You're very welcome Rich !
Life is Good :)
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 1:55:33 PM UTC-4, RichS wrote:
>
> Garth,
>
> You’ve just described my childhood.
>
> Many thanks,
> Rich
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Garth >
> wrote:
>
> "Way back when" I and everyone
Garth,
You’ve just described my childhood.
Many thanks,
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Garth wrote:
>
> "Way back when" I and everyone else rode whatever you had. You didn't need
> anything "special" then, nor do you now. as a teen, I toured on a middle of
> the
"Way back when" I and everyone else rode whatever you had. You didn't need
anything "special" then, nor do you now. as a teen, I toured on a middle
of the road Trek 6something. The rims were probably narrow Rigidas and I
rode Specialized Touring Turbos in either 27 x 1-1/8 or 1-1/4. The crank
Roadeo, not the San Marcos, is the lightest Riv.
Believe my 53 Roadeo is 645 on the ends and 4 in the middle.
Best,
Rich
--
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
I thought they were standard diameter with thicker tubing.
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-4, Lum Gim Fong wrote:
>
> What did people tour on back in the ‘60’s and 70’s? Did they build
> specific beefy frames for touring? Or was only standard diameter reynolds
> tubing (I am
Back in the 70s I toured on my 73 Schwinn P-15 Paramount. It was (is - I
still have it) made of a somewhat heavier than standard duty Reynolds 531
tubing set. It was not a full on touring bike, but did have a slightly
longer wheelbase/chainstays than the P-10 racing Paramount - more of what
What did people tour on back in the ‘60’s and 70’s? Did they build specific
beefy frames for touring? Or was only standard diameter reynolds tubing (I am
guessing it was thin walled) available?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch"
I'm 195 lbs and have owned a 58cm diagatube Hunq (now sold) and a 61cm
Waterford Atlantis. I'm on the bigger end of the spectrum, I guess, but I
think the Atlantis actually feels lively and cushy, especially compared to
the Hunq. I took it out on a mixed surface 100K this weekend, and it was a
Some good points have been raised here, and I'll echo the advice to ride
what you have until it doesn't work for you.
I've been riding a Heron Road (bought from Riv in 1998 or so) over mixed
terrain (including gravel) with 700 x 28 tires 20 years and have only JUST
converted it to 650 x 38. While
I’m about 180lbs, so not a featherweight. At one time I had a hunqapillar, Sam
and 1983 specialized expedition. I loved the hunq loaded but didn’t like it
unloaded. In comparison the expedition was great unloaded and wobbly with a
heavy load. The Sam was a happy medium but I wanted bigger
Sean, this is exactly my dilemma. I have learned that enjoy standard diameter
thin wall tubed framesets because they have more of a springy, energetic feel.
Others might have different preferences. For example, even with a full touring
load, my Hilsen was more fun (for me) to ride than my
I weigh 120 and if I had to narrow my collection to one bike it would probably
be my 57cm Bleriot. I’ve used it on and off road, for commuting, for camping,
and for brevets up to 600km.
Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Even what Grant calls a light road bike is going to be stouter than what your
average carbon rider considers such a thing; I have full confidence your San
Marcos is fine for the riding you want to do.
But you want a nice new MUSA bike so bollocks on all that San Marcos silliness!
I think
I want to see this. What geometry? I asked Chauncey to make me a "road
bike" that could take 60s and fenders, but he (doubtless in his wisdom)
gave it a slacker head and, while generous rake (55 mm), the trail is still
67 or so with 60s. but I wonder what my Rivs would feel like on dirt if
they
First: ride what you have the way you can and want to ride. Figure out what
works and what doesn’t. Many people prefer lighter bikes for gravel and
bikepacking, some prefer 3” wide tires without suspension, some like 2.4” full
suspension bikes. You won’t know until you try.
>From there iron
I weigh 236 today. I think a Bomba/Hunq is overkill for _me_!
I’d ride that San Marcos. 35mm tires work surprisingly well, even for someone
100lbs heavier. They used to be huge. Deep gravel is safer with 38s, but who
can afford extra gravel these days?
That said, I just put a deposit down on a
Patrick,
You have some really cool bikes. Cheers
Don
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:56:44 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Perhaps this is not stealing from Riv's market, given your quandary, but
> you might enquire with Chauncey Matthews (Matthews Custom Cycles, Belen,
> NM) who specializes in
Hey Sean! Fantastic question(s).
First, the weight of the engine is separate from any gear the bike carries. It
doesn’t matter how much you, the engine, weigh, putting 50 pounds of gear on a
bike is going to change how it rides. Lighter tubing more so than stiffer
tubing.
Where you carry gear
So, I see lots of discussion around how a bike handles for tall/heavy
riders. What I don't see is much about us featherweights. Is it because we
don't have to worry about it, or what? I'm 125 pounds if I'm lucky, and I'm
lusting after a Bomba/Hunq. The thing is though, I'm wondering if it's
19 matches
Mail list logo
