Lightning bolt or Romanceur

[Nathan Briles]

So I'm having trouble deciding which frame to pick. I was set on the Romanceur in black, but they decided not to make any of the black ones in a 52. Not sure I love the Velveeta yellow.

What're the main differences between these two frames? I hear people say the LB has lighter tubing (8/5/8) but I'm not sure what the Romeo has. I also generally prefer lugs to fillets, don't want to have to buy a TA from hub and was planning on using dt shifter. That said, if the ride on the LB is that much better, I could make those changes.

Does one excell over the other in any specific area or are most of the differences down to preference?

[Hunter Ellis]

Small Romanceurs have the 8/5/8 as well, but oversized tubing all around, not just the downtube.

Lightning bolts have Thru Axles, which will go well with the new ultegra/105 disc road hubset 

Some people have had problems with wheel alignment though, or so I've heard?

This is designed around 650b wheels, Romeo is designed around 26" wheels. Romeo can take up to like 2.4" 26" tires, or 650b x 2.2"

Max with the LB is 650b x 48 they say.

Do you want to ride offroad with a quill stem? Or do you want to ride on the road with a threadless stem?

-Hunter

[Hunter Ellis]

So to summarize instead of just reguritating, I believe the LB to be a little more racy, lighter, and 60% paved to 40% gravel. Romanceur seems a bit stouter, bigger tires, 60% gravel to 40% road.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Where and what sort of riding?

[Nathan Briles]

Like 90% road, 10% gravel with the intention to find more gravel somehow.

So the Romeo has all os tubing; does that mean the LB has mostly standard tubing (sans downtube)

I've always had a preference for a quill stem, but I'm worried that I'll have to get a super tall quill stem for the Romeo, so that's another consideration I guess.

[Joe Bernard]

I don't know what defines the difference between standard and OS tubing, but my LB is light with little tubes. It's very zippy on the road and I think would be fine on fireroads. I love the looks with the visible welds, but I'm not a lugs devotee. It's a great bike.

[Hunter Ellis]

I think if you’re 90% road the lightning bolt is designed for that kind of riding more than the Romeo. And I think it is lighter but joe knows best

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:43 PM Joe Bernard <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know what defines the difference between standard and OS tubing, but my LB is light with little tubes. It's very zippy on the road and I think would be fine on fireroads. I love the looks with the visible welds, but I'm not a lugs devotee. It's a great bike.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

From the cell phone of:
Hunter Ellis
707-583-6583

[Igor Belopolsky]

Are discs a must? Is Crust a must?

Anyways, LB or the Dreamer ;D

[Joseph Bernard]

Not answering for Nathan but, discs rule. Get em. 

[Hunter Ellis]

Get discs. Get crust. The steel fork dreamers are an awesome choice too but more $$

[Nathan Briles]

It seems like most people are pointing towards the LB. Guess I'm gonna finally try out some brifters!

Also, neither crust nor disc's are mandatory (although I appreciate Crust's style). I'm looking for low trail rando with quality tubing and Crust is already at the tip top of my budget. I'm certainly open to other suggestions, but nothing else has really stood out.

[Hunter Ellis]

Endpoint Hunter/gatherer seems good. But I haven’t heard or read a single thing about them...

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems like most people are pointing towards the LB. Guess I'm gonna finally try out some brifters!



Also, neither crust nor disc's are mandatory (although I appreciate Crust's style). I'm looking for low trail rando with quality tubing and Crust is already at the tip top of my budget. I'm certainly open to other suggestions, but nothing else has really stood out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Daniel MacPherson]

The Elephant NFE? It’s about the same price as the LB (made in America too) and has gotten good reviews.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Masi Randonneur?

Black Mtn Road+ ?

[Joe Bernard]

Well, he's asking about Crusts. There's a ton of choices out there, but he asked about these two.

[Igor Belopolsky]

" I'm certainly open to other suggestions, but nothing else has really stood out."

I still vote Lighting Bolt

[Nathan Briles]

I think I'm between sizes on the NFE (plus I don't wanna wait for it), I don't like the road+ very much and the masi is apparently not very nice.

