Help Me Mull over new bike: Crust Rom. or BDB Pel.

[adam leibow]

I have been losing sleep over this decision a bit - I want a nice rando-y bike and what I've narrowed it down to are these two. 

Both have low trail, relatively lightweight tubing, and level toptubes. I'd get that fistful of seatpost look with a 58 in either size. 

Here is what has me thinking:

BDB Pelican

Pros:

Cantilever (not disc)

Classic Constructeur-y Rando Bike Look

I test rode one and loved the fit and ride quality. They treat me nice at Box Dog. 

I already have rim-brake 650b wheelsets 

Cons:

Wish it were a lugged frame (it's tig welded)

Not crazy about the blue

Expensive ($2000 F&F) & I'd still have to buy a headset

Crust Romanceur

Pros:

I love the lugs, especially the fork crown

It's significantly cheaper (I would rough-ride it a bit more & worry less...)

Even though I haven't test ridden, I'm sure I'd love it based on others' rave reviews

I like the silver more than the Pel's blue

Cons:

It's disc (I'm not crazy about the way they look, they're heavier, and I am better at working on canti's (in that I know how to at all))

Even though it's a lot cheaper, I'd need to buy a new wheelset that's disc compatible (though it would easily still be cheaper than the Pel. after all is said & done)

I think that's it. I already have almost all the parts stocked up to build either. 

Ultimately I'm going to go with my gut, but I am posting this in case anybody feels like weighing in on their personal experiences with either, or if there is a popular consensus and why. For background, I had a SOMA Grand Randonneur, and then a Rivendell A Homer Hilsen (not low-trail, but similar in that it was a very nice 650b road bike). 

thank you!

Adam

[Igor Belopolsky]

Box Dog are also USA made

[Igor Belopolsky]

Wait, another one to confuse you - Boulder :) Not lugged but TIG and made by Waterford

[ilter]

 
If you are fine with skinny tubing (747 top, 858 down), you should consider Jeff Lyon's L'avecaise. Canti, fillet brazed, a few powdercoat color options. He had a sale that ended yesterday, but he might still have a 58 frame and might give you a good price, who knows. During the sale, a frame & fork with all mods to make it like the Pelican was well under $2K. Except maybe Pelican has 2 eyelets per dropout and L'avecaise might have only 1.

Thanks,
ilter in chicago

[Nhat Vu]

You may also want to take a look at the ocean air rambler. USA made, braze ons for Paul centerpulls, and I believe frame, fork, hs, and brakes are included in the price ~$1700 or so. I just got a used one and it's been an awesome bike. Rob is taking pre-order for the next batch. 

Nhat

--
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+unsubscribe@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 Jackson]

I disagree that both have relatively light weight tubing. In your size, the Crust is 9/6/9 OS - depending on your height/weight and load intentions, that could be a gas pipe beast. Compare that to the many other fine options mentioned here (including the Pelican), I'd say you have a qualitatively different machine.

Additionally, because of the disc specification on the crust, fork compliance will be very different than that of the canti machines.

Call Jeff Lyon. If that doesn't work out, get a Pelican or Rambler.

[Philip Kim]

I was in the same position as you. Glad I went with the pelican as the crust does not have light tubing at all. I got the last winter cycles frames. Iglehart and Ahearne do great work so Tig welding wouldn't be a big deal to me.

However, I would've gotten a boulder bicycle if I could do over - light OS tubing, Threadless is lighter, and the color is amazing. They also have brazeons for compass tail light which I had to add to my pelican.

[Kieran J]

Agreed. Comparing the Romanceur and the Pelican seems .. strange.

KJ

[Andy Bailey Goodell]

I had a very similar path here. Test rode a BDP while living nearby and liked it overall, but the steerer and price had me leaning more towards Boulder. I didn't know about Crust at the time, but hadn't given thought to disc setups because I just don't care for it. OAR was an idea, but didn't like choice of brakes and heard about paint chipping problems. Soma's are nice bikes for a sturdy commuter, but I already have a Double Cross and didn't think the GR would feel any different, plus for most people they are a shimmy machine. Toussant is a similar price but seem to be similarly valued to Soma. I've had the BQ with the MAP on the cover out for a long time, and continually thought maybe it's time to just empty my wallet on a bike that I really want, but couldn't take the plunge.

In the end, the answer for me was when I finally saw a Rawland FS post after two years of waiting for a good used bike. It may not be perfect in every way, but 3 bottle cages, wide tire possibilities, and the look I like in a frame made that an easy choice to jump on. And the price was right.

[adam leibow]

thanks for the replies so far. they've been a huge help. I sent a message to Jeff Lyon about the L'avercaise. they're gorgeous, & seem to be in my price range. 

[Igor Belopolsky]

Adam you should call him for faster service and, honestly, advice. Jeff's the type to explain a lot more over the phone rather than email.

[adam leibow]

OK i will. i know that type. 

