Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim Whorton]

PS Your 59 Clem looks great, TC.  

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 1:51:19 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:

> TC, thanks for this suggestion.  I've been looking at the Schwalbe G-Ones 
> on the Riv site, trying to decide between the "Speed" vs. the "Allround."  
> Maybe I will splurge for the more expensive Speeds since you all have 
> talked me out of buying a new bike.  
>
> Jim W
>
> On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 1:14:37 PM UTC-5 tc wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>> Try some *Schwalbe G-One Speed 
>> *' tires with 
>> Schwalbe's Extra Light tubes.  Expensive, but from my experience with diff 
>> tires (from road to knobby) on my 59 Clem H, they are simply excellent.  
>> About as light as you'll get, fast, grippy, no flats yet.  If you go with 
>> the 2-inchers, they'll fit very nicely under the VO fluted fenders.[image: 
>> clemH_59_green_driveside_frontquarter_small.jpg]
>>
>> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 7:20:00 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself 
>>> + the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his 
>>> arms up in the air, there.  
>>>
>>> Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried 
>>> the Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and 
>>> it rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-5 Mark Roland wrote:
>>>
 If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
 fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
 strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
 but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input 
 and 
 ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 

 I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need 
 to load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 
 531 
 and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
 While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
 comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
 than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree 
 handlebars can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting 
 up 
 out of the saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger 
 grips on my Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the 
 last meters of a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame 
 with Maes parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on 
 the 
 Susie are set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle 
 full wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!

 [image: easy rider.jpg]
 I 

 On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:

> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how 
>> a 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be 
>> perfect, 
>> though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the 
>> reasons 
>> people have said. 
>>
>> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton 
>> from this forum over the last couple years.
>>
>> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester 
>> has a great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes 
>> and 
>> gives them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>>
>> Jim W
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a 
 good pipe.  

>>> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>>>
>>> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was 
>>> too small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 
>>> 59. 
>>> I support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think 
>>> you'll 
>>> feel a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>>>
>>> jim 

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim Whorton]

TC, thanks for this suggestion.  I've been looking at the Schwalbe G-Ones 
on the Riv site, trying to decide between the "Speed" vs. the "Allround."  
Maybe I will splurge for the more expensive Speeds since you all have 
talked me out of buying a new bike.  

Jim W

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 1:14:37 PM UTC-5 tc wrote:

> Jim,
> Try some *Schwalbe G-One Speed 
> *' tires with 
> Schwalbe's Extra Light tubes.  Expensive, but from my experience with diff 
> tires (from road to knobby) on my 59 Clem H, they are simply excellent.  
> About as light as you'll get, fast, grippy, no flats yet.  If you go with 
> the 2-inchers, they'll fit very nicely under the VO fluted fenders.[image: 
> clemH_59_green_driveside_frontquarter_small.jpg]
>
> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 7:20:00 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself + 
>> the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his arms 
>> up in the air, there.  
>>
>> Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried 
>> the Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and 
>> it rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-5 Mark Roland wrote:
>>
>>> If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
>>> fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
>>> 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
>>> strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
>>> but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and 
>>> ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 
>>>
>>> I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to 
>>> load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 
>>> and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
>>> While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
>>> 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
>>> comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
>>> than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree 
>>> handlebars can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up 
>>> out of the saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger 
>>> grips on my Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the 
>>> last meters of a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame 
>>> with Maes parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the 
>>> Susie are set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle 
>>> full wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!
>>>
>>> [image: easy rider.jpg]
>>> I 
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:
>>>
 I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
 without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
 weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
 Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.

 On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how 
> a 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
> though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
> people have said. 
>
> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton 
> from this forum over the last couple years.
>
> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has 
> a great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and 
> gives them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>
> Jim W
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>>> pipe.  
>>>
>> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>>
>> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was 
>> too small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 
>> 59. 
>> I support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll 
>> feel a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>>
>> jim m
>> walnut creek
>>
>

-- 
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 

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[tc]

Jim,
Try some *Schwalbe G-One Speed 
*' tires with 
Schwalbe's Extra Light tubes.  Expensive, but from my experience with diff 
tires (from road to knobby) on my 59 Clem H, they are simply excellent.  
About as light as you'll get, fast, grippy, no flats yet.  If you go with 
the 2-inchers, they'll fit very nicely under the VO fluted fenders.[image: 
clemH_59_green_driveside_frontquarter_small.jpg]

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 7:20:00 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:

> Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself + 
> the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his arms 
> up in the air, there.  
>
> Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried 
> the Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and 
> it rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.
>
> Jim
>
> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-5 Mark Roland wrote:
>
>> If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
>> fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
>> 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
>> strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
>> but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and 
>> ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 
>>
>> I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to 
>> load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 
>> and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
>> While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
>> 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
>> comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
>> than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree 
>> handlebars can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up 
>> out of the saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger 
>> grips on my Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the 
>> last meters of a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame 
>> with Maes parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the 
>> Susie are set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle 
>> full wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!
>>
>> [image: easy rider.jpg]
>> I 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
>>> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
>>> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
>>> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 
 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
 though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
 people have said. 

 Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
 this forum over the last couple years.

 DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has 
 a great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and 
 gives them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.

 Jim W

 On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:

> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>> pipe.  
>>
> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>
> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was 
> too small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 
> 59. 
> I support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll 
> feel a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>
> jim m
> walnut creek
>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/58ee3a95-6cf0-446d-93d2-569f3af6f235n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[James Whorton]

Paul, these are all good questions, and I wish I could answer
analytically.  Joe Bernard's phrase "road-hugging weight" sounds right to
me.

Whether the steering was more controllable with the extra weight--maybe.
An interesting thing about having a pipe sticking out over the front wheel
is that it gave me a really clear, graphic indication of all the little
corrections I make when I am steering.  The frame wants to go straight, and
the front wheel is relatively jittery.  Maybe it would be an interesting
experiment to try the same ride with something light, like a yardstick out
over the wheel, to see if there is a difference

I have wondered why we attach front baskets to forks, instead of to the
frame.  Probably because it is easier to attach the basket to the fork and
handlebars.  But I think it would ride better if it was attached to the
frame.




On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:59 PM Paul Brodek  wrote:

> Many interesting/helpful electrons already spilled on this. I'll only
> add
>
> 1. I have a very hard time myself characterizing frame-related ride
> characteristics. That said, here I'm having trouble contrasting "lumbering
> feeling on a hilly ride" with "gets smoother with more weight." Also, "not
> faster, but easier." Was the ride being hilly important, meaning the bike
> feels less lumbering on flatter rides? Did the bike climb faster with the
> iron bar addition? Or did you get more oomph on the downhills before the
> climbs to give you more momentum on the way up? Heavier weight made
> steering more controllable? Or something else? Not trying to pick nits
> here, just trying to understand better, while happily admitting I
> particularly stink trying to describe this stuff myself.
> 2. But TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES. Oh, and TIRES. Dead tires = dead
> ride. I think especially with tires this wide, and with wheelbases this
> long.
> 3. Weight savings going to a smaller frame will only be ounces, which are
> immaterial in the overall rider/bike weight calculation. If it was just
> frame weight that mattered, you could A/B compare by riding with/without a
> half-full water bottle. It's not the weight so much as the flex. What would
> be more important to ride quality would be if the smaller frame had
> thinner-diameter tubes, or thinner-wall tubes, which would flex more. I
> suppose shorter-length frame tubes and longer seatposts/stems would also
> factor in, though, regardless of tube width/thickness.
>
> Paul Brodek
> Hillsdale, NJ USA
> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89
>> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a
>> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a
>> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike
>> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the
>> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It
>> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The
>> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because
>> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it
>> possible I was not confused?
>>
>> I will try to insert a picture.
>>
>> Jim in Rochester
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAJ3_7DY0S2Fh4PcMgjQKwqda9jgKQmzX%3DJUJAbGaWmxbVGW8Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Paul Brodek]

Many interesting/helpful electrons already spilled on this. I'll only 
add

1. I have a very hard time myself characterizing frame-related ride 
characteristics. That said, here I'm having trouble contrasting "lumbering 
feeling on a hilly ride" with "gets smoother with more weight." Also, "not 
faster, but easier." Was the ride being hilly important, meaning the bike 
feels less lumbering on flatter rides? Did the bike climb faster with the 
iron bar addition? Or did you get more oomph on the downhills before the 
climbs to give you more momentum on the way up? Heavier weight made 
steering more controllable? Or something else? Not trying to pick nits 
here, just trying to understand better, while happily admitting I 
particularly stink trying to describe this stuff myself.
2. But TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES. Oh, and TIRES. Dead tires = dead 
ride. I think especially with tires this wide, and with wheelbases this 
long.
3. Weight savings going to a smaller frame will only be ounces, which are 
immaterial in the overall rider/bike weight calculation. If it was just 
frame weight that mattered, you could A/B compare by riding with/without a 
half-full water bottle. It's not the weight so much as the flex. What would 
be more important to ride quality would be if the smaller frame had 
thinner-diameter tubes, or thinner-wall tubes, which would flex more. I 
suppose shorter-length frame tubes and longer seatposts/stems would also 
factor in, though, regardless of tube width/thickness.

Paul Brodek
Hillsdale, NJ USA
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
> possible I was not confused?
>
> I will try to insert a picture.  
>
> Jim in Rochester
>
> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d57a06a6-76b4-4165-9d78-6a937c802a72n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[dougP]

Perhaps this point is obvious to some but it just occurred to me.  A 
manufacturer must design the bike for intended use (touring, racing, etc.) 
so that's one major influence on tubing choice & geometry.   For production 
bikes (as opposed to customs), the design must also address maximum load, 
including rider.  Brendon's observation (above) about the change in 
handling over the course of his mail delivery day is an excellent example.  
For example the 59 cm Clem H may be ridden by riders from say 180 lbs (or 
less?) up to 220 lbs (or more?).  Throw a reasonable expectation of load 
carrying of 30 lbs, and the frame must feel secure at a total weight of 250 
lbs.  If the 180 lb rider rides it with no load, it will feel a great 
stiffer than the 220 lb rider with some load.  This puts the designer / 
manufacturer in the quandry of over-building to handling heaviest expected 
load and under-building to provide a good ride for the lightest situation.  
My guess is the design must always be a compromise to be not overly stiff 
or overly noodly.  

dougP

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 4:20:00 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself + 
> the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his arms 
> up in the air, there.  
>
> Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried 
> the Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and 
> it rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.
>
> Jim
>
> On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-5 Mark Roland wrote:
>
>> If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
>> fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
>> 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
>> strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
>> but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and 
>> ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 
>>
>> I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to 
>> load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 
>> and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
>> While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
>> 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
>> comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
>> than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree 
>> handlebars can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up 
>> out of the saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger 
>> grips on my Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the 
>> last meters of a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame 
>> with Maes parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the 
>> Susie are set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle 
>> full wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!
>>
>> [image: easy rider.jpg]
>> I 
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
>>> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
>>> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
>>> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 
 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
 though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
 people have said. 

 Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
 this forum over the last couple years.

 DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has 
 a great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and 
 gives them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.

 Jim W

 On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:

> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>> pipe.  
>>
> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>
> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was 
> too small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 
> 59. 
> I support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll 
> feel a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>
> jim m
> walnut creek
>


-- 
You received this message because 

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim Whorton]

Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself + 
the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his arms 
up in the air, there.  

Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried the 
Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and it 
rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.

Jim

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-5 Mark Roland wrote:

> If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
> fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
> 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
> strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
> but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and 
> ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 
>
> I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to 
> load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 
> and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
> While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
> 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
> comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
> than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree handlebars 
> can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up out of the 
> saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger grips on my 
> Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the last meters of 
> a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame with Maes 
> parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the Susie are 
> set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle full 
> wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!
>
> [image: easy rider.jpg]
> I 
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:
>
>> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
>> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
>> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
>> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>
>>> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 
>>> 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
>>> though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
>>> people have said. 
>>>
>>> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
>>> this forum over the last couple years.
>>>
>>> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a 
>>> great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives 
>>> them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>>>
>>> Jim W
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
> pipe.  
>
 I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 

 I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
 small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
 support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll 
 feel 
 a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.

 jim m
 walnut creek

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d9bd0548-6a6a-458b-aff1-b3da9250c03cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Mark Roland]

If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from 
fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 
52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than 
strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, 
but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and 
ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike. 

I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to 
load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 
and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. 
While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 
56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in 
comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road 
than the 48mm Switchback Hills on *El Clem*. And while I agree handlebars 
can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up out of the 
saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger grips on my 
Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the last meters of 
a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame with Maes 
parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the Susie are 
set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle full 
wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!

[image: easy rider.jpg]
I 

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 8:01:26 PM UTC-5 Mark Schneider wrote:

> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 
>> 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
>> though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
>> people have said. 
>>
>> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
>> this forum over the last couple years.
>>
>> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a 
>> great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives 
>> them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>>
>> Jim W
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
 pipe.  