Pretty sure I'm going with the LB or the Romeo

[Daniel Jackson]

You said both “low trail Rando” and “90% paved.” If that’s not a Lightening Bolt...

Go for it.

[Joseph Bernard]

Ah, I forgot "other choices", my bad, Igor.  

And yes to what someone else said, "low trail 90% pavement rando" is Lightning Bolt. 

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 7:56 PM Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

" I'm certainly open to other suggestions, but nothing else has really stood out."

I still vote Lighting Bolt

--

[Nathan Briles]

What are the differences in ride quality between the romanceur and the LB?

I don't know if I really wanna have to deal with the through axle fork (just bought new hubs), threadless headset and lack of downtube shifter bosses

[Joseph Bernard]

Unfortunately it's going to be just about impossible to find someone other than Matt who has ridden both frames..there's only a few LBs on the road so far. Just going on specs it sounds like they both do the same stuff, with LB being slightly thinner-tubed and with more standover clearance. 

I bought my Bolt based on the one I saw available at Analog looked rad, and I could have just as easily grabbed a Romanceur for the same reason. Also, I like the Lighting Bolt name better! If I were you I would pick my favorite color and frame style and go from there.  

Joe Bernard

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 10:39 PM Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com> wrote:

What are the differences in ride quality between the romanceur and the LB?

I don't know if I really wanna have to deal with the through axle fork (just bought new hubs), threadless headset and lack of downtube shifter bosses

[Chris Lowe]

I have a Hunter-Gatherer and it's great. That said, if you plan to spend 90% of your time on pavement it's probably overkill. 

Chris Lowe

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Igor Belopolsky]

It sounds like either bike will do and you've already decided you want the Romanceur :D

Any bike can be ridden on pavement.

This being said, if you're riding 90% pavement, why discs again? :D

[Hunter Ellis]

If you DONT want they axle front or a threadless stem, get a Romeo. It’s a blast to ride on the road as well. A bit heavy, but so is a water bottle.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Any chance you can convert your hubs to thru-axle?

[Igor Belopolsky]

THIS COLOR THOUGH

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bkh9wuLF3Yz/?taken-by=crustbikes

[Joseph Bernard]

THIS COLOR THOUGH!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 7:30 AM Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

THIS COLOR THOUGH

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bkh9wuLF3Yz/?taken-by=crustbikes

--

[Igor Belopolsky]

Given Matt's current pre-surgery situation, I wish I had a need/space for a Romanceur. I am trying to sell my Wraith and have a pending offer for the frame/fork/hs which would almost cover the cost of a Romanceur frame..

[Hunter Ellis]

They don’t make the romanceur in his size in the new color. Thru axles are awesome, make a lot of sense for disc brakes. That’s the only thing that is flawed in the Romeo design in my opinion. Either frame will be great, but if you have a quill stem and wheels for the Romeo already, get that. And it allows for more wheel/tire options. But if you like the LB color better, get that. It’s more designed for the riding you wanna do anyway.

Joe is the rear spacing 135?

I guess we could meet up and test ride each other’s bikes then we’d be the three people in the world who actually knew...

Discs are great for pavement. And dirt. And if you load up your bike for overnights. And anything steep. And if you want to switch rim sizes on the fly. (you do, eventually—it gives you another bike for the price of a wheelset). And if you want to stop, they’re good for that too :-)

[Igor Belopolsky]

Why am I in this thread? I want a new frame.

[Nathan Briles]

Matt told me about the black a few days before it was officially announced, so my wallet was ready. So disappointed when he didn't get any black 52's :(

I want a black Romeo with the tube set of the LB, is that too much to ask for??

Hell maybe I'll just flip a coin...

[Igor Belopolsky]

true axles and disc brakes. i dont like disc rub

[Jeremy Tavan]

I recently put together my first through-axle disc brake bike (27.5+ so somewhat on-topic for this list). I was astounded at how easy it was, and how much nicer it is to work with through axles than quick releases. I'm totally sold.

[Joseph Bernard]

Hunter: rear spacing on LB is 135. 

I totally agree about thru-axles, and kinda wish the Bolt had them on both ends. The design makes me wonder what the point of quick-releases was. 

