[RBW] Diagonapillar blueprints revealed

[William]

The Hunqapage on the Rivsite now has a photo of the design sheet for
the Diagonal 2TT.

http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/hunqapillar/50-713

In related news, Grant's post about the ropeswing says that the 54 is
now built and being ridden.

http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news_post/236

--
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.

[Johnny Alien]

Not awful but I am glad I ride a smaller frame.

[James Valiensi]

Hey,
Looks like a Joe Breeze mountain bike from 1978 or so.

James Valiensi, PE
Northridge, CA
H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796

[Michael_S]

I'll want to see the finished product but I like it better.

Also he mentioned the next batch of Sam's... side pulls in big sizes
and Canti equipped Waterford built frames too.

~Mike~

On May 3, 5:47 pm, James Valiensi <valie...@mac.com> wrote:
> Hey,
> Looks like a Joe Breeze mountain bike from 1978 or so.
>
> On May 3, 2010, at 3:54 PM, William wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Hunqapage on the Rivsite now has a photo of the design sheet for
> > the Diagonal 2TT.
>
> >http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/hunqapillar/50-713
>
> > In related news, Grant's post about the ropeswing says that the 54 is
> > now built and being ridden.
>
> >http://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news_post/236
>
> > --
> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

>
> James Valiensi, PE
> Northridge, CA
> H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796
>
> --
> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[james black]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 15:54, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Hunqapage on the Rivsite now has a photo of the design sheet for
> the Diagonal 2TT.
>
> http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/hunqapillar/50-713

Interesting. I kind of like it, even though I didn't expect to.

Do I see a palimpsest of a third set of stays between the dropout and
the back of the 2tt?

James Black
Los Angeles, CA

[Rene Sterental]

Glad I have my Bombadil... gladder now! I liked the concept better when it was like a Yves or Betty with a top tube with a long diagonal. Now, it just seems to me the front triangle is split and doesn't quite flow with the rear triangle...

 

Anyway, I'm glad it won't be confused with a Bombadil... :-)

 

Will wait to see what the final bikes look like. I once thought Rivendell bikes were ugly and look at me now... like we say in Venezuela... "¡Nunca digas que de esta agua no beberé!"

 

René

[CycloFiend]

on 5/3/10 5:47 PM, James Valiensi at vali...@mac.com wrote:

> Looks like a Joe Breeze mountain bike from 1978 or so.

Similar, but rather different -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/195767142/

- J

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

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

Gallery updates now appear here - http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com


"Steel's what you want for a messenger bike. Weight. Big basket up front.
Not cardboard with some crazy aramid shit wrapped around it, weighs about as
much as a sandwich."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"

[rob markwardt]

> I once thought Rivendell bikes were ugly and look at me now... like we say in Venezuela... "¡Nunca
> digas que de esta agua no beberé!"

And I, like usual, find myself thinking the opposite...saying that
without knowing spanish, but longing for the pre-double-toptube days.

No disrespect intended,
Rob Markwardt

[Rene Sterental]

That's the concept that I liked; the long diagonal.

René

--
Sent from my mobile device

[Garth]

It looks rather odd like that ...... like the diagonal tube should be
extended. Loss of a prime bottle spot? Curious.

I'm with Rene ...... I'm really really glad to have a Bombadil :)

[Bill Connell]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Hunqapage on the Rivsite now has a photo of the design sheet for
> the Diagonal 2TT.
>
> http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/hunqapillar/50-713

It is a little odd to on the one hand prefer the skinny tube/fat tire
look and on the other hand add frame tubes to beef things up. Still,
having seen the drawing, I like it better than i had expected, and
i'll bet the final bike will look great.

--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN

[CycloFiend]

on 5/4/10 6:23 AM, Rene Sterental at orth...@gmail.com wrote:

> That's the concept that I liked; the long diagonal.