>>> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>>>
>>> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
>>> small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
>>> support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel 
>>> a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>>>
>>> jim m
>>> walnut creek
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a1eb22fb-72d5-41cc-bbc4-eab77ac7a3d4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[brendonoid]

This thread is so good I just needed to let everyone know how much I 
enjoyed reading it. My immediate thought was as others then said, to lower 
the tyre pressure and then get rid of those tyres ASAP. 

Loaded bikes vs. unloaded bikes is a very real and noticable thing also. My 
postie bike goes from almost a noodle frame on rails to a twitchy overly 
stiff pig as I slowly unload 50kgs of mail through the day.

OPINIONS: 
Another thought is that the Bosco bars they are great, but certainly have 
never made a bike feel spritely. At least, not to me. So before sizing down 
and after changing the tyres, maybe try a different bar? I have a lot of 
different bike setups and everyone of them is the best for a given 
situation or particular ride. Bicycles are fun like that.
I do not think the frame is too big for you.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ab635e53-2bc0-4476-a21a-992ae32c9069n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jeffrey Arita]

Jim,

You are not imagining things.  I have a Surly Cross-Check that has been 
used as a commuter, grocery-getter, randonneur, single-speed and as a 
cyclo-tourer.  When I had it configured as a tourer I had it fairly heavily 
laden in front (2 large Ortlieb backroller panniers + Tubus Tara) with an 
Ortlieb rack pack on back + Tubus Cosmo.  I still cannot believe how 
comfortable that particular rig rode.  As Mark Schneider points out, bikes 
do seem to work better when they flex a bit, and with the Surly's decently 
burly tubes, it sure proved that theory!

Good luck!

Jeff

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 5:01:26 PM UTC-8 Mark Schneider wrote:

> I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
> without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
> weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
> Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 
>> 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, 
>> though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons 
>> people have said. 
>>
>> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
>> this forum over the last couple years.
>>
>> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a 
>> great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives 
>> them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>>
>> Jim W
>>
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
 pipe.  

>>> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>>>
>>> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
>>> small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
>>> support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel 
>>> a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>>>
>>> jim m
>>> walnut creek
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/aa6dd406-70c0-4d72-aa03-527d87cefd76n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Mark Schneider]

I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing 
without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes 
weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard 
Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 52 
> would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, though 
> I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons people 
> have said. 
>
> Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
> this forum over the last couple years.
>
> DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a 
> great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives 
> them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.
>
> Jim W
>
> On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>>> pipe.  
>>>
>> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>>
>> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
>> small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
>> support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel 
>> a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>>
>> jim m
>> walnut creek
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fee2f626-7c7a-409f-84ae-9a5bf0a8f3c6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim Whorton]

Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 52 
would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, though 
I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons people 
have said. 

Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from 
this forum over the last couple years.

DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a 
great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives 
them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.

Jim W

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:14:07 PM UTC-5 Jim M. wrote:

> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>> pipe.  
>>
> I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 
>
> I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
> small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
> support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel 
> a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.
>
> jim m
> walnut creek
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7110e6c0-57f9-4e2a-b339-385c05e5d160n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim M.]

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
> pipe.  
>
I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 

I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too 
small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I 
support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel 
a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.

jim m
walnut creek

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/97e86a2d-a5c9-4511-8573-4ad80cedcc51n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Garth]

   Jim, the bike may seem "too big" , but is it really or are you simply 
comparing it to your other bikes and equating that with "too big", "a 
lumbering hulk" ? Your Clem is what it is, so rather than comparing it and 
thus diminishing it, play around with it. I've seen many a tales here how 
someone said they didn't like their bike, but after a change/adjustment of 
some part of the bike that you contact(bars/stem/saddle/pedals, etc.), or 
even tires, their story changed completely. Many mtb's have considerably 
steeper seat tube angles too, which places your center of balance further 
forward that on the Clem. I could see how that would contribute to a 
perception of "less sprightly" or "laid back" or even "sluggish".  The 
chainstays and wheelbase are also much longer, so of course it will feel 
different, so* try riding it different*. Every bike has it's own 
"personality", if you will. Let it shine rather than try making it 
something it's not, any another bike. 

If you still find it's not for you, so what ? Let it go and find something 
else, there's always a bike to ride. 
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:15:00 AM UTC-5 mkernan...@gmail.com wrote:

> Jim,  several years ago I had a double TT 64cm Atlantis that I took on a 
> tour up around the Olympic peninsula. It also was a touch too large for me. 
>   In touring mode I had it loaded up with a Pass and Stow front rack with a 
> basket on top and two medium sized low rider front panniers. On the rear I 
> had a medium saddle sack that sat on a Nitto r-14 rack.It was probably 
>  75/25 ; front/ rear weight distribution.   That bike rode awesome( to me) 
> in that configuration.Leaving an empty-ish camp one morning on a quiet 
> stretch of road,  I rode no handed for ~7miles on a gently curvy road. It 
> felt smooth and in control.  (. There were mile markers and when solo on 
> the road sometimes you make games for yourself).   I’ll never forget that. 
>  Just anecdotally reiterating your experience that sometimes a bike can 
> feel better with some weight.-Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 9, 2021, at 10:01 PM, dougP  wrote:
>
> Anything bike related that I don't want goes to my local bicycle co-op.  
> They depend on donations to keep bikes owned by low income people running.  
> What feels like a crappy, sluggish tire to me could be wonderful to someone 
> who just needs new rubber to get back'n'forth to work on.  Never toss out a 
> "tried & disliked" item.  Donate.
>
> dougP
>
> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the ideas and observations, everyone.  I will try lowering the 
>> tire pressure tomorrow.  New tires soon, too.
>>
>> Jason and Mark, I think you are right that the Clem *ought* to fit me.  
>> By the numbers it does.  My favorite bike to ride around town is an old 
>> mountain bike with a 53cm seat tube that ought to be too small for me, but 
>> it's sprightly and a lot of fun to ride.
>>
>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
>> pipe.  
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:40 PM Mark Roland  wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps 
>>> contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't 
>>> seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is 
>>> under six foot. 
>>>
>>> I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they 
>>> were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I 
>>> went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never 
>>> describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.  
>>> Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires 
>>> and see what happens.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>>
 I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
 PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
 lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
 piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
 because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on 
 the 
 bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
 didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  
 The 
 simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
 adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
 possible I was not confused?

 I will try to insert a picture.  

 Jim in Rochester

 [image: IMG_1544.jpg]


 -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>>> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Michael Williams]

Jim,  several years ago I had a double TT 64cm Atlantis that I took on a tour 
up around the Olympic peninsula. It also was a touch too large for me.   In 
touring mode I had it loaded up with a Pass and Stow front rack with a basket 
on top and two medium sized low rider front panniers. On the rear I had a 
medium saddle sack that sat on a Nitto r-14 rack.It was probably  75/25 ; 
front/ rear weight distribution.   That bike rode awesome( to me) in that 
configuration.Leaving an empty-ish camp one morning on a quiet stretch of 
road,  I rode no handed for ~7miles on a gently curvy road. It felt smooth and 
in control.  (. There were mile markers and when solo on the road sometimes you 
make games for yourself).   I’ll never forget that.  Just anecdotally 
reiterating your experience that sometimes a bike can feel better with some 
weight.-Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 9, 2021, at 10:01 PM, dougP  wrote:
> 
> Anything bike related that I don't want goes to my local bicycle co-op.  They 
> depend on donations to keep bikes owned by low income people running.  What 
> feels like a crappy, sluggish tire to me could be wonderful to someone who 
> just needs new rubber to get back'n'forth to work on.  Never toss out a 
> "tried & disliked" item.  Donate.
> 
> dougP
> 
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>> Thanks for the ideas and observations, everyone.  I will try lowering the 
>> tire pressure tomorrow.  New tires soon, too.
>> 
>> Jason and Mark, I think you are right that the Clem ought to fit me.  By the 
>> numbers it does.  My favorite bike to ride around town is an old mountain 
>> bike with a 53cm seat tube that ought to be too small for me, but it's 
>> sprightly and a lot of fun to ride.
>> 
>> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good pipe.  
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:40 PM Mark Roland  wrote:
>> 
>>> I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps 
>>> contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't 
>>> seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is 
>>> under six foot. 
>>> 
>>> I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they 
>>> were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I 
>>> went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never 
>>> describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.  
>>> Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires 
>>> and see what happens.
>>> 
 On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
 I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 PBH). 
  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
 lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
 piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
 because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on 
 the bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great. 
  It didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother. 
  The simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, 
 because adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  
 Butis it possible I was not confused?
 
 I will try to insert a picture.  
 
 Jim in Rochester
 
 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/qLyDc2lVI3Q/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/aade2800-a30f-45fa-bdda-bfaf365b556dn%40googlegroups.com.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a3d0aec5-b651-41c1-908c-44e111c45aefn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/C6DCA500-0749-4F6F-9FF8-881FCDCC98EF%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[dougP]

Anything bike related that I don't want goes to my local bicycle co-op.  
They depend on donations to keep bikes owned by low income people running.  
What feels like a crappy, sluggish tire to me could be wonderful to someone 
who just needs new rubber to get back'n'forth to work on.  Never toss out a 
"tried & disliked" item.  Donate.

dougP

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> Thanks for the ideas and observations, everyone.  I will try lowering the 
> tire pressure tomorrow.  New tires soon, too.
>
> Jason and Mark, I think you are right that the Clem *ought* to fit me.  
> By the numbers it does.  My favorite bike to ride around town is an old 
> mountain bike with a 53cm seat tube that ought to be too small for me, but 
> it's sprightly and a lot of fun to ride.
>
> I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good 
> pipe.  
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:40 PM Mark Roland  wrote:
>
>> I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps 
>> contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't 
>> seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is 
>> under six foot. 
>>
>> I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they 
>> were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I 
>> went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never 
>> describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.  
>> Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires 
>> and see what happens.
>>
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>>
>>> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
>>> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
>>> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
>>> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
>>> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
>>> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
>>> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
>>> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
>>> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
>>> possible I was not confused?
>>>
>>> I will try to insert a picture.  
>>>
>>> Jim in Rochester
>>>
>>> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/qLyDc2lVI3Q/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/aade2800-a30f-45fa-bdda-bfaf365b556dn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a3d0aec5-b651-41c1-908c-44e111c45aefn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[James Whorton]

Thanks for the ideas and observations, everyone.  I will try lowering the
tire pressure tomorrow.  New tires soon, too.

Jason and Mark, I think you are right that the Clem *ought* to fit me.  By
the numbers it does.  My favorite bike to ride around town is an old
mountain bike with a 53cm seat tube that ought to be too small for me, but
it's sprightly and a lot of fun to ride.

I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good pipe.

Jim


On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:40 PM Mark Roland 
wrote:

> I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps
> contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't
> seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is
> under six foot.
>
> I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they
> were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I
> went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never
> describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.
> Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires
> and see what happens.
>
> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89
>> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a
>> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a
>> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike
>> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the
>> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It
>> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The
>> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because
>> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it
>> possible I was not confused?
>>
>> I will try to insert a picture.
>>
>> Jim in Rochester
>>
>> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/qLyDc2lVI3Q/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/aade2800-a30f-45fa-bdda-bfaf365b556dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAJ3_7DbsaoTgFPXB4NN7y2hvRNaQoB88351Eqsnn4ZyLez8dTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Mark Roland]

I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps 
contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't 
seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is 
under six foot. 

I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they 
were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I 
went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never 
describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.  
Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires 
and see what happens.

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
> possible I was not confused?
>
> I will try to insert a picture.  
>
> Jim in Rochester
>
> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/aade2800-a30f-45fa-bdda-bfaf365b556dn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[dougP]

My Atlantis has a much softer, more cushy ride with 20-30 lbs of weight.  
The cost is slower acceleration & generally more effort.  

OTH, I've ridden the long wheelbase Atlantis & even unloaded it rides 
noticeably softer than my 2003.  The longer chainstays probably account for 
that.

dougP

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
> possible I was not confused?
>
> I will try to insert a picture.  
>
> Jim in Rochester
>
> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f78468ae-23da-41f5-a11a-25bbc01c7e75n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Bones]

Makes sense to me. I ride around with two kids on my bike all the time 
(first an Appaloosa with one kid in front and one in back, now a Clem L 
with an xtracycle). They both cruise like Impalas. On the other end I 
stripped the stock wheels off my Clem H and put on some cliffhangers + 
thunderburts tubeless and saw a night and day improvement in handling while 
unloaded. Please let us know what else you decide to tie to your bicycle. 
Brilliant.