--

[Joe Bernard]

Here's better pics of the LB which show the nifty exposed welds.
(WARNING: electric motor on bike, please ignore)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/q2xckK99mY3hkHz32

[Justin Schoop]

Here's a pic of my LB. I commute into downtown DC 4 days a week on it. Not much gravel but crappy roads and this bike floats over all of it. Love the bike.

[Joseph Bernard]

That's a nice build. I agree about the "crappy roads" ride, it's like magic on them. The responsive steering darts around pebbles and potholes like nothing I've ever ridden. 

--

[Justin Schoop]

To the original poster of this thread, I would search photos of both bikes and see what builds inspire you and the terrain surrounding those photos and be honest with yourself as to where you will mainly ride. I live in DC which means that I am mostly on pavement.

That being said, I still want a romancerur to build out as a light touring/cruising/kid hauler bike.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Only read half the thread so far but just to be clear: 

Romanceur and Lightning Bolt have the same tubing in the size the OP is considering. Same TT and DT tubing diameters (both OS). Same tubing gauge per Crust specs (both 858).

Both the Romanceur and Lightning bolt have the same head and seat angles and rake and trail figures. The LB has shorter chainstays and some people can feel that difference and prefer one or the other. 

Expect these two bikes to have very similar ride and handling. 

The sizes are laid out a little differently for different standover which is very smart of Crust so that more people can find their sweet spot. 

Some people may feel an 858 OS bike will plane but most who've looked at this say 747 in OS tubing is the threshold where you begin to have flex that compares to standard skinny tube mid-gauge planing bikes, and some say 747 OS planes for them. I'd expect a 747 OS bike to plane in only larger sizes where the TT is long and where the rider is stronger and/or heavier. 

It's great that Crust been listening and has offered a bike with a bit more attention to lighter gauge tubing (858 in larger sizes). But the LB is still an OS tubing bike that is not light gauge by current standards. 

That doesn't mean that OS bikes don't ride great, ride fast on the road, and have great handling. I have two Romanceurs in the family stable and both get raves. I've reviewed my first gen Romanceur here before and it feels lively and fast on the road, and wants to go go go. I'd expect the Lightning bolt to be every bit as good. 

Here are the two main differences for people who are making the choice:

1. The Romanceur has more tire clearance. Someone above pointed out the Romanceur was designed around 26" tires and therefore has less clearance. That is incorrect. The Romanceur was designed around the wide RTPs but with lots of vertical clearance, and the LB around narrower BSPs. I'm running Switchback Hills with Honjo fenders on the Romanceur. Without fenders, the Romanceur has room for 2.3"knobbies. The LB was reportedly designed around 42mm tires but people have been fitting SBH it looks like and it looks like there is room for fenders too. I'll have to look back at LB threads to confirm that. If so, that makes the bikes pretty similar in clearance for fat smooth tires with fenders, but someone who might need to run fatter knobbies for some trips might prefer the Romanceur. 

More tire width clearance on the Romanceur does not make for a wide Q. I have set up both Romanceurs with doubles at just under 140mm Q or tread width, which is in the narrow Q range even for road bikes. 

2. The other big difference is that when the Romanceur came out some people thought it was crazy to release a new model in this hot market segment (fast tire road bikes) with 1" threaded and quick release. The 1" is already retro and QR was becoming retro. I love 1" and am good with QR but thought it was very smart of Crust to release an antidote bike to those two allergies for many riders. The LB is probably more future proof assuming TA standards don't take another zag, but 1" headsets and 1" quill stems are easy to find, plentiful, and you can easily find tall ones. QR disc wheels will be available for the foreseeable future. Read through ultra-romance's description of the bike where he explains his choices and you either agree or not. I jumped on the Romanceur because I thought it was crazy to spec a disc road bike with 1" and lugs, and thought when else am I ever going to find a production bike with those three things plus low trail. I must have the same kind of crazy. 

I understand the through-axle advantages and wouldn't have said no to the Romanceur if it came with TAs, but I've had no issue with QRs and there are some QR-disc advantages too. I use three different wheel QR wheelsets with my Romanceur and don't have issues when I switch, don't have rubbing or any of the problems people might worry about with QR and disc. QR vs TA on the Romanceur and LB seems to me like a choice between two good things, and you choose your preference. 