One other thing I am struggling with in this decision is the lightweight tubing thing. I tend to end up riding dirt and exploring stuff with no real direction. I feel like the smarter choice for that is the crust. But, I am curious as to what a really nicely constructed lightweight tubeset will feel like.  

[Adam Paiva]

I think that same thing is sort of what led me away from any of the disc brake options and towards a lightweight tubing bike.

I often end up on rutted and washboard dirt roads, fire roads etc.  The sort of bordering the edge of mountain bike needed or not sort of roads and trails.  Any of my stiffer bikes tend to rattle me crazy on those sort of roads after too long.  I wanted that little bit of extra compliance.  I don't intend to fully load the bike for touring so having it stiffer for that purpose wasn't a necessity.

I was really close to ordering a BDB Pelican.  Was pretty much set on that when they said that MAP/Mitch Pryor was going to produce the next run.  When that didn't come to fruition, not that the current makers (I forget who) are anything to sneeze at, but it was enough to send me looking elsewhere also.  I also wasn't that into the Pelican blue.

So ended up buying a centerpull braked L'Avecaise.  Not built up yet, waiting on xmas bonus money to complete the bike, but I am darn excited about it.

[Po-Wen S.]

+1 on the L'Avecaise. And *talking* with Jeff on the phone (he's a delight). I believe the sale frames are fillet-brazed but for a little more he can build with lugs.

The Rambler is really well thought out, but keep in mind Ramblers larger than 57cm have 700c tires, and all are lug-less and TIG-welded. At your preferred frame size, the Rambler has 9/6/9 downtube but that is standard diameter not OS. (And if you are interested in a brand new unbuilt 58/59-size frame with the original PBP fork crown, contact me off-list). 

[Rich Mulvey]

FWIW, I bought a Pelican several years ago, and it's my all-around 5-day touring, grocery run, daily rider bike.

But I also take it gravel "racing" ( in that they're races, but I'm invariably in the middle of the pack or farther back, so I'm in it just for fun ) on courses that include everything from sand to miles of baby heads, and it works wonderfully for that. The bike is comfortable for hours, stable, but quick enough that I can deal with semi technical terrain. Quite possibly the most flexible bike in the sense of both the physical construction and ability to use in all sorts of terrain that I've ever needed.

- Rich

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:29 PM, adam leibow <ad...@lightvision.net> wrote:

OK i will. i know that type. 

One other thing I am struggling with in this decision is the lightweight tubing thing. I tend to end up riding dirt and exploring stuff with no real direction. I feel like the smarter choice for that is the crust. But, I am curious as to what a really nicely constructed lightweight tubeset will feel like.  

--

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+unsubscribe@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.

--

ri...@mulveyfamily.com

[Ben Miller]

Hey Adam,

All this depends on exactly what type of dirt you want to ride. If you're really into dirt I'd go for the Crust. 

Personally, I have a Riv Homer and Roadeo. The Roadeo's tubing is perfect for me, in terms of lightweight for the road. The Homer's tubing is good for dirt riding, but personally a little too stiff on the road (though my friend loves it, so it depends!). As I understand it, the Homer has similar tubing to the Romanceur. But, I've maxed out the Homer in terms of its dirt capabilities, so personally I'm interested in a Romanceur. But the keep selling out in my size before I have a chance to pull the trigger. Also, I built up an old Ritchtey Ascent MTB frame as a 26" all-road bike last year for a friend, and I've been super jealous of it ever since. I'm hoping that the Romanceur is similair in terms to that bike.

Cheers

[Igor Belopolsky]

I think I'm over disc brakes on daily bikes given the weight and I'm back to loving the look of rim brakes - yes they don't stop as well in wet/snow but somehow I managed for years before disc brakes...

I think my next bike will be a 650B given my height - I want to try to avoid toe overlap with larger tires.

For now (aka when winter is over) my new Bob Jackson should be good with 30s/32s

[Mike Schiller]

FYI   Pretty sure the Romanceur uses 9-6-9 OS tubes which are considerably stiffer than the 8-5-8 OS tubes of a Hilsen.  The Romanceur has a low trail fork so is a front loader, but is better suited to loaded touring because of the stiffer and heavier tubeset  

The Romanceur can fit much fatter tires which IMO is the downfall of the Hilsen.

~mike

Carlsbad

[Paulo Dias]

Between those I like the pelican better but if you can wait, I would wait for a Elephant NFE. 

Oh also, don't forget about boulder.

[Ben Miller]

According to Crust, the Romanceur is indeed 9-6-9. At the risk of spreading misinformation, I thought that that was what the Homer used. I am also under the impression that the Roadeo has 8-5-8. Care to enlighten me?

If the Romanceur does indeed have even thicker tubing than the Homer, personally that might be too stiff as an "all-road" bike. But, yeah, it depends on how much dirt you want to ride. If you want to hit the occasional hardpack double-track, go with the Box Dog Pelican. If you want to shred a steep rock garden, go with a Romanceur.

[Mike Schiller]

yes, you are right. They both use 8-5-8 OS tubing in the three main tubes in most mid and large sizes.  Rivendell has disclosed that in the past.  The Hilsen has slightly relaxed geometry, room for bigger tires and longer chainstays.