Bones

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:48:44 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote:

> That's what car ads in the '60s called road-hugging weight. To extend the 
> car analogy, I've had several lighter/smaller ones with decent power, and 
> now a basic big Chevy Impala with a little more power and a LOT more 
> weight. It's probably not any faster than those hot hatches but oh baby 
> does it cruise at 72 without a care in the world. 
>
> Your gorgeous Clem is showing a similar effect. Put more bags and stuff on 
> it and cruise! 
>
> On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:
>
>> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
>> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
>> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
>> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
>> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
>> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
>> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
>> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
>> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
>> possible I was not confused?
>>
>> I will try to insert a picture.  
>>
>> Jim in Rochester
>>
>> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/db047049-9d8c-4ecd-aa27-2ef195bf0c6en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Joe Bernard]

That's what car ads in the '60s called road-hugging weight. To extend the 
car analogy, I've had several lighter/smaller ones with decent power, and 
now a basic big Chevy Impala with a little more power and a LOT more 
weight. It's probably not any faster than those hot hatches but oh baby 
does it cruise at 72 without a care in the world. 

Your gorgeous Clem is showing a similar effect. Put more bags and stuff on 
it and cruise! 

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

> I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 
> PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a 
> lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a 
> piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike 
> because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the 
> bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It 
> didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The 
> simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because 
> adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  Butis it 
> possible I was not confused?
>
> I will try to insert a picture.  
>
> Jim in Rochester
>
> [image: IMG_1544.jpg]
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/de55d285-b5f0-456d-bd1e-a9c9d3e77d4en%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Angelo Gatti]

Just saw this as I am in search of canti brakes without having to break the 
bank with the likes of  Paul's or Velo Orange (as nice as they are...).  I 
notices the 980's and am wondering what your experience has been with 
these.


On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:38:49 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I've got a road build coming up that will use cantilever brakes.  I've got 
> a TON of cantilever brakes in my stash, but even so I decided to buy more.  
> I really like the super simple, minimalist design of the Dia Compe 980s 
> that Riv now sells.  I decided to buy two bikes worth and I'm going to 
> shape and polish one set.  They seem about as light as cantilever brakes 
> can possibly be, so I decided to do a weigh-off compared to some Paul 
> Touring cantilevers in my parts box.  I weighed two arms, with springs, and 
> with the mounting bolts.  I did not include straddle cables or straddle 
> hangers or brake pads.  Arms to arms, the 980s are a few grams lighter 82g 
> vs 91g.  I'll post photos and updated weights after they are polished.  
> After I've got them on my new build, I'll report back on how well they 
> work.  I like that they are forged, light and cheap.  Hopefully I can 
> polish them pretty, and hopefully they work well.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fd1f4542-27de-4e85-9d59-efccb5633ed4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[David Hays]

Thanks. Just found this:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/notes/bsfaq.html 

Identifying the year of my bike as well.

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Dave Redmon  wrote:
> 
> My 1991 frame was black and said Synergy. The 1992 frame was dark green, as I 
> recall. 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 1:34 PM David Hays <23writ...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> My RB-T says Synergy on the crossbar and the last of the serial number is 
> 0121039. Anyone know what year this would be?
> Thanks
> David Hays
> Williamsville, New York
> 
> > On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Dave Redmon  > > wrote:
> > 
> > My 1991 RB-T bike was stolen a couple years and I found a 1994 RB-T to 
> > replace it. Cantilever post widths are significantly different. I can fit a 
> > number of brakes to my 1994 fork that would not fit my 1991 fork.
> > 
> > Dave in Kansas
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 https://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 a topic in the Google 
> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/8pPxVEkTtyE/unsubscribe 
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Dave Redmon]

My 1991 frame was black and said Synergy. The 1992 frame was dark green, as
I recall.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 1:34 PM David Hays <23writ...@gmail.com wrote:

> My RB-T says Synergy on the crossbar and the last of the serial number is
> 0121039. Anyone know what year this would be?
> Thanks
> David Hays
> Williamsville, New York
>
> > On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Dave Redmon 
> wrote:
> >
> > My 1991 RB-T bike was stolen a couple years and I found a 1994 RB-T to
> replace it. Cantilever post widths are significantly different. I can fit a
> number of brakes to my 1994 fork that would not fit my 1991 fork.
> >
> > Dave in Kansas
> >
> > --
> > 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 https://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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/8pPxVEkTtyE/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[David Hays]

My RB-T says Synergy on the crossbar and the last of the serial number is 
0121039. Anyone know what year this would be?
Thanks
David Hays
Williamsville, New York

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Dave Redmon  wrote:
> 
> My 1991 RB-T bike was stolen a couple years and I found a 1994 RB-T to 
> replace it. Cantilever post widths are significantly different. I can fit a 
> number of brakes to my 1994 fork that would not fit my 1991 fork.
> 
> Dave in Kansas
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Dave Redmon]

My 1991 RB-T bike was stolen a couple years and I found a 1994 RB-T to replace 
it. Cantilever post widths are significantly different. I can fit a number of 
brakes to my 1994 fork that would not fit my 1991 fork.

Dave in Kansas

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[David Hays]

Does anybody know if these will work with the RB-T?
Thanks.
David Hays
Williamsville, New York 

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:38:49 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I've got a road build coming up that will use cantilever brakes.  I've got 
> a TON of cantilever brakes in my stash, but even so I decided to buy more.  
> I really like the super simple, minimalist design of the Dia Compe 980s 
> that Riv now sells.  I decided to buy two bikes worth and I'm going to 
> shape and polish one set.  They seem about as light as cantilever brakes 
> can possibly be, so I decided to do a weigh-off compared to some Paul 
> Touring cantilevers in my parts box.  I weighed two arms, with springs, and 
> with the mounting bolts.  I did not include straddle cables or straddle 
> hangers or brake pads.  Arms to arms, the 980s are a few grams lighter 82g 
> vs 91g.  I'll post photos and updated weights after they are polished.  
> After I've got them on my new build, I'll report back on how well they 
> work.  I like that they are forged, light and cheap.  Hopefully I can 
> polish them pretty, and hopefully they work well.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Garth]

Max, Apparently my reply may have been misread as I pointed to the *CR710* *for 
narrow spacing(they are designed for cross bikes with 33mm+/- tires)*, not 
the 720.   The 710 costs about $20-25 each. 


https://www.tektro.com/products.php?p=46


On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:07:32 AM UTC-4, Max S wrote:
>
> Garth, 
>
> I agree that the 720 is a good brake and a good value. In fact I have it 
> installed on one bike, but had to move all of the spacers / washers to the 
> outboard side of the pad holder bolt, because the canti posts are closer to 
> each other than currently standard. It actually works fine, but just — at 
> the limit of the adjustment range for the brake. Just wondering if there is 
> a simple and inexpensive option that works better (besides the old XT 
> cantis). 
>
> While we are on this tangent of narrow post spacing, are there V or mini-V 
> style brakes that work better than others in this instance?.. 
>
> - Max “narrow (post) minded for the moment” in A2

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[phil k]

Got a pair in.

So far it's been a breeze to set up, but I ditched the straddle hanger for 
moon units. The spring tension seems pretty even out the box. Did not have 
to adjust spring tension at all so far. So in that sense, it was just 
slightly easier to set up than the Paul Neo Retros. Can also adjust toe in.

Initial impression - less braking force than Paul Neo Retros, but not as 
grabby either. I think for a road bike it's a great option, but I would 
pick the Neo Retros for dirt/off-road applications. I don't feel the need 
to switch pads at the moment, but haven't been able to put its paces 
through any rain yet.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Max S]

Garth, 

I agree that the 720 is a good brake and a good value. In fact I have it 
installed on one bike, but had to move all of the spacers / washers to the 
outboard side of the pad holder bolt, because the canti posts are closer to 
each other than currently standard. It actually works fine, but just — at the 
limit of the adjustment range for the brake. Just wondering if there is a 
simple and inexpensive option that works better (besides the old XT cantis). 

While we are on this tangent of narrow post spacing, are there V or mini-V 
style brakes that work better than others in this instance?.. 

- Max “narrow (post) minded for the moment” in A2

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Belopsky]

FYI these work better than other brakes I've had, but perhaps it's the 
lever. I have not put KoolStop pads on the Dia Compe 980 yet. Any 
suggestions for which? I am thinking just the Supra, same as I have on some 
V-brakes unless there is a better type to use on V-brakes and I'll swap

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Garth]

   Max,  Any cantilever intended for a cyclocross frame is by nature for 
narrow spacing.  

You might try a Tektro CR 710 for example. These are easy on the pocketbook 
AND work well. I replace all Tektro pads with Kool Stop blacks or salmons 
even before installing. I have this brake on my Bomba front and it's 
fantastic. Very firm, immediate response and strong braking, no squishies.  
It would also work on my canti road bike with narrow spacing, which I 
currently use SunTour XC Pro and those are outstanding !  

The CR710 seems to get overlooked for whatever reason compared to the 720, 
which on the Bomba was decidedly "just okay".  


On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 10:20:16 PM UTC-4, Max S wrote:
>
> What’s the optimum post spacing (on fork and stays) for these?.. 
>
> - Max “they don’t make them for narrow posts anymore” in A2 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

['Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch]

It depends somewhat on rim width, but I think around 80-85 is generally 
what most v-brake/canti posts are set at these days? Builders will know, 
but I believe I read 80mm suggested on a framebuilding forum (Curt 
Goodrich?). That's what I used for my spacing when I redid some posts for a 
conversion. I'm running Tektros and they fit fine. Maybe a bit more for 
really wide rims?

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 10:20:16 PM UTC-4, Max S wrote:
>
> What’s the optimum post spacing (on fork and stays) for these?.. 
>
> - Max “they don’t make them for narrow posts anymore” in A2 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Max S]

What’s the optimum post spacing (on fork and stays) for these?.. 

- Max “they don’t make them for narrow posts anymore” in A2 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Belopsky]

Ride report: Seem to work well. I'll swap for Kool Stop pads eventually. 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Belopsky]

Nice!

I got my set it from RBW yesterday and installed today. Going to take a 
bike around the block and report back on how well they work with Tektro 
RL340 levers..

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

['Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 4:44:37 AM UTC-4, R. Alexis wrote: *Don't 
know why Dia-Compe didn't come up with a different model# for these brakes*
. 

I have been thinking the same thing, as they have no relationship to the 
original other than the name of the company that makes them. Both the 
design and the look are fundamentally different, and the new brakes, like 
most modern cantis, will get hung up on the fork blades or the seat stays, 
limiting the tire width; in fact, Rivendell recommends the Shimano CX50s 
for anything over 45mm. The original design keeps the brake blocks in front 
of the braze-ons, so the brakes can open all the way. Ironically, that 
feature--being able to open fully like old-style cantis-- is what Riv used 
to tout about the CX70-CX50 brakes, though I see that has been removed from 
the description. Riv's ad copy says they are a much improved version, but 
the only potentially objective statement supporting this statement seems to 
be "far, far, better brake shoes." Of course the originals could be 
upgraded with far, far better brake shoes as well.

I look forward to seeing what kind of carving Bill does, as I am somewhat 
underwhelmed with aesthetics of the "new" 980 and prefer the styling of the 
originals. Then again, while it seems they often not fondly regarded in 
terms of looks, I find the simplicity and angularity of the CR720s to be 
quite attractive, and they also carry out in a timely manner the cessation 
of the spinning of the bicycle wheels required of them.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Paul Clifton]

Got it. I noticed the canti clarification as I clicked post, but I still 
wasn't sure why it mattered. Makes sense now. My canti conversion to 622 is 
the worst stopping bike I have, but there are so many potential reasons for 
that (pads aren't nice, cable hangers are whack, straddle cable hanger is 
also whack, cables haven't been adjusted since I built the bike, etc.). 
I'll try adjusting things before I write it off. The pads hit the rim just 
fine at least. I'm using some of those old Shimano cantis that everyone 
recommends. Anyway, I'll keep the MA in mind when I adjust things, but no 
need to share photos of my brake butchery at the moment. Sorry for 
derailing the thread.

Paul

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:31:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> Paul 
>
> Please don't misunderstand me.  I specifically referred to converting from 
> 27" to 700c on cantilever equipped frames. If the cantilever posts are in 
> the right place for 630mm rims, you have to run the pads quite low for 
> 622mm rims and the mechanical advantage gets all messed up, forcing 
> compromises on braking performance, or brake feel, or brake equipment 
> choices or brake setup choices or some/all of the above.  If you want me to 
> comment on your two bikes, I'd be happy to look at your photos and run the 
> numbers.  Basically, you'd want to start with a bike that was built wrong 
> (in the right way).  
>
> Don't confuse my comment with a general statement about 27" to 700c 
> conversions.  For centerpull and sidepull brakes, I think it's usually 
> straightforward and usually awesome.
>
> Bill
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:07:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Clifton wrote:
>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> What are the compromises converting 27 to 700?
>> I've never had a problem with it, and I can fit fatter tires, but I've 
>> only done it to a couple bikes.
>>
>> Paul in ATL
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:15:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no specific thoughts about the 980 suitability for a 630 to 622 
>>> conversion.  My general thoughts are that 630 to 622 conversions with 
>>> cantilever brakes are always massively compromised, and I'd personally 
>>> never bother with such a project.  If I was helping a friend who was 
>>> dead-set on such a project, I would use vintage style brakes that use post 
>>> style brake pads.  Like from my parts box I have some vintage Shimanos that 
>>> I'd try.  
>>>
>>> Bill 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>>>
 Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
 they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is 
 also 
 an issue that is have to consider.
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

Igor asked which brake levers I’ll be using. 