Other differences may be more visual preferences and I salute Crust for being able to offer a new bike so similar to the Romanceur that looks so different and gets such different responses. The Romanceur has great lugs, great looks, and great powercoat that shows this off, while the LB has a interesting and striking finish that makes the brass fillets bright and visible in a way that is new and interesting compared to the rest of non-lugged tig and fillet bikes out there. To me this seems like another choice between two good things and you choose your preference. 

Definitely buy either a Romanceur and LB if they fit your needs. I can't say enough good about Crust's (and Matt's) excellent service, communication, fast shipping. Crust really sets the standard for a tiny company supplying a tiny niche.

--Mitch 

in Utah

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:24:02 PM UTC-6, Nathan Briles wrote:

So I'm having trouble deciding which frame to pick. I was set on the Romanceur in black, but they decided not to make any of the black ones in a 52. Not sure I love the Velveeta yellow.

What're the main differences between these two frames? I hear people say the LB has lighter tubing (8/5/8) but I'm not sure what the Romeo has. I also generally prefer lugs to fillets, don't want to have to buy a TA from hub and was planning on using dt shifter. That said, if the ride on the LB is that much better, I could make those changes.

Does one excell over the other in any specific area or are most of the differences down to preference?

[Hunter Ellis]

I actually said (or meant to say) the same thing--26" wheels = MORE tire/wheel options and clearance.

So, not to derail this thing, but OS tubing means 28.5 and a 31.8 DT? The LB specifies those diameters, whereas the romeo just says "OS tubing"

I too haven't had any issues with the QR and swapping out wheels, but TA just makes a little more sense to me. Again, not a deal breaker. You actually have more "roady" options for the front wheel with a QR disc hub I believe

Hunter Ellis

Cell: 707-583-6583

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nathan Briles]

Oh I was under the impression that the LB had skinnier tubing. If they're the same, that certainly definitely makes the Romeo more appealing (ie. Back to square 1).

If they're the same tubing, I guess it just comes down to fit. I don't want to be forced to run a massive quill stem to get my bars and saddle roughly level (I think I run like 4 cm drop)

I just got my fit report from a professional fitter and it seems pretty close. If I post some of those numbers could y'all help me decide which is a better fit?

[Joseph Bernard]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of Mitch's post. Matt's description of the LB mentions "thinner tubing", which I thought meant thinner versions of same-outer-diameter tubes. But maybe that's not a thing and I don't understand the term "thinner tubing"..this is entirely possible. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 10:50:11 AM UTC-6, Hunter Ellis wrote:

I actually said (or meant to say) the same thing--26" wheels = MORE tire/wheel options and clearance.

Oh sorry, you're right about that. If people are doing well with SBHs and fenders on the LB(?), that narrows the clearance difference. 

 

So, not to derail this thing, but OS tubing means 28.5 and a 31.8 DT? The LB specifies those diameters, whereas the romeo just says "OS tubing"

Yes, that's what both my Romanceurs have. 28.5 and 31.8 are the standard OS diameters. Sometimes they're called "single OS" with 31.8 and 34.x as "double OS." 

 

I too haven't had any issues with the QR and swapping out wheels, but TA just makes a little more sense to me. Again, not a deal breaker. You actually have more "roady" options for the front wheel with a QR disc hub I believe

TA makes sense and is the future in some diameter and skewer width or other.  I don't envy product managers trying to spec road disc bike now when the best road TA standard doesn't have a lot of hubs available yet. That's fine if you only offer whole bikes because you can contract for the hubs, but offering frames means relying on resourceful buyers to find hubs from limited and less accessible choices. That's temporary, we assume, but not helpful when you're building a bike now. I'd regret not having TA on the Romanceur if I could think of even one disadvantage I've had with QR in the two years I've had it. Or if I hadn't had so many good choices in QR disc hubs.

--Mitch 

[Hunter Ellis]

Thanks Mitch

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 11:01:53 AM UTC-6, Joe Bernard wrote:

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of Mitch's post. Matt's description of the LB mentions "thinner tubing", which I thought meant thinner versions of same-outer-diameter tubes. But maybe that's not a thing and I don't understand the term "thinner tubing"..this is entirely possible. 

