a stable and confident ride for me. I ride it in > tight hilly places as well as fairly long flat stuff, day or night. > Planing, tires, fit, whatever the reason, mine has worked. I've never been > a stable-keeper, just a commuter/rough stuff bike and a lighter fun bike. > > Andy Cheatham > Pittsburgh > > On Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:39:57 AM UTC-4, RJM wrote: >> >> I don't have any experience with a Ram except my Roadeo is the same >> orange color so I can't help you with the steering issue or wallowing >> through turns. If I may suggest though, I would try some good tires on it >> before you give it up for good. I really do feel really good fast feeling >> tires make a bike feel faster. Other than that, if you are set up on the >> Ram correctly and don't have any fit problems, which sometimes can affect >> power output and of course ride feel, I don't see much reason to keep a >> bike you aren't jelling with. >> >> One question thought, do you just feel a performance difference, or have >> you kept some track of it through a bike computer? I'm just curious if the >> bike is actually slower than your others or just feels that way. >> >> I do find a difference in feel when switching tires from bad to good >> though, so that is the one place I would make a change if I was going to >> keep that bike. >> >> On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:44:27 PM UTC-5, Jeff Ong wrote: >> >>> So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional >>> "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are >>> mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that >>> I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe >>> Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. >>> >>> About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who >>> knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My >>> idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in >>> Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with >>> a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform >>> pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, >>> bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and >>> ahs over it, etc. >>> >>> The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, >>> wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get >>> terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried >>> to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm >>> out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough >>> mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think >>> this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is >>> a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to >>> compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike >>> isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my >>> bikes are around that weight or heavier. >>> >>> Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is >>> there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and >>> ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier >>> and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm >>> tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights >>> would be greatly appreciated. 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. F
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I've had my orange Rambouillet since the evening before riding across the country from Yorktown. My '92 RB-1 got twitchy after four hours and I got tight, achy shoulders from riding it that long despite bar and stem experiments. Funding the Rambouillet was its highest and best use. The Ram was and has been a stable and confident ride for me. I ride it in tight hilly places as well as fairly long flat stuff, day or night. Planing, tires, fit, whatever the reason, mine has worked. I've never been a stable-keeper, just a commuter/rough stuff bike and a lighter fun bike. Andy Cheatham Pittsburgh On Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:39:57 AM UTC-4, RJM wrote: > > I don't have any experience with a Ram except my Roadeo is the same orange > color so I can't help you with the steering issue or wallowing through > turns. If I may suggest though, I would try some good tires on it before > you give it up for good. I really do feel really good fast feeling tires > make a bike feel faster. Other than that, if you are set up on the Ram > correctly and don't have any fit problems, which sometimes can affect power > output and of course ride feel, I don't see much reason to keep a bike you > aren't jelling with. > > One question thought, do you just feel a performance difference, or have > you kept some track of it through a bike computer? I'm just curious if the > bike is actually slower than your others or just feels that way. > > I do find a difference in feel when switching tires from bad to good > though, so that is the one place I would make a change if I was going to > keep that bike. > > On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:44:27 PM UTC-5, Jeff Ong wrote: > >> So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional >> "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are >> mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that >> I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe >> Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. >> >> About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who >> knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My >> idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in >> Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with >> a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform >> pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, >> bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and >> ahs over it, etc. >> >> The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, >> wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get >> terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried >> to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm >> out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough >> mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think >> this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is >> a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to >> compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike >> isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my >> bikes are around that weight or heavier. >> >> Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is >> there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and >> ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier >> and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm >> tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights >> would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I had a Ram for a few years. I was riding an early Sam with canti's and on my first ride on the new to me Ram I thought that this rides so much better than the Sam. I thought the Sam was too stiff for unloaded rides but the Ram felt just right. I was on a 58cm frame as well. Not sure how much you weigh but at ~200lbs the Ram felt much plusher and right for me. I used JB Greens most of the time which were a perfect match for the Ram. You mentioned Pasela's.. are they the TG model? Those can make any bike feel dead. ~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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