I will use either SRAM S500 or S900. 

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Belopsky]

What brake levers do you plan on using with these brakes?

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[lconley]

If I can remove the branding with Simichrome, I usually do. - Tektros were 
usually good for that before they started using paint instead of polishing 
the aluminum. IRD derailleur clamps and Microshift derailleurs too.
I remember the old Universal brakes that put blue paint in the recessed 
branding.

Laing
Cocoa FL

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 6:33:08 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:

> I took one bare arm and my smallest file with me on my commute today for 
> some meditative filing.  I knocked out the forge parting lines pretty 
> quickly.  Now is time for the biggest aesthetic decision:
>
> Do I remove the "Dia Compe" that is forged in?  It's not deep, so it 
> wouldn't be terribly difficult, and the thinning would be very 
> JPWeigle-esque.  I'm not one of those anti-branding zealots, though.  I'm 
> leaning towards erasing the "Dia Compe"  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:38:49 AM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> I've got a road build coming up that will use cantilever brakes.  I've 
>> got a TON of cantilever brakes in my stash, but even so I decided to buy 
>> more.  I really like the super simple, minimalist design of the Dia Compe 
>> 980s that Riv now sells.  I decided to buy two bikes worth and I'm going to 
>> shape and polish one set.  They seem about as light as cantilever brakes 
>> can possibly be, so I decided to do a weigh-off compared to some Paul 
>> Touring cantilevers in my parts box.  I weighed two arms, with springs, and 
>> with the mounting bolts.  I did not include straddle cables or straddle 
>> hangers or brake pads.  Arms to arms, the 980s are a few grams lighter 82g 
>> vs 91g.  I'll post photos and updated weights after they are polished.  
>> After I've got them on my new build, I'll report back on how well they 
>> work.  I like that they are forged, light and cheap.  Hopefully I can 
>> polish them pretty, and hopefully they work well.  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

I took one bare arm and my smallest file with me on my commute today for 
some meditative filing.  I knocked out the forge parting lines pretty 
quickly.  Now is time for the biggest aesthetic decision:

Do I remove the "Dia Compe" that is forged in?  It's not deep, so it 
wouldn't be terribly difficult, and the thinning would be very 
JPWeigle-esque.  I'm not one of those anti-branding zealots, though.  I'm 
leaning towards erasing the "Dia Compe"  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:38:49 AM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I've got a road build coming up that will use cantilever brakes.  I've got 
> a TON of cantilever brakes in my stash, but even so I decided to buy more.  
> I really like the super simple, minimalist design of the Dia Compe 980s 
> that Riv now sells.  I decided to buy two bikes worth and I'm going to 
> shape and polish one set.  They seem about as light as cantilever brakes 
> can possibly be, so I decided to do a weigh-off compared to some Paul 
> Touring cantilevers in my parts box.  I weighed two arms, with springs, and 
> with the mounting bolts.  I did not include straddle cables or straddle 
> hangers or brake pads.  Arms to arms, the 980s are a few grams lighter 82g 
> vs 91g.  I'll post photos and updated weights after they are polished.  
> After I've got them on my new build, I'll report back on how well they 
> work.  I like that they are forged, light and cheap.  Hopefully I can 
> polish them pretty, and hopefully they work well.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Harald Kliems]

I'll be curious to hear how they compare with Tektro CR-720s. I'm 
reasonably happy with mine, but the Diacompes are certainly prettier and 
also shave off a bit of weight. And people have complained that the Tektro 
has too much flex/play.

 Harald in Madison (WI)

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:38:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I've got a road build coming up that will use cantilever brakes.  I've got 
> a TON of cantilever brakes in my stash, but even so I decided to buy more.  
> I really like the super simple, minimalist design of the Dia Compe 980s 
> that Riv now sells.  I decided to buy two bikes worth and I'm going to 
> shape and polish one set.  They seem about as light as cantilever brakes 
> can possibly be, so I decided to do a weigh-off compared to some Paul 
> Touring cantilevers in my parts box.  I weighed two arms, with springs, and 
> with the mounting bolts.  I did not include straddle cables or straddle 
> hangers or brake pads.  Arms to arms, the 980s are a few grams lighter 82g 
> vs 91g.  I'll post photos and updated weights after they are polished.  
> After I've got them on my new build, I'll report back on how well they 
> work.  I like that they are forged, light and cheap.  Hopefully I can 
> polish them pretty, and hopefully they work well.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[R. Alexis]

The new Dia-Compe 980 brakes look interesting. I have the original 
Dia-Compe 980 brakes, 
http://velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?ID=D2AA4D24-29A3-4F50-B3CD-C789F21E144E=117=144
 
in use on my 1994 Bridgestone MB-1 retro build and on my 1987 Schwinn 
Voyageur 27" to 700c conversion. Don't know why Dia-Compe didn't come up 
with a different model# for these brakesh. 

As for the 27" to 700c conversion, it may be a case by case issue on how 
well it works. When I initially built this frameset up I used some hybrid 
wheelset and Dia-Compe 984 brakes. The brakes didn't allow for the pads to 
hit the rims squarely. I still rode it. When I sold the bike I mounted some 
high profile Shimano Deore DX post style brakes. When I got the bike back 
and revamped the build I mounted some 980 brakes. These work well in use. 
The front have to be adjusted to the point that the brake arms angle 
slightly downward. I have a Dia-Compe quick release roller straddle cable 
carrier along with quick release TRP RRL brake levers help in getting the 
brakes unhooked for wheel removal. With both quick releases it is possible 
to get the brakes open enough so the wheel can clear without unhooking the 
brakes from the straddle cable. 

Reginald "Another Old Timer" Alexis

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 7:20:15 PM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> Haha, don't worry about it. It's just a few old timers trying to show off 
> how much we know. Nobody has said 'get off my lawn' yet.  The Riv-content 
> remains: Dia Compe 980 brakes are subjectively nice looking, objectively 
> light weight, objectively inexpensive, and objectively in-stock at 
> Rivendell Bicycle Works in Walnut Creek, California.  The jury is split on 
> 630 to 622 canti-conversions, and at least one of us is objectively 
> not-dead.  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA  
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:05:04 PM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>>
>> I think I hijacked this thread. Apologies. I’ll DM next time.
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

Haha, don't worry about it. It's just a few old timers trying to show off 
how much we know. Nobody has said 'get off my lawn' yet.  The Riv-content 
remains: Dia Compe 980 brakes are subjectively nice looking, objectively 
light weight, objectively inexpensive, and objectively in-stock at 
Rivendell Bicycle Works in Walnut Creek, California.  The jury is split on 
630 to 622 canti-conversions, and at least one of us is objectively 
not-dead.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA  

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:05:04 PM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>
> I think I hijacked this thread. Apologies. I’ll DM next time.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[John G.]

I think I hijacked this thread. Apologies. I’ll DM next time.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Craig Montgomery]

I've converted 3 or 4 27" canti-bikes to 700c over the decades. Zoomed down 
mountains fully-loaded. Never died. 

Craig in Tucson

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-7, lconley wrote:
>
> The difference between 622 and 630 is 8mm in diameter and 4mm in radius. 
> The 622 pad will be 4 mm (1/6 inch) closer to the canti post than the 630. 
> If it is within the range of the standard slot for pad mounting, it is not 
> a problem - every pad slot on a brake arm that I have seen was considerably 
> longer than 4mm. I would not worry about 4mm upsetting the brake balance or 
> feel. A 650b conversion from 700c using longer side or center pulls is a 
> much more radical change to caliper ratio, and they seem to work pretty 
> well.
>
> Also remember that you can play around with the cantilever straddle cable 
> length to change the brake pull ratio - a slightly longer straddle cable 
> will cancel the 4mm pad closer to the pivot. Don't ask me to do the math - 
> Google Sheldon Brown.
>
> The only problem that I have ever had with a 27 to 700c is on my P-15 
> Paramount, normal reach Campagnolo Nuovo Record sidepull on the rear with a 
> Campagnolo dropbolt reaches a 27 x 1 but not a 700c (nor a 27 x 1-1/4) - 
> When you are on the limits of the brake arm slot, the rim width can come 
> into play. Back in the mid 70s all we had was 700c sewups and 27" 
> clinchers, no 700c clinchers. Many bicycles had greater tire clearances in 
> the rear than the front (thus the mixed Weinmann and later Dia-Compe 750R, 
> 610F centerpull brake sets). I actually have Dia-Compe 750R, 610F 
> centerpull brakes on a couple of Rivendells. 750s are 14mm longer than 610s 
> - again I wouldn't worry about 4mm if it bolts on with no modification. 
>
> Laing
> Cocoa FL
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
> they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is 
> also 
> an issue that is have to consider.



-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[lconley]

The difference between 622 and 630 is 8mm in diameter and 4mm in radius. 
The 622 pad will be 4 mm (1/6 inch) closer to the canti post than the 630. 
If it is within the range of the standard slot for pad mounting, it is not 
a problem - every pad slot on a brake arm that I have seen was considerably 
longer than 4mm. I would not worry about 4mm upsetting the brake balance or 
feel. A 650b conversion from 700c using longer side or center pulls is a 
much more radical change to caliper ratio, and they seem to work pretty 
well.

Also remember that you can play around with the cantilever straddle cable 
length to change the brake pull ratio - a slightly longer straddle cable 
will cancel the 4mm pad closer to the pivot. Don't ask me to do the math - 
Google Sheldon Brown.

The only problem that I have ever had with a 27 to 700c is on my P-15 
Paramount, normal reach Campagnolo Nuovo Record sidepull on the rear with a 
Campagnolo dropbolt reaches a 27 x 1 but not a 700c (nor a 27 x 1-1/4) - 
When you are on the limits of the brake arm slot, the rim width can come 
into play. Back in the mid 70s all we had was 700c sewups and 27" 
clinchers, no 700c clinchers. Many bicycles had greater tire clearances in 
the rear than the front (thus the mixed Weinmann and later Dia-Compe 750R, 
610F centerpull brake sets). I actually have Dia-Compe 750R, 610F 
centerpull brakes on a couple of Rivendells. 750s are 14mm longer than 610s 
- again I wouldn't worry about 4mm if it bolts on with no modification. 

Laing
Cocoa FL


On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:

> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
 they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is 
 also 
 an issue that is have to consider.
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

Compass brakes are $300 for two wheels.  Dia Compe 980s are $52 for two 
wheels.  The price difference is $248.  If the weight difference is 7g per 
wheel, then that would make that $17.71 per gram.  When I'm going weight 
weenie, I'm looking for $1/gram opportunities.  If I can throw $450 at my 
bike and drop a pound, that's a $1 per gram opportunity, and might be worth 
doing.  When it gets into the $5 per gram range, and would cost an 
additional $2000 to drop one pound, I'm usually out at that point.  $17 a 
gram is pretty dear.  If I ever bought Compass Cantilevers, it would be for 
beauty and performance, and the fact that they are not heavy.  




On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:38:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Schairer wrote:
>
> Compass claims their Rene Herse to be 75g if you want to shave off another 
> 7g per wheel.  Don’t know what the $/g might work out to be... 
>
> Bill

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

Paul 

Please don't misunderstand me.  I specifically referred to converting from 
27" to 700c on cantilever equipped frames. If the cantilever posts are in 
the right place for 630mm rims, you have to run the pads quite low for 
622mm rims and the mechanical advantage gets all messed up, forcing 
compromises on braking performance, or brake feel, or brake equipment 
choices or brake setup choices or some/all of the above.  If you want me to 
comment on your two bikes, I'd be happy to look at your photos and run the 
numbers.  Basically, you'd want to start with a bike that was built wrong 
(in the right way).  

Don't confuse my comment with a general statement about 27" to 700c 
conversions.  For centerpull and sidepull brakes, I think it's usually 
straightforward and usually awesome.

Bill

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:07:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Clifton wrote:

> Hey Bill,
>
> What are the compromises converting 27 to 700?
> I've never had a problem with it, and I can fit fatter tires, but I've 
> only done it to a couple bikes.
>
> Paul in ATL
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:15:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> I have no specific thoughts about the 980 suitability for a 630 to 622 
>> conversion.  My general thoughts are that 630 to 622 conversions with 
>> cantilever brakes are always massively compromised, and I'd personally 
>> never bother with such a project.  If I was helping a friend who was 
>> dead-set on such a project, I would use vintage style brakes that use post 
>> style brake pads.  Like from my parts box I have some vintage Shimanos that 
>> I'd try.  
>>
>> Bill 
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>>
>>> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
>>> they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is also 
>>> an issue that is have to consider.
>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Paul Clifton]

Hey Bill,

What are the compromises converting 27 to 700?
I've never had a problem with it, and I can fit fatter tires, but I've only 
done it to a couple bikes.