According to Matt's specs on the Crust site, thinner gauge tubing applies to the two largest sizes of the LB compared to the Romanceur (858 vs 969). Those two LB sizes do have thinner tubing according to the specs. My post referred to exactly the same tubing in the size(s) the OP was considering. 

My post also looks at the reality of planing and flex in OS tubing bikes in this range of tubing gauge (858 and 969). My own take is that I'd rather have the lighter gauge, which is why I appreciate Crust's move to a bit lighter gauge tubing in those sizes--I ride a size 58 so this is in my range.  But my own riding experience riding OS tubing in these gauges is that I can't tell the difference between OS 858 top and down tubes compared to OS 969 top and down tubes. I can notice a difference with OS 747 top and down tubes and it's a good difference, but it doesn't compare to the difference I can feel between skinny tube 858 and 969, which is a very obvious planing difference, and 747 skinny tube even more so. The difference for me between OS 747 and OS 969 / OS 858 was much more subtle than the difference between those same gauges in skinny tubes. My riding experience matches what I've read about the how tubing diameter contributes to tubing stiffness vs how tubing gauge contributes to tubing stiffness-- diameter has bigger effect OS vs. skinny than these gauges do. 

747 gauge at whatever tube diameter has another potential disadvantage worth mentioning because it's the kind of thing that would matter to Crust. Many report that 747 tubing is dentable by small rocks thrown up on the trail or road (Jan reported this on his Mule with OS 747 downtube recently) and 747 is generally more noticeably vulnerable to the kinds of situations that dent steel tubes. Presumably 858 is more vulnerable than 969 too, but I've have too many decades experience with 858 tubing to consider it very vulnerable to denting. When you look at the kind of riding Crust, Matt and Bene care most about, you can see they might rather have more durable tubes than more flexible ones if they had to choose. That's why I personally wouldn't be asking Crust for a 747 version of the LB or Romanceur. If I wanted a flexier Romanceur, I'd ask for a skinny tube version but that's a big redesign with different lugs etc., and I find I really like the Romanceur as it is. 

--Mitch

in Utah

[Hunter Ellis]

Yeah, Matt made me promise not to do full on MTB riding with the Romeo because of the tubing, even at 969.

"Gravel yes, Red Bull Rampage NO"

(direct quote)

I suspect the durability of off-road loaded riding was an important factor in the tubing choice. Thicker tubes for heavier (larger) people makes sense too. 

Hunter Ellis

Cell: 707-583-6583

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Bernard]

Thanks for the clarification, Mitch. Now that I'm reading it I realize my previous comment didn't make a lick of sense. This is not unusual for me..

[Drew Henson]

I have an elephant nfe but want a second bike. Anyone ridden an nfe and either an LB or Romeo to compare? The nfe seems like it’s in between the two.

[Nathan Briles]

I have wondered about the real off road capabilities of the Romeo. Maybe it's akin to an older, no suspension MTB? I've also been interested buying an old mtb, converting it to drop bars and trying some singletrack. Romeo probably isn't up to that, right?

[Hunter Ellis]

None of my business Drew, but if you own a bike that is in between two almost indistinguishable frames...maybe you should look for a bike that does "more" in one direction or the other? Like an Evasion or a Dreamer (if staying in crust-land)? Lighter road bike or heaver dirt bike?

-H

[Reed Kennedy]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:38 PM Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have wondered about the real off road capabilities of the Romeo. Maybe it's akin to an older, no suspension MTB? I've also been interested buying an old mtb, converting it to drop bars and trying some singletrack. Romeo probably isn't up to that, right?

Depends on your singletrack? And on how fast you wanna go. I ride my 650b x 48mm Fitz rando on stuff that I consider fairly technical, but I ride it pretty slowly. Other than the drop bars, it seems about as composed as an older mountain bike.

Then again, I'll take my Rawland Nordavinden with 38mm tires on sections of singletrack too.

Best,

Reed

[John Guild]

There was an earlier comment about frame alignment. I had raised the specter of frame alignment issues in an earlier post, but I finally got bike to a decent shop, and it's definitely a dishing issue. No alignment problems with my Lightning Bolt.