Breezers (original like that one) had a long diagonal (i.e. headtube to rear
dropout), but they were separate parrallel tubes. A big issue with the early
mtb's was lateral flex - they were loooong wheelbase bicycles with slack
geometry and wide "Albatross" style bars. The method of use was downhill at
high speeds with a ton of side drift. You were heavily countersteering, too
and the bikes felt like they had a hinge in the middle, sometimes.

I think the shorter single strut does that, but gives some dispersion of
front end shock through the frameset as well.

- Jim

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

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

Gallery updates now appear here - http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com

"'You both ride your bike?' He held his hands out and grabbed imaginary
handlebars, grinning indulgently, eyeing Tom's helmet. Double disbeleif:
not one, but two grown Americans riding bicycles."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Zodiac"

[Oliver S.]

While maybe less aesthetically pleasing than the "camper", this design
is probably lighter and just as stout and stable. Plus, most of the
time, you will be looking at the bike from atop it!

Oliver

On May 4, 6:23 am, Rene Sterental <orthie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the concept that I liked; the long diagonal.
>
> René
>

> On 5/3/10, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > on 5/3/10 5:47 PM, James Valiensi at valie...@mac.com wrote:
>
> >> Looks like a Joe Breeze mountain bike from 1978 or so.
>
> > Similar, but rather different -
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/195767142/
>
> > - J
>
> > --
> > Jim Edgar

> > Cyclofi...@earthlink.net
>
> > Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com

> > Current Classics - Cross Bikes
> > Singlespeed - Working Bikes
>

> > Gallery updates now appear here -http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com

[Jim M.]

That design sure looks like this photoshop proto by Marty:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32306142@N07/4492630025/in/pool-1358127@N23

My PBH is on the cusp of 54/58. I test rode both last Saturday. Both
are great handling, stable bikes but I prefer the 58. The 54 feels
just a little cramped for my taste.

jim m
wc ca

[William]

Jim

I just did the same thing this morning (rode the 54 and 58), and had
the same reaction (I liked the cockpit size of the 58 but was freaked
at the standover). My PBH is 87. Keven pointed out to me that the
final 58 will be 2 full centimeters longer in the top tube, and the 54
will be 1.5cm longer than the proto 54. That has me leaning towards
the 54.

Bill

[Michael_S]

Will the 54 still be a single top tube or will it have the diagonal
tube also?
If what Keven says is true I should get the 54 also ( 86 PBH but long
torso/arms).
Any news on the delivery date of the final production versions?

~Mike~

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[William]

Michael

The 54 will absolutely be a single top tube. When Keven said that the
54 will be 1.5 cm longer, it did not occur to me to ask if the first
prototypes were built 1.5cm too short or if they changed the number
from the PDF file on the Riv site to 1.5cm longer.

With my PBH of 87, standing over the 58 hunqa prototype with Big Apple
700x50 (not 60s), I could stand flat footed, and could lift the front
wheel only about 1 cm.

Keven said that if the final prototypes (later this month) are
perfecto, then late July is still the date for finals.

Bill

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

[William]

Mike

I'm a terrible double-replyer, so I'm sorry about that. I just called
Keven and he said that the 54 and 58 prototypes were built correctly
to the numbers that are currently on the Riv-site. The finals will be
longer, so the numbers are changing. The Hunqa numbers claim that the
54 has a 58.4cm effective top tube length, and the final will be
really close to 60cm. The 58 claims to have a 60cm effective top tube
length and the final will be a 62 or so.

Bill

On May 4, 11:14 am, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

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

[Rene Sterental]

That is roughly how my 60 Bombadil fits me, although I believe that with the Marathon Supreme 700x50 I actually get about 1 inch. (I ride a 61 AHH). Still, when I straddle the bike I can feel the top tube right in "there". I get the extra lift by pushing hard against my bones just like Grant states you should. I believe my PBH is 89 or 90.