Paul in ATL

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:15:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I have no specific thoughts about the 980 suitability for a 630 to 622 
> conversion.  My general thoughts are that 630 to 622 conversions with 
> cantilever brakes are always massively compromised, and I'd personally 
> never bother with such a project.  If I was helping a friend who was 
> dead-set on such a project, I would use vintage style brakes that use post 
> style brake pads.  Like from my parts box I have some vintage Shimanos that 
> I'd try.  
>
> Bill 
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
>> they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is also 
>> an issue that is have to consider.
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Belopsky]

Very cool. I bet they stop well and are 1/4th the price of Paul.
RBW seems to be the cheapest place (and one of the only online from what 
i've found) to stock at current

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[John G.]

Thanks. You're right. I revisit the idea of a 630 to 622 conversion 
periodically, and always walk away immediately. 

In any case, looking forward to your thoughts on the 980s on your road 
build.

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:15:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> I have no specific thoughts about the 980 suitability for a 630 to 622 
> conversion.  My general thoughts are that 630 to 622 conversions with 
> cantilever brakes are always massively compromised, and I'd personally 
> never bother with such a project.  If I was helping a friend who was 
> dead-set on such a project, I would use vintage style brakes that use post 
> style brake pads.  Like from my parts box I have some vintage Shimanos that 
> I'd try.  
>
> Bill 
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
>> they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is also 
>> an issue that is have to consider.
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight weenie report. Dia Compe 980 brakes

[Bill Lindsay]

I have no specific thoughts about the 980 suitability for a 630 to 622 
conversion.  My general thoughts are that 630 to 622 conversions with 
cantilever brakes are always massively compromised, and I'd personally 
never bother with such a project.  If I was helping a friend who was 
dead-set on such a project, I would use vintage style brakes that use post 
style brake pads.  Like from my parts box I have some vintage Shimanos that 
I'd try.  

Bill 

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote:

> Any thoughts on the vertical adjustability of the pads?  Wondering if 
> they’d suit a 27inch to 700c conversion. I guess Canti post spacing is also 
> an issue that is have to consider.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Jeffrey]

I'm the OP, and I take NO offense at the wieght weenie jabs!

It may be of interest to know why I asked, and its not because I was
looking for a light-weight ride. I have a black '92 Bridgestone MB-6,
and I compared the geometry to the Hunq and found that they are very
similar with 2-3 differences. So I now conceive of my MB-6 as a poor
man's Hunq (bought it for $75). To my surprise, my 49 double-butted
Tange CroMo MB-6 weighs 7.25 lbs. (fork and frame), and the 58 Hunq
weighs 9 lbs. according to this thread. What a surprise!! I wasn't
trying to see if I could shave off a few grams or anything, I just
wanted to see if I am pedaling a battle-axe around. Turns out its not
so heavy!

So go buy an early Bridgestone MB and Hunq it out! (Kidding...I'm sure
the Hunq has a much better ride).

I'll post a pic here, let me know if there's interest.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Jeffrey]

Wow, I started a thread and it went into flames...how entertaining!!

The OP not offended, so this is fun to watch. ;-)

I asked the question because I can't afford a Hunq right now. So... I
have have been building my '92 Bridgestone MB-6 as a poor man's Hunq.
I compared frame dimensions of both bikes and they are very, very
similar. I figure this old piece of tig-welded steel MUST be heavier
than the Hunq and guess what? According to the '92 catalogue on
Sheldon Brown's site the frame weighs 5.5 #'s, the fork 1.75# = 7.25
#'s. Is it possible it's really lighter than the Hunq?!? Surprising.

I'm no weight weenie, but I am glad to know I'm not riding around on a
Sherman tank.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[RJM]

Do you think they will be riding Rivs over?
 
I don't want a bike to have unnecessary weight, but also don't buy frames 
and parts based on light weight. It certainly is a criteria to look at when 
purchasing bike parts, but higher on the list in my opinion is strength and 
how long the part is going to last.  I bought a Phil bottom bracket for 
my Hillborne not because of weight (I think it probably weighs more than 
the original) but because I want it to last 10 years and be serviceable 
when it does go kaput. Same kind of thing when I buy wheels, saddles, and 
handlebars.
 
I would kind of like to know the difference in weight between a Sam 
Hillborne and a Roadeo frame in my size just because weight may be higher 
on the list of importance with a bike like the Roadeo.  Just to satisfy 
curiosity, which is what looking at weight numbers really is for me.  
 
My Sam nearly weighs double what my friends Madone weighs which you can 
really tell when lifting the bikes onto a car rack, but I keep up with her 
and usually lead when we ride together. 
 

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:57:28 PM UTC-5, HappyCamper wrote:

 Homeland security is on the way to my house as I have obviously
 hijacked this thread. Sorry folks! 

 - Ryan 

 On May 3, 6:29 am, Jeffrey unclecowb...@gmail.com wrote: 
  Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
  it on the Riv site.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/D_Qvntb9qcsJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Marc Irwin]

My 54 frame fork and headset tipped over 9# on the bathroom scale when I 
took it out of the box.  Don't worry it's irrelevant, the bike is awesome.

Marc

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:29:14 AM UTC-4, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
 it on the Riv site.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/3E8Nwszj3CUJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Gary]

I recently bought a 58 Hunq and the frame/fork/hs is about 9# on my 
bathroom scale. Just received the wheels today (from Rich at Riv) and am 
looking forward to finally building it up!

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:29:14 AM UTC-4, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
 it on the Riv site.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/NjKC1u7B62MJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Allan in Portland]

Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
 it on the Riv site.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/6fhIfX9pl9UJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Ryan Ray]

I know you're joking but I think this thinking is as silly as being a 
weight weenie. 

If you don't care about weight at all ever you will end up with a very very 
heavy bike. Maybe that's OK for some people but for riding in a group in 
hilly Seattle it's not fun.

Weight should not be something you think while riding, but while building 
or planning it's perfectly normal and reasonable. Caring about it to the 
point of abandoning said reason and abandoning higher priorities (safety, 
durability) is also silly of course.

Why the rant? I guess I just think people should be able to ask how much a 
bike weighs without getting remarks like like a certain NY jewelry shop, 
if you have to ask.. or put the scale back in the bathroom.*

So I say while building - ask away. It's a major financial investment and 
you should be happy with the results. Once built: just ride.

- Ryan

* side note:  I'm really tall and actually pretty skinny to the point that 
I gained weight after getting in shape.








On Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, Allan in Portland wrote:

 Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
 it on the Riv site.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/RA0AHnCE_WcJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Peter Morgano]

Lighten up, (get it, lighten up, haha) But seriously, its not like its a
sold steel chinese delivery bike, I wouldnt describe the hunq or even the
bomba as very very heavy  Stout yes but not like a lead weight beneath
you. Like so many things in life this is subjective, I rode a heavy mtb
in the Adirondacks growing up and never thought twice and now ride 33lb rig
around NYC and dont think about that either. Its like my LBS guy says to
the weight weenies, wanna lose a lb off the bike? go on a diet or take a
big leak, haha.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I know you're joking but I think this thinking is as silly as being a
 weight weenie.

 If you don't care about weight at all ever you will end up with a very
 very heavy bike. Maybe that's OK for some people but for riding in a group
 in hilly Seattle it's not fun.

 Weight should not be something you think while riding, but while building
 or planning it's perfectly normal and reasonable. Caring about it to the
 point of abandoning said reason and abandoning higher priorities (safety,
 durability) is also silly of course.

 Why the rant? I guess I just think people should be able to ask how much a
 bike weighs without getting remarks like like a certain NY jewelry shop,
 if you have to ask.. or put the scale back in the bathroom.*

 So I say while building - ask away. It's a major financial investment and
 you should be happy with the results. Once built: just ride.

 - Ryan

 * side note:  I'm really tall and actually pretty skinny to the point that
 I gained weight after getting in shape.








 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, Allan in Portland wrote:

 Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find
 it on the Riv site.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 RBW Owners Bunch group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/RA0AHnCE_WcJ.

 To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Ryan Ray]

go on a diet

Actually I'm pretty skinny and my Dr has told me I shouldn't lose weight. 
This is the kind of jib I was talking about. Sometimes the crowd here can 
be as bad as weight weenies. Just relax and let people ask how much a bike 
weighs. It's a perfectly normal question that doesn't deserve mean quips.

- Ryan






On Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote:

 Lighten up, (get it, lighten up, haha) But seriously, its not like its a 
 sold steel chinese delivery bike, I wouldnt describe the hunq or even the 
 bomba as very very heavy  Stout yes but not like a lead weight beneath 
 you. Like so many things in life this is subjective, I rode a heavy mtb 
 in the Adirondacks growing up and never thought twice and now ride 33lb rig 
 around NYC and dont think about that either. Its like my LBS guy says to 
 the weight weenies, wanna lose a lb off the bike? go on a diet or take a 
 big leak, haha. 

 On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I know you're joking but I think this thinking is as silly as being a 
 weight weenie. 

 If you don't care about weight at all ever you will end up with a very 
 very heavy bike. Maybe that's OK for some people but for riding in a group 
 in hilly Seattle it's not fun.

 Weight should not be something you think while riding, but while building 
 or planning it's perfectly normal and reasonable. Caring about it to the 
 point of abandoning said reason and abandoning higher priorities (safety, 
 durability) is also silly of course.

 Why the rant? I guess I just think people should be able to ask how much 
 a bike weighs without getting remarks like like a certain NY jewelry shop, 
 if you have to ask.. or put the scale back in the bathroom.*

 So I say while building - ask away. It's a major financial investment and 
 you should be happy with the results. Once built: just ride.

 - Ryan

 * side note:  I'm really tall and actually pretty skinny to the point 
 that I gained weight after getting in shape.








 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, Allan in Portland wrote:

 Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find 
 it on the Riv site.

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 RBW Owners Bunch group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/RA0AHnCE_WcJ.

 To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ri0JCLrY90QJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Peter Morgano]

You are right, Tony my LBS guy is pretty mean, but we are all Italians in
Bay Ridge Brooklyn and can take having someone bust our chops about
something. Its when you cant take a joke that things get mean in our
culture, you should hear my mom curse out my dad, hahaha. I have taken
false umbrage on the list before and can assure you that it is just you
taking it too personally, we all have different senses of what is funny or
mean but I dont think anyone (even you Steve) are mean on purpose.  Seems
like another non-issue or maybe someone who is sensitve about being called
a weight weenie, dont really know or really care anymore. By the end of the
block I dont think about what my bike weighs, I am just enjoying the ride.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:

 go on a diet

 Actually I'm pretty skinny and my Dr has told me I shouldn't lose weight.
 This is the kind of jib I was talking about. Sometimes the crowd here can
 be as bad as weight weenies. Just relax and let people ask how much a bike
 weighs. It's a perfectly normal question that doesn't deserve mean quips.

 - Ryan






 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote:

 Lighten up, (get it, lighten up, haha) But seriously, its not like its a
 sold steel chinese delivery bike, I wouldnt describe the hunq or even the
 bomba as very very heavy  Stout yes but not like a lead weight beneath
 you. Like so many things in life this is subjective, I rode a heavy mtb
 in the Adirondacks growing up and never thought twice and now ride 33lb rig
 around NYC and dont think about that either. Its like my LBS guy says to
 the weight weenies, wanna lose a lb off the bike? go on a diet or take a
 big leak, haha.

 On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I know you're joking but I think this thinking is as silly as being a
 weight weenie.

 If you don't care about weight at all ever you will end up with a very
 very heavy bike. Maybe that's OK for some people but for riding in a group
 in hilly Seattle it's not fun.

 Weight should not be something you think while riding, but while
 building or planning it's perfectly normal and reasonable. Caring about it
 to the point of abandoning said reason and abandoning higher priorities
 (safety, durability) is also silly of course.

 Why the rant? I guess I just think people should be able to ask how much
 a bike weighs without getting remarks like like a certain NY jewelry shop,
 if you have to ask.. or put the scale back in the bathroom.*

 So I say while building - ask away. It's a major financial investment
 and you should be happy with the results. Once built: just ride.

 - Ryan

 * side note:  I'm really tall and actually pretty skinny to the point
 that I gained weight after getting in shape.








 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, Allan in Portland wrote:

 Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

 On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find
 it on the Riv site.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups RBW Owners Bunch group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
 msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/**RA0AHnCE_WcJhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/RA0AHnCE_WcJ
 .

 To post to this group, send email to 
 rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.**comrbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
 .


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 RBW Owners Bunch group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ri0JCLrY90QJ.

 To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[ted]

The great thing about weight is that although ones opinion about the
weight of a frame (eg is it heavy of not) is strictly subjective, the
actual weight is a purely objective repeatedly measurable quantity. If
somebody I don't know says a bike is very very heavy I don't really
have any idea what that might mean to me. If they say a 55cm frame and
fork of some model weighs 8 lbs well then I know exactly what that
means and I can decide how I feel about it.

On May 3, 4:46 pm, Peter Morgano uscpeter11...@gmail.com wrote:
 Lighten up, (get it, lighten up, haha) But seriously, its not like its a
 sold steel chinese delivery bike, I wouldnt describe the hunq or even the
 bomba as very very heavy  Stout yes but not like a lead weight beneath
 you. Like so many things in life this is subjective, I rode a heavy mtb
 in the Adirondacks growing up and never thought twice and now ride 33lb rig
 around NYC and dont think about that either. Its like my LBS guy says to
 the weight weenies, wanna lose a lb off the bike? go on a diet or take a
 big leak, haha.