the tires wouldnt stay on the rim when i was pumping them up with a hand pump fortunately i was walking distance from fairhaven cycles one of the techs couldnt get the tire pumped up with the compresser, but the better tech could jan has a tip sheet for how to get this to work it should be in my mailbox right now sorry not to have been more clear it would have been a real bad encounter to be confronted with this in the skagit valley in the rain -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I don't have any experience with a Ram except my Roadeo is the same orange color so I can't help you with the steering issue or wallowing through turns. If I may suggest though, I would try some good tires on it before you give it up for good. I really do feel really good fast feeling tires make a bike feel faster. Other than that, if you are set up on the Ram correctly and don't have any fit problems, which sometimes can affect power output and of course ride feel, I don't see much reason to keep a bike you aren't jelling with. One question thought, do you just feel a performance difference, or have you kept some track of it through a bike computer? I'm just curious if the bike is actually slower than your others or just feels that way. I do find a difference in feel when switching tires from bad to good though, so that is the one place I would make a change if I was going to keep that bike. On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:44:27 PM UTC-5, Jeff Ong wrote: > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Jeff, I'm totally with you! I've had two Rambos and I felt the same way. They were both sold and I don't miss them. Don't get me wrong, beautiful bikes but they weren't for me. Right now I'm actually falling out of love with another Rivendell I own. TOTALLY beautiful but it's not the best ride. But I love my Atlantis! -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I suspect your Ram looks and feels like a "road bike" to you, so your brain expects it to react like a titanium Merlin or small-tubed '84 Nobillette. Which doesn't provide a solution, but might answer the problem.. Joe Bernard Vallejo, CA. On Friday, April 4, 2014 10:44:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Ong wrote: > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
In the vein of "I have a hammer so everything's a nail" I am in the process of shifting cockpit arrangement, having already shifted tires, to match the riding I do (gravel grind and single track). Rivendells are so flexible in how you can set them up and the same frame really does ride very differently just switching tires and making changes to the cockpit. So I second Patrick's tire recommendation to get a tire that matches how you ride and add in the cockpit suggestion. Perhaps give Riv a call, tell them how you ride, your PBH (that matters more than height, then height gives the upper portion ratio) and they can make suggestions for stem tip/length and handlebar setup to consider. They really are fantastic, and heaven knows I pester them far more than they deserve! Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:44:27 AM UTC-6, Jeff Ong wrote: > > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
My commuter is set up similarly to your Bizango. It's an old Rocky Mountain, has 26" wheels and drop bars. I also have a LongLow which is a similar bike to the Rambouillet. The Rocky is quick handling, incredibly stable at any speed, has a high BB and can be pedaled through just about any turn, can be loaded with two weeks of groceries and still behave perfectly. It is also heavier and solid and does not plane. When getting on the LongLow, the first few minutes/couple of hours of the ride, I also pedal strike. It also seems to wallow from the front end. After I'm used to it again, it feels right and good and it is a bike that can be ridden long distances seeming to work with the rider, whereas the Rocky would be a poor choice as a brevet bike. If I rode the LongLow every day and then jumped on the Rocky, I'd be looking behind to see what I was towing. As a shorter distance commuter (say up to 8 miles each way), those old 26" wheel mountain bikes are tough to beat, especially if the road surface is not great. They are a lot of fun to ride. If my commute was 12 miles each way, the Rocky would spend more time at home though. Ian A/Canada On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:44:27 AM UTC-6, Jeff Ong wrote: > > So, I've got a lot of bikes and zero cars. Only two are conventional > "road" type bikes (a 2004 Merlin Fortius and an '84 Nobillette). Many are > mountain bikes, and my daily rider/commuter is a 1995 Voodoo Bizango that > I've added rack/fender eyelets to, converted to drops and 2 inch Schwalbe > Marathons, and basically made into a sort of Atlantis type ride. > > About a year ago, I bought a secondhand (or third- or fourth-hand, who > knows?) Rambouillet (from the first run of framesets, in pearl orange). My > idea was to have a sporty road/light tourer with fenders, since I live in > Portland, where it drizzles seven months of the year. I built this up with > a pretty Riv-like collection of stuff -- a VO triple crankset, platform > pedals, some nice wheels and Pasela 28s, Shimano 9-speed bar end shifters, > bars a bit above saddle height, etc. It's super pretty, everyone oohs and > ahs over it, etc. > > The problem is, I kind of hate riding it. It just steers like a pig, > wallowing through turns, and it feels super slow to accelerate. I get > terrible pedal strike unless I coast around every turn. I've really tried > to get used to the ride, but I always find myself getting angry when I'm > out on the bike... like "hurry up, man! come on!" I'm a decent enough > mechanic to know that there isn't anything mechanically wrong. I do think > this bike is bigger on me than I generally ride -- I'm 6' tall and this is > a 58cm, and generally I ride smaller than that, although it's difficult to > compare compact frames against this more traditional geometry. The bike > isn't super light (27 lbs or so with fenders and racks), but many of my > bikes are around that weight or heavier. > > Am I just not cut out for Riv-type geometry? Is it poorly fit to me? Is > there something about the Rambouillet that just makes it slow-steering and > ponderous? I would love to swap out this frameset with something livelier > and more fun to ride (but that can still take racks and fenders with 28mm > tires), and I'm just hoping to not make the same mistake. Any insights > would be greatly appreciated. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
That's an interesting impression of the Rambouillet. Not one I've heard before, but certainly open it. I guess the quick answer is "Yeah. Sure. Of course it's possible you and a 2001 Rivendell Rambouillet aren't cut out for one another." But, it's an interesting situation, to be sure. You say you have a lot of bikes. Which one steers and accelerates the way you like? The Bizango? Depending upon what type of tires you have rigged on that, there would certainly be a perceived difference between a 700C/622 wheelset and a 26"/559. So, there's that. And depending upon what fork you are running - I sort of recall the Bizangos came with a Judy or some similar long-for-the-time travel fork. And if you replaced that with a rigid type, that might give some very different front end behaviors than you are used to. Sizing sounds in the ballpark, though it depends upon your leg length/inseam more than height. That's roughly what I'd ride, though my pbh is in the 85 range. The pedal strike thing is a bit odd, though if you have thick platforms, that will make a difference. I mean, if you hate riding it, why not get rid of it? If you want to try some things, you might drop the bars slightly, which would give it more of a "lightweight road" feel. As far as the "wallowing"... again, not sure that would ever be a word I use on RBW handling. When I use that, I mean that it tends to become imprecise when I turn. My experience with Rivs is that they come out of a turn and let me know that I could have brought more speed into it. Extremely predictable for me. The only thing you might try before selling it off would be to only ride that bike for a week or two. I will say that when I switch between riding my Quickbeam and my Hilsen, there's a time or two when it feels "not quite right" - but it's a fine difference. It might just be that if you spend 85% of the time on your Voodoo, and then hope onto the Ram (or any bike), the combined differences really put you off. When I made the change from my first mtb - a long wheelbase, west-coast geometry bike - to my second, it felt short and twitchy. Then I found how it liked to be ridden, started trusting the new geometry a bit more and went from there. Don't know if that helps, but best of luck with your process. - Jim / cyclofiend.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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