 

I did think the frame was too large for me initially, even though Keven had sized me personally. I went back to RBW with the idea that they had made a mistake, rode the 56 Bombadil and felt the cockpit too constrained. I took my 60 back home, ended up getting the most comfortable fit with the shorter Drop Stem and 48 Noodle bars and love it. I do wish the top tube was a little lower, for extra clearing but so far it hasn't been an issue other than snagging the rear brake cable when I straddle the bike. I will go mountain biking again this weekend on my first S24O. I've gotten used to feeling the top tube when riding it on the road and am going to try a pair of Big Apples 700x60 to see how they compare to the Supremes. I love riding the bike with the Marathon Extreme 700x40 and for real mountain biking, I have a set of Specialized El Capitan 29x2.2 front and 2.0 rear. It will be interesting to compare mountain biking handling between the Specialized and the Extremes.

 

Perhaps the 58 Hunqa would give me a bit of extra clearance, but so far it's not enough reason to sell the Bombadil frame and get the Hunqa frame. You never know, of course, but I really like how the bike fits me and how I feel when riding it (other than my left foot pain that has nothing to do with the bike).

 

I also like the Bombadil better with less stem / seat post showing... but that's completely subjective. :-)

 

René

 

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

With my PBH of 87, standing over the 58 hunqa prototype with Big Apple
700x50 (not 60s), I could stand flat footed, and could lift the front
wheel only about 1 cm.

[Rene Sterental]

That would be too long for me, as the Bombadil 60 has a top tube of 61 and I wouldn't be able to use a shorter frame. The 54 would end up being quite low, forcing a lot of seat post/stem to show to reach the right height and bar/saddle height ratio...

 

I guess that will still keep my best fitted on my Bombadil... which is always good to reconfirm.

 

René

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

The 58 claims to have a 60cm effective top tube
length and the final will be a 62 or so.

[William]

Rene

Your 60cm Bombadil has an effective top tube length of 63cm. So the
58cm Hunqapillar will be 1cm shorter in reach than your Bombadil, and
the 58cm Hunqapillar will have 2cm more standover clearance than your
Bombadil. Seems like the 58 Hunqa fits nicely between a 56 Bomba and
a 60 Bomba. Maybe you need another bike, and should put the Noodles
on the Hunqapillar and the Bullmoose bars on your Bombadil. That
would be sweet!

On May 4, 1:25 pm, Rene Sterental <orthie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be too long for me, as the Bombadil 60 has a top tube of 61 and I
> wouldn't be able to use a shorter frame. The 54 would end up being quite
> low, forcing a lot of seat post/stem to show to reach the right height and
> bar/saddle height ratio...
>
> I guess that will still keep my best fitted on my Bombadil... which is
> always good to reconfirm.
>
> René
>

[Rene Sterental]

I thought I read in the Bomba's geometry chart that the horizontal top
tube was 61cm. I'll recheck it again when I get home. I'm on a plane
waiting to depart from Dulles into SFO.

Hmmmmm!

René

--
Sent from my mobile device

[newenglandbike]

Rene: William is right- the *actual* TT length on the 60cm B'dil is
61cm, but the theoretical horizontal measurement is 63cm

On May 4, 5:21 pm, Rene Sterental <orthie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought I read in the Bomba's geometry chart that the horizontal top
> tube was 61cm. I'll recheck it again when I get home. I'm on a plane
> waiting to depart from Dulles into SFO.
>
> Hmmmmm!
>
> René
>

[cyclotourist]

I'm pretty stoked about the longer tt.  The 58 was the right length, but not enough standover.   Plus I didn't want the double tt (I like flexy bikes!). The 54 had the right standover, but wasn't long enough.  Voila, now a 54 is back in play for me!

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, happyriding <happy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 4, 12:47 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike
>
> I'm a terrible double-replyer, so I'm sorry about that.  I just called
> Keven and he said that the 54 and 58 prototypes were built correctly
> to the numbers that are currently on the Riv-site.  The finals will be
> longer, so the numbers are changing.  The Hunqa numbers claim that the
> 54 has a 58.4cm effective top tube length, and the final will be
> really close to 60cm.  The 58 claims to have a 60cm effective top tube
> length and the final will be a 62 or so.
>