 On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:
  I know you're joking but I think this thinking is as silly as being a
  weight weenie.

  If you don't care about weight at all ever you will end up with a very
  very heavy bike. Maybe that's OK for some people but for riding in a group
  in hilly Seattle it's not fun.

  Weight should not be something you think while riding, but while building
  or planning it's perfectly normal and reasonable. Caring about it to the
  point of abandoning said reason and abandoning higher priorities (safety,
  durability) is also silly of course.

  Why the rant? I guess I just think people should be able to ask how much a
  bike weighs without getting remarks like like a certain NY jewelry shop,
  if you have to ask.. or put the scale back in the bathroom.*

  So I say while building - ask away. It's a major financial investment and
  you should be happy with the results. Once built: just ride.

  - Ryan

  * side note:  I'm really tall and actually pretty skinny to the point that
  I gained weight after getting in shape.

  On Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:14:59 PM UTC-7, Allan in Portland wrote:

  Like a certain NY jewelry shop, if you have to ask... ;-)

  On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey wrote:

  Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find
  it on the Riv site.

   --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  RBW Owners Bunch group.
  To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/RA0AHnCE_WcJ.

  To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight of Hunqapillar frame?

[Ryan Ray]

Homeland security is on the way to my house as I have obviously
hijacked this thread. Sorry folks!

- Ryan

On May 3, 6:29 am, Jeffrey unclecowb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Does anyone know the weight of the Hunqa frame by itself? I can't find
 it on the Riv site.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: weight wondering

[Marc Irwin]

Just out of curiosity, I put my 54cm Hunq frame on the bathroom scale when 
it arrived, it tipped over 9 lbs with the headset.  I'm not sayin' that's 
scientific or accurate but it's heavy.  Of course compared to the Bomba, 
the Hunq will have longer fork and stays to accomodate 700c wheels.  I 
don't really care, I just wanted a frame of reference when the inevitable 
question occurred.  It's meant to be the 
goanywhereanytimeunderanyconditionsfullyloadedforbigboys bike, and it is.

Marc

On Saturday, April 28, 2012 8:31:16 PM UTC-4, ted wrote:

 OK, I know it's a bit silly to fixate on frame weight, and I apologize 
 for raising what may be an unwelcome subject,  but I got to 
 wondering  

 In a comment on a blog one of the folks from RBW recently stated that 
 a Sam Hillborne weighs about 6.5 lbs 
 On the RBW product page for the Atlantis it says an Atlantis weighs 
 about a pound more than an A Homer Hilsen. 
 On the RBW product page for the Sam Hillborne it says they are midway 
 between a Hillsen and an Atlantis. 
 On the RBW product page for the Roadeo it says a frame (no fork) 
 weighs about 4 lbs (ok just under). 
 On the RBW product page for the San Marcos it says a frame is about 
 4.5 lbs and a fork is about 1.6 so frame and fork is about 6lbs (ok 
 6.1 but really that .1 is like the weight of a bottle cage difference) 

 So putting that info together I loosely guestimate that 
 Roadeo ff ~5.5lbs 
 AHH ff ~6lbs 
 San Marcos ff ~6lbs 
 Sam Hillborne ~ 6.5lbs. 
 Atlantis ~7lbs. 
 Which seems to fit all the various statements and sounds fairly 
 plausible to me. 

 Then comes the Bombadil and Hunquapillar (said to use Bomba-stout 
 tubing). On the Bombadil page it says a frame (52cm) weights 5.3 to 
 5.5 lbs. Even at the high end of that range with a 1.75lb fork that 
 would only be 7.25 lbs for a Bombadil frame and fork. Taking the 
 middle of the range for the frame and 1.7 for the fork would give less 
 than an eighth of a lb more than my Atlantis guestimate. What with 
 thicker walls and more tubes I would have guessed at a larger 
 difference than that. 

 So hey, does anybody know if the Bombadil (and by extension probably 
 the Hunqapillar) really only weighs about 1/8lb more than an atlantis? 
 Have I botched some of my other guestimates by a quarter pound? Not 
 that it really maters but I am sort of curious. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/igsHjiG-K68J.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: weight wondering

[ted]

Thanks for the data point. I definitely don't see the weight as a
problem either. It is just a secondary feature that comes out however
it does when you get the size, clearance, handling, and stoutness
desired sorted out.

On Apr 29, 8:37 am, Marc Irwin irwin7...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just out of curiosity, I put my 54cm Hunq frame on the bathroom scale when
 it arrived, it tipped over 9 lbs with the headset.  I'm not sayin' that's
 scientific or accurate but it's heavy.  Of course compared to the Bomba,
 the Hunq will have longer fork and stays to accomodate 700c wheels.  I
 don't really care, I just wanted a frame of reference when the inevitable
 question occurred.  It's meant to be the
 goanywhereanytimeunderanyconditionsfullyloadedforbigboys bike, and it is.

 Marc







 On Saturday, April 28, 2012 8:31:16 PM UTC-4, ted wrote:

  OK, I know it's a bit silly to fixate on frame weight, and I apologize
  for raising what may be an unwelcome subject,  but I got to
  wondering 

  In a comment on a blog one of the folks from RBW recently stated that
  a Sam Hillborne weighs about 6.5 lbs
  On the RBW product page for the Atlantis it says an Atlantis weighs
  about a pound more than an A Homer Hilsen.
  On the RBW product page for the Sam Hillborne it says they are midway
  between a Hillsen and an Atlantis.
  On the RBW product page for the Roadeo it says a frame (no fork)
  weighs about 4 lbs (ok just under).
  On the RBW product page for the San Marcos it says a frame is about
  4.5 lbs and a fork is about 1.6 so frame and fork is about 6lbs (ok
  6.1 but really that .1 is like the weight of a bottle cage difference)

  So putting that info together I loosely guestimate that
  Roadeo ff ~5.5lbs
  AHH ff ~6lbs
  San Marcos ff ~6lbs
  Sam Hillborne ~ 6.5lbs.
  Atlantis ~7lbs.
  Which seems to fit all the various statements and sounds fairly
  plausible to me.

  Then comes the Bombadil and Hunquapillar (said to use Bomba-stout
  tubing). On the Bombadil page it says a frame (52cm) weights 5.3 to
  5.5 lbs. Even at the high end of that range with a 1.75lb fork that
  would only be 7.25 lbs for a Bombadil frame and fork. Taking the
  middle of the range for the frame and 1.7 for the fork would give less
  than an eighth of a lb more than my Atlantis guestimate. What with
  thicker walls and more tubes I would have guessed at a larger
  difference than that.

  So hey, does anybody know if the Bombadil (and by extension probably
  the Hunqapillar) really only weighs about 1/8lb more than an atlantis?
  Have I botched some of my other guestimates by a quarter pound? Not
  that it really maters but I am sort of curious.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: weight wondering

[ted]

The comment on the Bombadil product page refers to a 52cm frame. The
one on the Roadeo page is for a 55cm frame. With the Roadeo being
basically parallel top tube, and the Bombadil being 6 deg up sloped, I
think these are comparable. I think it used to be common for folks to
use 56cm or so sized frames for stating weights. Do you have an idea
as to how much difference 5cm of frame size makes to frame weight?
Since I am really just interested in a qualitative handle on the
relative stoutness/weight and not looking for .1 lb accuracy I doubt
the screws, paint, or even a headset would put things out of wack.
Though I think I would draw a line before including the bottom
bracket. Few framesets come with em, though to my pleasant surprise my
SimpleOne did come with headset, bottom bracket, and a seatpost
installed. Gota love those guys.


On Apr 28, 6:16 pm, Leslie leslie.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
 But for which size(s)?

 A 60 Bombadil would weigh more than a 56, a 60 Ram would weigh more than a 
 58, etc.   What if Instead of frame, or frame/fork, you were looking at 
 frame/fork/headset? Does that include the screws for the water bottle 
 brazeons?  Bottom bracket or not?  Framesaver or boeshield?  Bare frame, or 
 custom multi- coat heavy metallic paint?

 I think my Bomba, with fork and headset and the extra diagonal with extra 
 lugs, and with the curvastays, and screws for brazeons and multi-coat paint, 
 might have been north of 8lbs... I didn't have a high-accuracy balance or 
 digital scales or anything to verify, but it isn't a waif...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Joe K]

My custom Riv was built for all-round road riding with possible light
touring.  Do-it-all.  (Sidebar:  this was because I'd always been used
to having only one bike so it didn't occur to me to have different-
purpose bikes.)

The Riv always seemed very light to me compared to the other steel
bikes I'd owned.  Still does.  I now have an old Univega for a beater,
and it sure seems heavier.

One day I happened to notice the shop where they service the Riv had a
bike scale.  It turned out to be 26 lbs unladen.  I had it in my mind
that it was lighter than that, but so what?  It's definitely light by
my own comparisons, and no other bike I've owned has been such a joy
to ride.

On Mar 2, 2:45 pm, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks the responses. Consider me off the ledge but still investigating the
 possibility of a more stripped down bike. The pictured bike is my one and
 only and as set up serves me well in that regard. City riding, work out
 rides, 80+ mile all day fun rides, hauling the kid to school in the
 trailer, that tour I keep putting off...

 - Ryan



 On Friday, March 2, 2012 11:12:04 AM UTC-8, Cyclofiend Jim wrote:

  The only question is how does it ride?

  Everything else is just noise.

  - J

  --
  Jim Edgar
  cyclofi...@earthlink.net

  Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com
  Current Classics - Cross Bikes
  Singlespeed - Working Bikes

  You must be the change you want to see in the world.
     Mahatma Gandhi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Philip Williamson]

Gravity Knob! I've thought about weighing my bikes, but usually don't.
Any upgrades I've ever done to them have added weight. Fenders,
dynohubs, racks, leather saddles. Drop bars. I'm looking to move back
to the Bay Area, where I can get by with narrower tires, since the
roads are better, and maybe have one road bike without fenders. I do
want to photo-document each bike - weight, equipment, etc. so I can
refer back to it next Spring and see what I've done in 2012. I wish I
had that to look back on for the last 10 years, so the best way to
have that in the future is to start now.

Anyway - digression within digression. My Quickbeam rides differently,
and I ride it differently, with 40mm tires, metal fenders, front
basket, dyno hub and flat pedals than I did with 28mm tires and
Eggbeaters on NJS track wheels.

But how much does the gravity knob weigh?
 Philip

Philip Williamson
www.biketinker.com
www.philipwilliamson.com


On Mar 2, 2:53 pm, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote:
 If that's what he means, then, um, OK.  All I said about weight was about
 sweating the grams of chainring bolts.  If Z-man thinks that you start to
 feel the weight of your chainring bolts when you start climbing up a hill,
 then wow.

 Of course weight matters.  I like music, so I'm willing to carry an iPod or
 even a harmonica on my bike.  I'm not willing to carry a piano.  Why?
  Because it's too heavy.  Weight matters.

 If there was a gravity knob on your bike that allowed you to dial down the
 weight for free, you'd turn it.  Why?  Because lighter is usually better,
 if it's free.

 In real life, light weight usually has its costs.  Either it costs not
 bringing something that you might want, or it costs money, or it costs
 something else like work, or looks, or a perceived downgrade in
 reliability.  Those who say weight doesn't matter are those that are really
 saying I could go lighter, but don't want to, because of the cost.







 On Friday, March 2, 2012 2:42:14 PM UTC-8, Leslie wrote:

  I think what he means:
  Weight doesn't matter so much, until you come to a hill climb...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Patrick in VT]

On Mar 2, 2:15 am, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:

as pictured, it doesn't look like 35lbs. unless you have a lot going
on in that bag.  in any event, that's a right smart bike and if it
wasn't bothering you before, it shouldn't bother you now!  whether the
weight is excessive is entirely up to you.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Peter Pesce]

We'd all be much more content if BQ would stop publishing pictures of 
fully-kitted Herse randonneurs that weighed 17 lbs!

As an experiment, I weighed my 60cm Sam with its racks 'n fenders n' stuff 
and it was about 28 lbs.(I can't recall if the handlebar bag was on there, 
but Im pretty sure it was not. No tools or pump either.)

I then tried stripping it down and re-building it as light as possible with 
parts I had lying around, plus a few new bits I was able to find cheaply. 
The best I could get it down to was 23 lbs. The biggest-impact things I was 
able to change were the saddle - swapping a WTB for the Brooks was 3/4 of a 
lb., and the tires - Schwalbe Ultremo 28s with lightweight tubes instead of 
Pasela TG 35s saved almost a pound per wheel. 

Now, of course, it was no longer the same bike! And no amount of 
satisfaction with weight savings made up for the bone jarring ride of the 
28's pumped up to 115 psi to keep my considerable self from pinch flatting 
them!

Your bike looks fantastic, comfortable and practical. I'd say whatever it 
weighs is just right!