[Hunter Ellis]

Oh cool, thanks for the update John. Good to know.

Hunter Ellis

Cell: 707-583-6583

--

[Igor Belopolsky]

Damn it Mitch. I want a Romanceur again.

[Nathan Briles]

Damnit Mitch, me too!

I sent a message to the guy who did my fit to see which he thinks will work better for me, but if he says either will work I'm going with the Romanceur

[John Guild]

FWIW, I’ve seen a velveeta romanceur in person, and they’re really pretty and cheerful. More like a Rita’s water ice yellow than velveeta.

[Igor Belopolsky]

i want the black one

[Joseph Bernard]

If you're ever going to do it, now's the time. Matt/Crust could kinda use the cash flow. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Nathan Briles]

Pay day is in a week, my dudes!

[Joseph Bernard]

Cash monayyyy!!!

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018, 7:07 PM Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pay day is in a week, my dudes!

[James Stewart]

Plus one. Definitely not velveeta in person. Benedict would have never allowed that.  It's really a nice color.

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, John Guild wrote:

[John Guild]

Mitch, what does your Romanceur weigh? I think my XL Lightning Bolt is around 28 lbs, which is a little disappointing for a randonneuse. I have a feeling my component choice is adding to the weight, especially with the Shaka  Bars, Paul seatpost, and Crust stem.

[Igor Belopolsky]

None of those things are lightweight. What about your wheelset?

[Justin Schoop]

My LB is pretty heavy as well. I'm thinking of swapping WTB horizons for compass loup loup pass tires and the crust stem with a thomson. The pass and stow rack doesn't help though.

[Joseph Bernard]

28 sounds high unless there's racks and fenders on it. I estimate my pre-electric LB was about 24-25 pounds: Still high by modern road bike standards, but decent for a steel rando with discs and huge tires. 

--

[John Guild]

Running Blunt SS, with a SONDelux and White Industries. Tires are tubeless BSP.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Sounds right. My guess is there are racks on racks on racks

[Joseph Bernard]

Ah, the dynohub will getcha. 

--

[John Guild]

No fenders. Just a mark's rack up front. The rest of the build is an IRD Defiant Crankset with MKS touring pedals, SunXCD derailleurs, Brooks Pro Titanium, Dia Compe Bar-ends.

Honestly, I'm surprised at the weight, too. It's pretty close in weight to my Atlantis. I think the copper brazing adds weight to the frame, but it can't be THAT much.

[Alex Wetmore]

28lbs is where my BOBish build bikes end up unless I'm careful with keeping the weight down.  Weight on these bikes is death a million paper cuts, keeping it light means careful component selection more than anything else.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Guild <jpg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 8:13:45 AM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Re: Lightning bolt or Romanceur

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Joseph Bernard]

Yep yep, even a Brooks ti (I use the B17 version) will getcha compared to modern plastic saddles. Heck, a tall steerer on a threadless bike adds a few grams, too.  

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/5fHL7-UGUwE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[John Guild]

Don't get me wrong: I intend no criticism of the bike! It does have a lovely ride.

[jack loudon]

I'd be curious to know the bare frame/fork weight.  Awhile back Bill Lindsay reported his (medium?) Roadini at 7.75 lbs for frame/fork/headset.  I would think the LB would be in this range, with the disc brake requirements adding some weight but the presumably lighter tubing offsetting this.  Steel disc forks especially can get heavy, unless unicrown.  I hear Joe Bernard is shopping for a carbon fork for his LB :)

[Joseph Bernard]

"I hear Joe Bernard is shopping for a carbon fork for his LB :)" 

Yeah, that's it!

[Hunter Ellis]

My Romeo is built with a ti B.B., White industries cld hubs, the lightest gx cassette, 1x rival drivetrain , Thomson seatpost, wtb saddle, spyre brakes (lightest mechanical disc brakes I think), pacenti 26” rims (sorta heavy), white industries crank (a bit heavy), and RTP’s. It’s still like 28+ lbs with a couple day bags and some water bottles.