On May 4, 12:47 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike
>
> I'm a terrible double-replyer, so I'm sorry about that.  I just called
> Keven and he said that the 54 and 58 prototypes were built correctly
> to the numbers that are currently on the Riv-site.  The finals will be
> longer, so the numbers are changing.  The Hunqa numbers claim that the
> 54 has a 58.4cm effective top tube length, and the final will be
> really close to 60cm.  The 58 claims to have a 60cm effective top tube
> length and the final will be a 62 or so.
>

Ugh.  What is it with Rivendell's long top tubes?  I thought the whole
idea was to get people to ride bigger frames?  On the bigger frames,
the top tubes are so long it forces people to buy a smaller frame with
a shorter, better fitting top tube and then jack up the stem to get
the bars up there.   For instance, look at the 67 AHH.  The effective
seat tube is about 66.3 center to center and the effective top tube is
65.  My preference for that frame would be a 61 cm top tube so that I
could employ a proportionally appropriate stem of 12 or 13 cm.

It seems to me that because of the long top tubes most of Rivendells
frames are not designed for drop bars.  With the long top tubes you
need bars that come back towards you to provide a comfortable reach.

I've read the article on how a shallower seat angle effectively
shortens the top tube--but that is only 1 cm per degree.  So if you
currently ride a bike with a 73 seat tube angle, the Hilsen's 72 seat
tube angle will allow you to fit a top tube that is 1 cm longer.  But
on the other end, a Nitto Noodle handlebar has 9.5 cm of reach which
is 1 cm longer than most road bars sold today.   The net result is
that a shallower seat tube angle effectively reduces the top tube
length by 1cm, but the Noodle handlebar is 1 cm longer, so that is a
scratch.

It would be nice if Rivendell made one model where the top tubes were
not so long in the large sizes.  Taller riders could then choose
bigger frames with less stem sticking out of the frame and use a 12 or
13 cm stem with Nitto Noodle's to get the proper reach to the bars.
The geometry of the original Hunqapillar seemed to be moving a bit in
that direction.

On the other hand, some days I hold up my hand and spread my thumb and
forefinger apart 4 centimeters, and I look at how small a distance
that is, and I wonder if it is even worth thinking about.

--
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.

--
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

[Way Rebb]

Double top tubes seem fairly common here in Singapore. I've see quite
a few. Many are old and made by Raleigh. They all seem to have seen
years of use. People just ride them to get where they are going.
Rivendell may have a more world view of bikes. I like the way they
look and seem to take a beating.

Here is a link to some of the more colorful ones. Note the diagonal
second top tube:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrebb/sets/72157623997048470/

Who knows, maybe there is a bright yellow Hillborne in my future. :)

-Ray

[Ginz]

<snip....>

> It seems to me that because of the long top tubes most of Rivendells
> frames are not designed for drop bars.  With the long top tubes you
> need bars that come back towards you to provide a comfortable reach.

Agreed.

If you've got the long arms, then a slightly shorter stem (Nitto Dirt
Drop) and drop bars could work. I've got the short arms, so I've
completely given up on drop bars. In fact, I've given up on Moustache
bars, as well. My latest bike has an upside down and cut Albatross,
setup in Moustache fashion. This gave me Moustache functionality and
effectively reduced the reach by 4cm which allowed me to run a frame
with a slightly longer top tube. That's the best I could do.

My Hunqapillar, should I take the plunge, would require a Bull Moose
or a right-side up Albatross. Drops are out of the question.

[Garth]

Riv frames have in the past typically had shorter TT's. I've read many
complaints about this. It's good they've made some longer ones now.
They have sufficient variety in frames to fit about anyone.

Longer TT's are perfect for using Albatross bars and such. To me a
bike is better balanced with a longer TT than the traditional short
ones on most stock frames, especially vintage ones who always has too
short of TT's for my liking.

[Ray Shine]

I'd sure like to see a photo of those reversed Alba bars.  Do you have any?  Or a link?  Are you using thumb shifters?