-Pete in CT


On Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:37 AM UTC-5, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/7ACrhImjNEwJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Patrick in VT]

On Mar 2, 10:15 am, Peter Morgano uscpeter11...@gmail.com wrote:
I used to ride plastic bikes but like many
 would agree unless you are one of the top riders there really is no point
 being on a lightweight uncomfortable and uncustomizable bike.

not sure i agree - lightweight, uncomfortable and uncustomizable
aren't tied together.  I'm sure a Roadeo could build up into a very
comfortable, sub 20lbs bike.  and light bikes are fun!  don't need to
be a top rider (what is that anyway?!) to appreciate a bike that's
easy to push around.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight

[Peter Morgano]

Been there done that, not worth the trade offs. Sorry I meant competitive
rider , a thousand apologies for not using  the correct verbiages.  Good
thing you are here to dump on me though, appreciate that.
On Mar 2, 2012 11:41 AM, Patrick in VT swing4...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mar 2, 10:15 am, Peter Morgano uscpeter11...@gmail.com wrote:
 I used to ride plastic bikes but like many
  would agree unless you are one of the top riders there really is no
 point
  being on a lightweight uncomfortable and uncustomizable bike.

 not sure i agree - lightweight, uncomfortable and uncustomizable
 aren't tied together.  I'm sure a Roadeo could build up into a very
 comfortable, sub 20lbs bike.  and light bikes are fun!  don't need to
 be a top rider (what is that anyway?!) to appreciate a bike that's
 easy to push around.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 RBW Owners Bunch group.
 To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Smitty-A-Go-Go]

Don't put your bike on the weight scale... put your bike on the fun scale. 
If it doesn't pin the needle, you're doing something wrong.

--Smitty


 

On Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:15:37 PM UTC-8, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 



On Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:15:37 PM UTC-8, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/5759UhRtR4gJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight

[PATRICK MOORE]

I have two, customized, very comfortable and lightweight bikes;
Rivendells, as it happens, both fixed. The gofast (am debating whether
to get it customized into a gearie analogue to the fixed commuter --
we'll see) is indeed fun with its sub 18 lb weight: man, there is
nothing like pushing a 75 gear up a hill with the bike so ligh, and I
generally ride in rolling and windy conditions. The question here is
whether this fun will outweigh the alternative fun of a light, gearie
commuter to complement the fixie one -- one regrets having only one
gear when the winds gust to 40 as they have been.

The fixie one weighed about 23 lb when I weighed it on a rather
doubtful hanging scale, this with Kojaks, frame pump, lighting, rear
rack and kit but no panniers. It sure feels fast and easy to ride
after I get off my Fargo or the trike!

The Fargo, with fenders, heavy kit bag, lighting and pump and the
SnoCat/Big Apple wheelset weighs north of 30 lb but my scale won't go
that high; it feels -- heavy, particularly on hills but the low gear
makes hills feel easy. I guess that the Kojak (folding)/Sun Rhyno
wheelset (also dynamo) saves some 3 lb at least, so with that wheelset
I'd guess 30 lb with the heavy kitbag on the bar, again, no panniers.

The fun of the tank-like Fargo is of course that I can ride it over
everything: if my vertigo (inner ear problem leading to dizziness and
nausea for the last couple of days) gets better, I want to go for
another extended dirt ride in the Bosque.

The trike is about 28 lb I estimate with lighting, pump but no bags or
kit -- the kit goes in the Hoss.

The Herse was a tank but felt fast, tho' hill climbing was hard to
gauge as low gears meant that climbing felt so easy.

The light bikes are ceteris paribus more fun to ride; one ceterum is
the fit: the Rivs just fit better than the Fargo and trike (tho' the
Herse fit as well), but leaving that aside and getting back to the
para, they feel more nimble in accelerating and certainly when
climbing; the also are easier to throw around, as much as one can do
this on fixed gears, and tho' of course other factors probably trump
here.

The Rivs are also far more expensive than the others but for me, the
extra cost is worth having the best of customization, comfort and
light weight.

To sum up my experience (over 50 years of riding, 35+ as an adult) I'd
say that weight does matter: more than some things but not as much as
other things.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Patrick in VT swing4...@gmail.com wrote:

 not sure i agree - lightweight, uncomfortable and uncustomizable
 aren't tied together.  I'm sure a Roadeo could build up into a very
 comfortable, sub 20lbs bike.  and light bikes are fun!  don't need to
 be a top rider (what is that anyway?!) to appreciate a bike that's
 easy to push around.


-- 
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[GAJett]

I'll worry about how much the bike weighs after I get 40 pounds off the 
engine ;-)
GAJett

On Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:15:37 PM UTC-8, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/KhYLK1Z_nHUJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Patrick in VT]

On Mar 2, 11:51 am, Peter Morgano uscpeter11...@gmail.com wrote:
 Been there done that, not worth the trade offs. Sorry I meant competitive
 rider , a thousand apologies for not using  the correct verbiages.  Good
 thing you are here to dump on me though, appreciate that.

dump on you?!  wow!

i merely meant to suggest that lightweight bikes need not be
uncomfortable, nor does one have to be a competive, performance-
oriented rider to enjoy a nice whippy road bike. as i alluded to, it's
about fun.  lots of people think lightweight bikes are fun and that's
the only reason someone needs to have one.  apologies if you found my
opinion on the matter personally insulting - 'twas not my intention,
although i'm flattered that my opinion had such an impact on you.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Ryan Ray]

I think this is definitely a problem.

- Ryan





On Friday, March 2, 2012 8:06:19 AM UTC-8, Peter Pesce wrote:

 We'd all be much more content if BQ would stop publishing pictures of 
 fully-kitted Herse randonneurs that weighed 17 lbs!

 As an experiment, I weighed my 60cm Sam with its racks 'n fenders n' stuff 
 and it was about 28 lbs.(I can't recall if the handlebar bag was on there, 
 but Im pretty sure it was not. No tools or pump either.)

 I then tried stripping it down and re-building it as light as possible 
 with parts I had lying around, plus a few new bits I was able to find 
 cheaply. The best I could get it down to was 23 lbs. The biggest-impact 
 things I was able to change were the saddle - swapping a WTB for the Brooks 
 was 3/4 of a lb., and the tires - Schwalbe Ultremo 28s with lightweight 
 tubes instead of Pasela TG 35s saved almost a pound per wheel. 

 Now, of course, it was no longer the same bike! And no amount of 
 satisfaction with weight savings made up for the bone jarring ride of the 
 28's pumped up to 115 psi to keep my considerable self from pinch flatting 
 them!

 Your bike looks fantastic, comfortable and practical. I'd say whatever it 
 weighs is just right!

 -Pete in CT


 On Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:37 AM UTC-5, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/FZaRrF5E7bwJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

Re: [RBW] Re: Weight

[William]

Sweating the grams on chainring bolts?  That's an idiosyncrasy

Trying to get through life with ONLY ONE BICYCLE?!?!?  That's a major 
malady 

You gotta fix that situation,  STAT!

On Friday, March 2, 2012 10:00:40 AM UTC-8, Patrick Moore wrote:

 I have two, customized, very comfortable and lightweight bikes;
 Rivendells, as it happens, both fixed. The gofast (am debating whether
 to get it customized into a gearie analogue to the fixed commuter --
 we'll see) is indeed fun with its sub 18 lb weight: man, there is
 nothing like pushing a 75 gear up a hill with the bike so ligh, and I
 generally ride in rolling and windy conditions. The question here is
 whether this fun will outweigh the alternative fun of a light, gearie
 commuter to complement the fixie one -- one regrets having only one
 gear when the winds gust to 40 as they have been.

 The fixie one weighed about 23 lb when I weighed it on a rather
 doubtful hanging scale, this with Kojaks, frame pump, lighting, rear
 rack and kit but no panniers. It sure feels fast and easy to ride
 after I get off my Fargo or the trike!

 The Fargo, with fenders, heavy kit bag, lighting and pump and the
 SnoCat/Big Apple wheelset weighs north of 30 lb but my scale won't go
 that high; it feels -- heavy, particularly on hills but the low gear
 makes hills feel easy. I guess that the Kojak (folding)/Sun Rhyno
 wheelset (also dynamo) saves some 3 lb at least, so with that wheelset
 I'd guess 30 lb with the heavy kitbag on the bar, again, no panniers.

 The fun of the tank-like Fargo is of course that I can ride it over
 everything: if my vertigo (inner ear problem leading to dizziness and
 nausea for the last couple of days) gets better, I want to go for
 another extended dirt ride in the Bosque.

 The trike is about 28 lb I estimate with lighting, pump but no bags or
 kit -- the kit goes in the Hoss.

 The Herse was a tank but felt fast, tho' hill climbing was hard to
 gauge as low gears meant that climbing felt so easy.

 The light bikes are ceteris paribus more fun to ride; one ceterum is
 the fit: the Rivs just fit better than the Fargo and trike (tho' the
 Herse fit as well), but leaving that aside and getting back to the
 para, they feel more nimble in accelerating and certainly when
 climbing; the also are easier to throw around, as much as one can do
 this on fixed gears, and tho' of course other factors probably trump
 here.

 The Rivs are also far more expensive than the others but for me, the
 extra cost is worth having the best of customization, comfort and
 light weight.

 To sum up my experience (over 50 years of riding, 35+ as an adult) I'd
 say that weight does matter: more than some things but not as much as
 other things.

 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Patrick in VT swing4...@gmail.com wrote:

  not sure i agree - lightweight, uncomfortable and uncustomizable
  aren't tied together.  I'm sure a Roadeo could build up into a very
  comfortable, sub 20lbs bike.  and light bikes are fun!  don't need to
  be a top rider (what is that anyway?!) to appreciate a bike that's
  easy to push around.
 

 -- 
 Patrick Moore
 Albuquerque, NM
 For professional resumes, contact
 Patrick Moore, ACRW
 http://resumespecialties.com/index.html



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/pFDB4uQp0MIJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[dougP]

Ryan:

My 58 cm Atlantis tips the scale around 35ish or so, with a Nitto Big
Back Rack, little front rack, Acorn Boxy bag, small tool kit, maps 
small junk in the bag.  Typical Riv build, Brooks, Schwalbe, etc., but
no fenders.  There's really nothing there that I would strip off
because I use it all.

I've run it occassionally with a light wheelset  28 mm tires (looks
pretty funny, actually) but the better acceleration  climbing does
not make up for the jack hammer ride.

Now that you're off the ledge, put the scale back in the bathroom
where it belongs, and enjoy riding your bike as-is.  Comfort is king 
functionality  versatility not far behind.  Performance?  I dunno,
maybe in 20th place?

dougP

On Mar 2, 11:45 am, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks the responses. Consider me off the ledge but still investigating the
 possibility of a more stripped down bike. The pictured bike is my one and
 only and as set up serves me well in that regard. City riding, work out
 rides, 80+ mile all day fun rides, hauling the kid to school in the
 trailer, that tour I keep putting off...

 - Ryan



 On Friday, March 2, 2012 11:12:04 AM UTC-8, Cyclofiend Jim wrote:

  The only question is how does it ride?

  Everything else is just noise.

  - J

  --
  Jim Edgar
  cyclofi...@earthlink.net

  Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com
  Current Classics - Cross Bikes
  Singlespeed - Working Bikes

  You must be the change you want to see in the world.
     Mahatma Gandhi- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[eflayer]

dare i say i have owned a number of Rivendells...for instance. i do mostly 
fastish, mostly smoothish club rides. given a choice, for most of those 
rides i would choose my 17 lb Specialized Roubaix. nothing against gorgeous 
steel bikes, but 5-10lbs of bike weight makes a big difference in the speed 
and feel of flight. also not saying that this is any need to be in a hurry 
or that your motor is not better than mine...just love the 17lb carbon 
Roubaix. can't carry much on the 17lb carbon Roubaix.
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:15:37 PM UTC-8, HappyCamper wrote:

 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 
 lbs. THIRTY. FIVE. 

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike 
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump, 
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/9PA1fOzac4QJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[Bill M.]

With my commuting bike can run up to 42 pounds including front rack
and rack top bag, Carradice Nelson Longflap in back, home-made
headlights with a big battery pack, leather saddle, tools, tubes,
pump, fenders, 700 x 35 flat-resistant tires, bottles and cages, and a
change of clothing on board.  It feels *heavy*, but everything on it
is there for a reason.

One exhibitor at NAHBS today had a carbon racing frame that weighs out
at exactly 700 grams.  Less than a Schwalbe Big Apple tire!  It's
astonishing how little a carbon frame tube weighs.

I'm not totally weight obsessed, but I do pay some attention to weight
in most of my bike builds, and don't tend to carry around more than I
need to.

Bill

On Mar 1, 11:15 pm, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 lbs.
 THIRTY. FIVE.