Point is, the bike isn’t light, but the build is pretty light. But the build is Sturdy, tough, unbreakable, utilitarian, and I think it sneaks in under 30 lbs equipped for an all day ride.

I’d bet the LB is a good two pounds lighter.

From the cell phone of:
Hunter Ellis
707-583-6583

[jack loudon]

I agree with Grant and others who have said that no matter how light your naked bike is, by the time you add stuff for a decent ride (bags, tubes/tools, water bottles, snacks, windbreaker, etc, etc.) it's really difficult to get much under 30 lbs.

[Joseph Bernard]

That's the thing, isn't it? None of us are running around on carbon bikes with jersey pockets full of gels and a cell phone to call home when a tire goes flat. We buy functional 'all day' bikes and load em up! 

[Daniel Jackson]

Yep. A great example is that 3T piece of nonsense that Jan just reviewed in the latest BQ. 17 lbs with a two ton support van trailing behind. There was a whole paragraph devoted to his fears of flatting while being lost sans tubes and water. AllRoad as a term stretches way thin on a 17 lb carbon mishap waiting to happen.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-6, John Guild wrote:

Mitch, what does your Romanceur weigh? I think my XL Lightning Bolt is around 28 lbs, which is a little disappointing for a randonneuse. I have a feeling my component choice is adding to the weight, especially with the Shaka  Bars, Paul seatpost, and Crust stem.

Not sure because I don't have a scale that can weigh a whole bike. I did weigh parts as I built them up. I would expect the Romanceur frame to be about the same weight as the LB but likely a bit heavier because lugs may weigh a bit more than fillets. The fork should be close in weight too depending on how light a 9/8" steerer Crust specced for the LB. The T-A fork ends on the LB will weigh a more than the QRs on the Romanceur, but the steerer may be lighter. I'm guessing the main weight in the fork is the disc-compatible blade gauge and the disc mount; I know my Romanceur fork felt heavy to me on it's own, which I expected. 

The completed 58 Romanceur doesn't feel like a lightweight but not terrible. 

Mine has a variety of heavier than necessary components: SP dyno hub, Record quill pedals with clips/straps, chrome steel TA bottle cages, Brooks Pro saddle, N.Record two bold seat post, vintage Campagnolo QR skewers. Except for the Simplex down-tube levers, Maes Parallel bar, SWB ELs on Pacenti TL32 rims, and Spurcycle bell, the rest of the stuff isn't particularly heavy but isn't particular light either: vintage Campagnolo Record crank with triple conversion and steel 30t granny ring (with place-holder 49t NR. large ring), Super Record front derailleur, NOS 1970 Shimano Crane rear derailleur, Modolo Pro non-aero brake levers, Compass/GB chrome stem 11cm, hacked Nitto 32f rack, Honjo 62mm fenders, Shimano cassette hub with steel carrier and axle, and TRP Hy/Rd hydraulic/cable hybrid brakes with reservoir at the caliper. 

[WMdeR]

Dear Daniel,

Drifting away from the Crust production bikes....

If I take any bike out with one spare tube, one water bottle, and a granola bar tucked into my bib shorts, does that make my bike stupid for a century ride in 38°C weather out in goathead country? Or perhaps the rider has missed a stitch or two?

I honestly have no strong opinion about the "piece of nonsense" CF bike in question, but lack of logistical preparation for a given ride is not the same as having bad equipment.

The entire issue is fixed by almost all users of "allroad" bikes with either a frame bag or a saddlebag. The link is to the exact same test bike, reviewed by others (though set up with 700C wheels)--it made the rounds over the last couple of years. I bet a spare tube and another water bottle or three fit into the luggage. 

Best Regards,

Will

[Sukho Goff]

This. Gotta admit I was scratching my head a bit on the choice of this bike, particularly in the context of the BQ I know and love. For me, there has to be a handful of cool bikes I would pick over that one to test. I know things evolve and bands make different music, but just give me that old fashioned rock n' roll :-)

Sukho in PDX

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:25:31 PM UTC-7, Daniel Jackson wrote:

[Joseph Bernard]

The moral of this story for me - whether discussing Crusts or 17 lbs. carbon - is your bike weighs whatever it and your gear adds up to for a reasonably self-supported day ride, and I don't need that number to be in carbon racer territory. Hey, more power to the uber minimalists who can get it done on carbon with jersey pockets full. It's riding, be happy!