---

From: Ginz <the...@gmail.com>
To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 7:17:34 AM
Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[William]

It would likely look really similar to a 1993 XO-3

Like this:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1993/pages/33.htm

or this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230468515481&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

On May 5, 8:48 am, Ray Shine <r.sh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'd sure like to see a photo of those reversed Alba bars.  Do you have any?  Or a link?  Are you using thumb shifters?
>
> ________________________________

> From: Ginz <theg...@gmail.com>

> To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 7:17:34 AM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
>
> <snip....>
>
> > It seems to me that because of the long top tubes most of Rivendells
> > frames are not designed for drop bars.  With the long top tubes you
> > need bars that come back towards you to provide a comfortable reach.
>
> Agreed.
>
> If you've got the long arms, then a slightly shorter stem (Nitto Dirt
> Drop) and drop bars could work.  I've got the short arms, so I've
> completely given up on drop bars.  In fact, I've given up on Moustache
> bars, as well.  My latest bike has an upside down and cut Albatross,
> setup in Moustache fashion.  This gave me Moustache functionality and
> effectively reduced the reach by 4cm which allowed me to run a frame
> with a slightly longer top tube.  That's the best I could do.
>
> My Hunqapillar, should I take the plunge, would require a Bull Moose
> or a right-side up Albatross. Drops are out of the question.
>
> --
> 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 athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Ray Shine]

Well, no, not exactly.  Both of those XOs are rigged with moustache bars.  I definitely am not a fan of MBs.  I have seen Alba bars reversed, but thought the poster had a few pix handy.  Also curious about the thumb shifters, twisters, or BE.  I guess DT is possible as well.

Thank you, William, for taking the time to look those pix up for me.  Those are nice looking bikes. 

---

From: William <tape...@gmail.com>

To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:53:14 PM

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[William]

Not a problem. I'm a fan of the 1993 XO-3. I sold a lot of them when
they were new.

Those handlebars are not Moustache bars. More specifically, they are
not Nitto RM-016 bars. They were called 'Priest' bars by B-stone and
had a bend that was much closer to the Albatross than the Moustache.
The XO-1 had Moustache (RM-016) bars. I don't know if the bends are
identical (Priest and Alba), but they are definitely really close.

On May 5, 6:18 pm, Ray Shine <r.sh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, no, not exactly.  Both of those XOs are rigged with moustache bars.  I definitely am not a fan of MBs.  I have seen Alba bars reversed, but thought the poster had a few pix handy.  Also curious about the thumb shifters, twisters, or BE.  I guess DT is possible as well.
>
> Thank you, William, for taking the time to look those pix up for me.  Those are nice looking bikes.  
>
> ________________________________

> From: William <tapebu...@gmail.com>

> To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 4:53:14 PM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
>
> It would likely look really similar to a 1993 XO-3
>
> Like this:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1993/pages/33.htm
>
> or this:
>

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230468515481&ssPag...

>
> On May 5, 8:48 am, Ray Shine <r.sh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd sure like to see a photo of those reversed Alba bars.  Do you have any?  Or a link?  Are you using thumb shifters?
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ginz <theg...@gmail.com>
> > To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 7:17:34 AM
> > Subject: [RBW] Re: Diagonapillar blueprints revealed
>
> > <snip....>
>
> > > It seems to me that because of the long top tubes most of Rivendells
> > > frames are not designed for drop bars.  With the long top tubes you
> > > need bars that come back towards you to provide a comfortable reach.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > If you've got the long arms, then a slightly shorter stem (Nitto Dirt
> > Drop) and drop bars could work.  I've got the short arms, so I've
> > completely given up on drop bars.  In fact, I've given up on Moustache
> > bars, as well.  My latest bike has an upside down and cut Albatross,
> > setup in Moustache fashion.  This gave me Moustache functionality and
> > effectively reduced the reach by 4cm which allowed me to run a frame
> > with a slightly longer top tube.  That's the best I could do.
>
> > My Hunqapillar, should I take the plunge, would require a Bull Moose
> > or a right-side up Albatross. Drops are out of the question.
>
> > --
> > 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 athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-owne...@googlegroups.com.