 It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike
 (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump,
 an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

 It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: Weight

[charlie]

My deraileur bicycle weighs 45 pounds with Schwalbe 700x47's,
Carradice Nelson Longflap, full water bottle, metal fenders, sprung
leather saddle, tools and tire stuff, extra glasses, gloves, rain
jacket, hub dynamo, rack, front and rear lights plus wiring, cable
bike lock etc. etc. Its a comfy ride and when I get to hills I gear
down and spin up.no biggie. I have MTB gearing 44x32x22 and 12-32
seven speed so I get about a 18
 low to a 100 high. I don't often think how much my bike weighs and
really didn't know until just now when I weighed it. I'm still 70
pounds overweight though so.

On Mar 2, 8:13 pm, Bill M. bmenn...@comcast.net wrote:
 With my commuting bike can run up to 42 pounds including front rack
 and rack top bag, Carradice Nelson Longflap in back, home-made
 headlights with a big battery pack, leather saddle, tools, tubes,
 pump, fenders, 700 x 35 flat-resistant tires, bottles and cages, and a
 change of clothing on board.  It feels *heavy*, but everything on it
 is there for a reason.

 One exhibitor at NAHBS today had a carbon racing frame that weighs out
 at exactly 700 grams.  Less than a Schwalbe Big Apple tire!  It's
 astonishing how little a carbon frame tube weighs.

 I'm not totally weight obsessed, but I do pay some attention to weight
 in most of my bike builds, and don't tend to carry around more than I
 need to.

 Bill

 On Mar 1, 11:15 pm, Ryan Ray ryanr...@gmail.com wrote:







  I have a 64cm road bike and I just made the mistake of weighing it. 35 lbs.
  THIRTY. FIVE.

  It seems astronomical but is it? It's not like I have a dutch city bike
  (well it IS Dutch but a touring bike). Is 35lbs excessive? I kept my pump,
  an acorn bag, patch equipment and tools and fenders all on it.

  It's the same bike Iv'e posted before...

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrray/6747584237/in/photostream

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[RBW] Re: weight of the tweed on some of the bags

[David Estes]

It's hard to be a Bag-Matcher and a Weight-Weenie, but not impossible!

BIG ;-)

DE

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Esteban proto...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yes - the double entendre of your post was irresistible.

 On Aug 3, 11:42 am, Seth Vidal skvi...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Estebanproto...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   You should know this is not the list for gram-counters!  :)
 
  Actually, I'm looking at tweed fabric online and trying to figure out
  which weight fabric to get for durability purposes. :)
 
  The difference between 5.5oz canvas and 22.5oz canvas is, umm,
 substantial. :)
 
  -sv
 



-- 
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something
wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym.  ~Bill Nye,
scientist guy

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: weight limit/use chart

[Bob Cooper]

Regarding weight limits, a guy in my club is a very powerful rider
with barrel chest and legs like tree trunks.

He weights well over 200 pounds.

On a steep climb about five years ago he twisted the cogs off of his 9-
speed Dura-Ace hub. Destroyed the cassette or at least the spider with
the last few cogs.

Without a doubt he is one touch son of a gun.

He rides an old Colnago from about 1978.

To look at the bike, you would think that he was way under served by
the frame: skinny tubes, et cetera. And he never does anything to his
bike unless it breaks first. See above.

But he just keeps going and going.

Steel, lugs and good brazing: That's the end all of it all.

He's the second rider from left in this picture:

http://www.rochesterbicyclingclub.org/

Archival Note: Next year they will put up a new picture, and he might
not be the second guy from the left.

Regards,

Bob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: weight limit/use chart

[charlie]

Right on, I have a large friend that did the same thing to his old
Motobecane to which he later had Phil Woods laced to 48 hole touring
rims. He weighs around 300 now maybe 250 then? but not fat.
I've gone down from 283 at a all time maximum to 255 but have 200 as
my realistic goal.
I have been reading Grants 'Grok' articles with enthusiasm and have
realized I have been doing some things wrong that were causing me to
over consume carbs. I am now implementing some changes to my routine
and will be modifying my diet too. I have some concerns (family
history) of diabetes also and am trying to avoid going down that road.
It can be difficult however as there are many 'experts' out there and
you often have to weed out what doesn't work by trial and error.
Just finding a bicycle that fits, works, is comfortable, versatile,
durable and beautiful has been a challenge. The more I ride the more
refined my tastes have become and I find myself weeding out the
unnecessary.

On Feb 15, 6:43 am, Bob Cooper robertcoo...@frontiernet.net wrote:
 Regarding weight limits, a guy in my club is a very powerful rider
 with barrel chest and legs like tree trunks.

 He weights well over 200 pounds.

 On a steep climb about five years ago he twisted the cogs off of his 9-
 speed Dura-Ace hub. Destroyed the cassette or at least the spider with
 the last few cogs.

 Without a doubt he is one touch son of a gun.

 He rides an old Colnago from about 1978.

 To look at the bike, you would think that he was way under served by
 the frame: skinny tubes, et cetera. And he never does anything to his
 bike unless it breaks first. See above.

 But he just keeps going and going.

 Steel, lugs and good brazing: That's the end all of it all.

 He's the second rider from left in this picture:

 http://www.rochesterbicyclingclub.org/

 Archival Note: Next year they will put up a new picture, and he might
 not be the second guy from the left.

 Regards,

 Bob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[John Blish]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Mitch F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 I wish I had the AHH but cant justify it right now.  The AHH would allow
 me to ride the 35s I have now but with fenders.  With the Rom or the Ram,
 you don't wanna go with anything over 28mm with fenders.



Mitch,


I get 32mm TG Paselas on my 59 Romulus with fenders and no problem.  I
didn't think it would be possible but I called up RBW, spoke to Keven, and
he said to go for it.  Works fine.

http://g7.smugmug.com/gallery/5199044_fWZ3m#315439435_kG5i5-X2-LB

-jb






 --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  From: Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H
  To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
  Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:27 AM
  It is on their web site under bicycle models. There you will
  find a
  chart named Which bike for what? Are you riding
  a AHH?
 
  On Nov 23, 10:59 am, Mitch F.
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Where does Riv specify weight limits for their bikes?
   What happens if one weighs 25lbs. or 50lbs more than the
  limit?  Does the frame flex more or crack?
  
   I'm 225lbs. and carry around 10lbs on the front.
   I feel like my bike could carry way more weight without
  breaking a sweat.
  
   --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
From: Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [RBW] Weight limit for A.H.H
To: RBW Owners Bunch
  rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:26 AM
Question for fellow A.H.H riders. What is the
  maximum weight
you have
or would be comfortable with putting on your
  bike?
Rivendell list the
weight limit for the A.H.H at 220lbs (rider and
  gear) on
trails. I
weigh 190lbs fully dressed and have ridden the
  bike with
30lbs mainly
on the rear and it handled quite well.
 
 



 



-- 
John Blish
Minneapolis MN USA

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[Mitch F.]

Very cool lighting system, I must say.

It is possible to ride 32s with fenders on a Romulus.  I did it.  But I had to 
remove the fenders because there was so little clearance.  The problem with 
such tight clearance is that whenever you ride on wettish canal path or dirt 
road, the very fenders that protect us (and our chain) from the splatter tend 
to clog up with leaves or worse, pebbles.  A larger pebble could cause an 
accident if caught up in there.

Bikes in Europe where bikes with fenders rule have no less than an inch of 
clearance.  This is for safety.  Also, what if it snows?  Your not going 
anywhere with only 1/4 inch of clearance.

Sometimes when I would hit a bump, the fender would twist or come out of true 
and would rub no matter how carefully I secured the fender.  Have to get off 
bike and adjust much to the chagrin of my fellow roadies.  One time the tiny 
bolt holding the rear fender to the seat stay bridge (real bad design) loosened 
up a tad.  I couldn't get in there to tighten it quickly and had to remove the 
rear wheel in the rain.  Trust me, I had loctite on it and it still loosened.  

Speaking of seat stay bridges, mine is too close to the tire and I have to 
deflate the tire to get the rear wheel off with fenders mounted.  Reinstalling 
the fenders, which I did once, takes easily an hour of adjusting and 
readjusting so no rubbing.  It shouldn't take that long to slap on a pair of 
fenders.

Never-the-less, I have a set of hardly used stainless steel Berthouds with rear 
Spanninga light--fenders stays never cut down to size, if anyone is interested.

--- On Wed, 12/3/08, John Blish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: John Blish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H
 To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
 Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:04 AM
 On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Mitch F.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
  I wish I had the AHH but cant justify it right
 now.  The AHH would allow
  me to ride the 35s I have now but with fenders.  With
 the Rom or the Ram,
  you don't wanna go with anything over 28mm with
 fenders.
 
 
 
 Mitch,
 
 
 I get 32mm TG Paselas on my 59 Romulus with fenders and no
 problem.  I
 didn't think it would be possible but I called up RBW,
 spoke to Keven, and
 he said to go for it.  Works fine.
 
 http://g7.smugmug.com/gallery/5199044_fWZ3m#315439435_kG5i5-X2-LB
 
 -jb
 
 
 
 
 
 
  --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   From: Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: [RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H
   To: RBW Owners Bunch
 rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
   Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:27 AM
   It is on their web site under bicycle models.
 There you will
   find a
   chart named Which bike for what? Are
 you riding
   a AHH?
  
   On Nov 23, 10:59 am, Mitch F.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does Riv specify weight limits for
 their bikes?
What happens if one weighs 25lbs. or 50lbs more
 than the
   limit?  Does the frame flex more or crack?
   
I'm 225lbs. and carry around 10lbs on
 the front.
I feel like my bike could carry way more weight
 without
   breaking a sweat.
   
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 From: Greenwayrider
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [RBW] Weight limit for A.H.H
 To: RBW Owners Bunch
   rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
 Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:26
 AM
 Question for fellow A.H.H riders. What
 is the
   maximum weight
 you have
 or would be comfortable with putting on
 your
   bike?
 Rivendell list the
 weight limit for the A.H.H at 220lbs
 (rider and
   gear) on
 trails. I
 weigh 190lbs fully dressed and have
 ridden the
   bike with
 30lbs mainly
 on the rear and it handled quite well.
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 -- 
 John Blish
 Minneapolis MN USA
 
 

  

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[wile]

I agree with MKahrl.  I weigh 200 and have put 35-40# on the back a
couple of times without ill effects.  The load was actually strapped
to the top of my rear rack, which is a terrible way to carry it, but
worked fine.  It actually didn't feel a lot different than my usual
15-20#, except of course I was slower.  There would be some potential
front wheel instability (flop) if I took my hands off the bars, but
I'm not one to go no-hands with 40# on the bike.  Sway can also relate
to the stiffness of the rack.  I'm using the Nitto Big Back Rack
(Campee) and that is plenty stiff for this kind of load.

Dylan

On Nov 25, 10:43 am, MKahrl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Subjective opinion.  The most I've loaded an AHH with is 240 lbs but I
 have hit a few rain filled potholes at speed while sitting in the
 saddle with no ill affects to the bike.   I agree that the tubes would
 most likely buckle before breaking.   I ran a Falcon bicycle into a
 car at full speed and shortened the wheel base by 12 inches.  The top
 and down tubes crumpled but remained intact and the front wheel did
 not even need retruing.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[MKahrl]

All these Rivendell frames will support riders and gear with 250+
lbs.  What will break or crack the frame is a shock from hitting a
hole or curb.  Two things will alleviate this: fatter tires and
unweighting your body from the saddle before hitting potholes.   An
AHH with 33mm tires should fine for 250 lbs of rider plus gear.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[Mitch F.]

Thanks, I found it.

I am not riding an AHH.  I ride a Romulus.  The Romulus is a lot like the 
Ramboullet, only much better:)

I wish I had the AHH but cant justify it right now.  The AHH would allow me to 
ride the 35s I have now but with fenders.  With the Rom or the Ram, you don't 
wanna go with anything over 28mm with fenders.




--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H
 To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
 Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:27 AM
 It is on their web site under bicycle models. There you will
 find a
 chart named Which bike for what? Are you riding
 a AHH?
 
 On Nov 23, 10:59 am, Mitch F.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Where does Riv specify weight limits for their bikes?
  What happens if one weighs 25lbs. or 50lbs more than the
 limit?  Does the frame flex more or crack?
 
  I'm 225lbs. and carry around 10lbs on the front.
  I feel like my bike could carry way more weight without
 breaking a sweat.
 
  --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Greenwayrider
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   From: Greenwayrider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: [RBW] Weight limit for A.H.H
   To: RBW Owners Bunch
 rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
   Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:26 AM
   Question for fellow A.H.H riders. What is the
 maximum weight
   you have
   or would be comfortable with putting on your
 bike?
   Rivendell list the
   weight limit for the A.H.H at 220lbs (rider and
 gear) on
   trails. I
   weigh 190lbs fully dressed and have ridden the
 bike with
   30lbs mainly
   on the rear and it handled quite well.
 
 

  

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[RBW] Re: Weight limit for A.H.H

[Big Paulie]

I'm around 220, and I think that's the limit. I put on some weight a
while back (240), and could feel my AHH starting to flex side to side
just a bit too much, especially the front end. When I lost the weight,
it felt fine again. The same for my old Rambouillet. 220 was about
it.

That's all on the road, BTW.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW 
Owners Bunch group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---