Joe "who just rode his probably-30-lbs. Clem, which is definitely lighter than his Lightning Bolt with actual electricity" Bernard

--

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-6, Daniel Jackson wrote:

Yep. A great example is that 3T piece of nonsense that Jan just reviewed in the latest BQ. 17 lbs with a two ton support van trailing behind. There was a whole paragraph devoted to his fears of flatting while being lost sans tubes and water. AllRoad as a term stretches way thin on a 17 lb carbon mishap waiting to happen.

I think his lack of pump and water on that one worrying stretch could happen with any test bike situation with van support where 1) you don't think ahead to where you might be and how you might not have what you need, and 2) the test bike doesn't have your usual bag where you carry stuff just in case. A mistake made, and discussed as such in the article. 

The part that--for me--has to do with the possible insufficiency of the light carbon bike might have more to do with things like how the seat angle and seat height can't be adjusted on the road because it requires care and a torque wrench so you don't dare try it. Jan really wanted to ride the Team model of the same bike ridden by Al his ride partner and 3T guy, but they didn't dare adjust the saddle for Jan so he could try it. 

The reason to test that particular bike has something to do with the long history of retro appreciation BQ has alway had and the long list of criticisms BQ and Jan have fielded for seeming to say steel bikes are as good as carbon or in various ways not being open to new tech and new methods and irrelevant to the current bike market as it is. It's a fair cop in some ways because BQ started out as VBQ (Vintage Bicycle Quarterly) and the guy did have a new custom bike made for a very retro chainstay mounted derailleur (Cycle or Nivex?).  

Jan and BQ have worked to change that perception in recent editions and have tested a lot of carbon, a lot of discs, a lot of non-low trail bikes, a lot of bikes with no provision for racks, more cheap/inexpensive bikes, etc. The chance to test a 17 lb. bike that can fit SBH seems irresistible and in that harsh terrain you're going to get a good story/result either way. All his emphasis in the article on the need for a torque wrench for simple adjustments, the creaking of press fit BBs, on-going problem of disc forks being too stiff, etc., all this does suggest the limitations of a current 17 lb. bike for allroad adventure riding. 

--Mitch

in Utah 

[Daniel Jackson]

Dear Will,

I’m with you. The “piece of nonsense” descriptor referred to the build, the kit, the lack of appropriate outfitting - as you say. My comment was in direct reply to Joe Bernard and the general conversation of build weight. So yes, of course a bag would mitigate my concerns; but it and the kit along inside it would potentially bring the bike back up to the low 20 lb camp.

Best,
D.

[satanas]

Sigh. 17 lbs plus stuff is still going to be lighter than 20+ lbs plus stuff, assuming a normal spacetime continuum.

Whatever bike one rides will have its peculiarities, may require different tools from others, etc. One needs to bear these things in mind when putting tool kits together.

The Exploro is interesting, not that I'd buy one; an OPEN UP maybe, if there was an extra good deal to be had - they're expensive. Still, the Exploro is highly focussed and seems to fit its purpose well - which means it might not suit other things as much, no surprises there.

I'm afraid I don't buy the "all carbon is evil" idea, although I'd be more prepared to do so if we were talking about climate change. Heck, even steel contains carbon - try removing it and see what happens to your frames, axles, bolts, etc.

Later,
Stephen

[Daniel Jackson]

Sigh. Wish I were a better writer. I don’t think carbon is evil. I love it as a frame material. I only mean to point out that the test bike as equipped made, in my opionion, dubious trade offs between weight and reliability. It’s lightweight was made possible by a support van. This context should be considered when considering how heavy your current total setup might seem.

[Joseph Bernard]

Daniel: Your point was clear. 

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:45 AM Daniel Jackson <daniel.se...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sigh. Wish I were a better writer. I don’t think carbon is evil. I love it as a frame material. I only mean to point out that the test bike as equipped made, in my opionion, dubious trade offs between weight and reliability. It’s lightweight was made possible by a support van. This context should be considered when considering how heavy your current total setup might seem.