Is the chart up to date accurate though? When I inquired about a 62cm.
Hunq frame, I was informed the TT was more like 64 or 64.5cm , I can't
remember which. That would change some other dimensions as well. The chart
shows the original specs, but nothing new as far as I can tell.
--
You
On Friday, December 2, 2011 9:33:39 AM UTC-5, Garth wrote:
Is the chart up to date accurate though? When I inquired about a 62cm.
Hunq frame, I was informed the TT was more like 64 or 64.5cm , I can't
remember which. That would change some other dimensions as well. The chart
shows the
There may be a misunderstanding here.
I think you'll find stated on line 2 of Dave's chart that the number
given for the 6 degree TT bikes is the theoretical length. The
internet spreadsheet looks to me consistent with the previous pdf I
downloaded and also from when I talked with Jay on the day
Yes, I'm referring only to the theoretical length as seen in previous
charts. I found the email Keven sent me ,and indeed he replied that the
theoretical TT on the 62 was 64.5, not 62.5 as stated in the pdf's since
the frame came out. Other dimensions would be different too then. I don't
Dave,
Awesome!
Along the lines of what Seth said, I like the idea of the historic data. I
do realize that you need to focus on current bikes versus historic bikes
(you don't want people calling up to order a new Ram), though I noticed you
can have multiple sheets. So it might work to have
This is indeed one of those things about storing data on a website; it
is so much more ephemeral than having a paper copy - and can be gone
or changed at a keystroke.
I applaud however much Rivendell can use their site as an archive for
those of us who want to revisit 'obsolete' information, but
Thanks for the comments. Glad you all like my color coding.
We have rivbike.ORG to be a sort of archive like you mention.
I back up the BLUG locally each month and can push it to .org if
tumblr goes down
Old pics, random pdf stuff (although I like googledocs for that so
they're searchable) will
