updated geometry chart

[Dave Rivbike]

I posted as a google doc, but you can always find the link at the
bottom of the bike models page here:

http://www.rivbike.com/Bicycle-Models-s/39.htm

[Seth Vidal]

Dave,
A couple of things:

1. Great looking charts
2. I love the 'new items' page you've setup on the new website - thank you
3. Would it be possible to put up the geometry on sizes and models you
no longer make? Just for historical research, etc? I'm sure the owners
of 64, 66 and 68cm atlantises would still like to be able to have all
their specs. Ditto with Ram/Rom/Bleriot/Quickbeam folks.

thanks!
-sv

[Leslie]

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 your first sheet stay about as is,  then add a second sheet that has the others (Ram/Rom/QB etc etc...).  A third sheet that might be good to have, or a separate chart, is one of the PBH charts, for suggested ranges...    

Best,

-L

[Roger]

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 I also
realize there is a limit to how much a business can also be a library.
To me, Jim's website is an important resource, and I also download
info like geometry charts before they get updated.

Is anyone storing the blug for posterity? I have a full library of the
Riv Reader, but the blug has in many ways become the Riv Reader, and
could be gone with a crash, virus, or keystroke. I've read that
because early celluloid filmstock was unstable, something like 3/4 of
early Hollywood films no longer exist, and just like people who want
to revisit the films of Tom Mix, my life will be lessened a bit if
that happens with Rivendell's history.

Come to think of it, weren't many of the existing copies of the
'92-'94 Bridgestone catalogs saved from a dumpster by someone who
occasionally reads this forum?

On Nov 30, 9:34 pm, Seth Vidal <skvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Johnson]

Cyclofiend's site has cached RBW geometry for some older models:

http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/geometry.html

And great update, Dave!

- Andrew, Berkeley

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

[Dave Rivbike]

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 live there.
And thank goodness for cyclofiend doing this already as Andrew
mentioned.

Next time we update the sizing chart I'll post it up too.

Appending the chart with old bike data isn't a priority, i wouldn't
even know where to find longlow, etc, but if someone out there has the
info and wants to make a spreadsheet by all means... I'll post it.
For now that cyclofiend link will have to suffice.

One of the many reasons for tumblr BLUG was to make it real easy to
post pictures and do away with the PDFs which were always a pain..
So expect less PDFs and more picture-laden blugs.
They should be easier to find, index-able in the blug archive, and no
more 20MB pdfs blocking up the homepage.

I appreciate the feedback and suggestions so keep it coming. Feel free
to email da...@rivbike.com

~^~Dave

[Garth]

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.

[newenglandbike]

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 original specs, but nothing new as far as I can tell.

I think the actual TT on the 58 is ~61cm which makes the theoretical TT about 63cm, and the actual TT on the 62 is ~63cm and the theoretical TT is about 65.

[Roger]

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 I test rode
a 64cm Sam and a 62cm Hunqa earlier this year.

Maybe Dave will confirm.

[Garth]

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 know if other sizes are longer also.

Definitely some confirmation is needed !