~mike

[adam leibow]

i do ride rock gardens... and i will likely use this bike for a loaded tour between SF & LA

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:37:25 PM UTC-8, adam leibow wrote:

[Andrew Fatseas]

I've ridden plenty of very rough roads while carrying a moderate touring load on my bike which is standard diameter 8/5/8.  I've never felt like I needed a stiffer bike.  In fact that the combination of supple tyres and supple frame make for a very pleasant off road machine.

[Mike Schiller]

Yup.. me too. My custom form Matthews uses 8-5-8 OS tubes, fits 2.1" knobbies and has seen a lot of singletrack with light touring loads

~mike

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 7:41:04 PM UTC-8, Andrew wrote:

I've ridden plenty of very rough roads while carrying a moderate touring load on my bike which is standard diameter 8/5/8.  I've never felt like I needed a stiffer bike.  In fact that the combination of supple tyres and supple frame make for a very pleasant off road machine.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:32 PM, 'Mike Schiller' via 650b <65...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

yes, you are right. They both use 8-5-8 OS tubing in the three main tubes in most mid and large sizes.  Rivendell has disclosed that in the past.  The Hilsen has slightly relaxed geometry, room for bigger tires and longer chainstays.

~mike

 
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 6:33:27 PM UTC-8, Ben Miller wrote:

According to Crust, the Romanceur is indeed 9-6-9. At the risk of spreading misinformation, I thought that that was what the Homer used. I am also under the impression that the Roadeo has 8-5-8. Care to enlighten me?

If the Romanceur does indeed have even thicker tubing than the Homer, personally that might be too stiff as an "all-road" bike. But, yeah, it depends on how much dirt you want to ride. If you want to hit the occasional hardpack double-track, go with the Box Dog Pelican. If you want to shred a steep rock garden, go with a Romanceur.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 5:22:28 PM UTC-8, Mike Schiller wrote:

FYI   Pretty sure the Romanceur uses 9-6-9 OS tubes which are considerably stiffer than the 8-5-8 OS tubes of a Hilsen.  The Romanceur has a low trail fork so is a front loader, but is better suited to loaded touring because of the stiffer and heavier tubeset  

The Romanceur can fit much fatter tires which IMO is the downfall of the Hilsen.

~mike

Carlsbad

--
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.

[Peter Turskovitch]

I'm a bit ignorant about frame flex. What kind of difference would you see going from 858 to 969, both OS?

Peter

[Peter Turskovitch]

By the way, where have you seen a review of the romanceur? I'm interested but so far I've just seen a few pictures on instagram. Mostly from what I've seen these bikes have been set up by people who don't appear to ride much. The frame is really interesting though and I'd love to see an in-depth review by a major rider.



Cheers,
Peter

[Daniel Jackson]

I would caution against purchasing a machine for the minority extremes of your riding. What fraction of your riding with this bike will actually be in rock gardens? Think carefully about the trade offs involved.

All Rounders do everything OK. A light tubed Lyon will excel everywhere except the rock garden.

[Daniel Jackson]

Also, what didn't you like about the Hilsen and the GR? Experience with those bikes should inform your decision.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/08/2016 04:00 AM, Peter Turskovitch wrote:
> By the way, where have you seen a review of the romanceur? I'm
> interested but so far I've just seen a few pictures on instagram.
> Mostly from what I've seen these bikes have been set up by people who
> don't appear to ride much.

What do you mean?

[Philip Kim]

Yep, this is true for me. Plenty of times I've bought frames or bikes for dirt road riding, but 95% of my miles are commuting and fortunately on some nice pavement along the way, hence the Pelican. Now giving the Pelican to my s/o, so my next custom will be a randonneur as well, hopefully with lighter OS tubing. Maybe sometime down the line, I'll get a Surly Troll for some rough riding, but at a certain point I'd rather just walk.

If you're gonna ride rock gardens, I don't know why you are entertaining the Romanceur with the level top tube, traditional sizing (leaving no room for the baby makers), low bottome bracket, QR disc. 

I think the Rawland Ravn might even be a better choice (once it materializes). Then at least you still got 8/5/8 tubes, OS for strength, slightly high BB, more standover, 12mm thru axle, cheaper, and a badass color.

But if rock riding is gonna be your main bet, your Hunq with Paul Motolites is more than capable. Or even a Crust Evasion. Supple tires will not be suitable for rock riding, so getting a "lively" frame won't do you any good here.

[Murray Love]

I did the stiffness calculations years ago, so I can't remember exactly, but I believe 969 is roughly 20-25% stiffer than 858. In analogs to older standard-diameter tubing, 858 OS is roughly equivalent in stiffness to the heavier grades like Columbus SP, Ishiwata 024 or Reynolds 531 touring (T? ST?), while 969 OS is off the charts for standard-diameter tubing. 

To my mind, 969 OS is overkill for almost any application short of loaded touring under a 250 lb-plus rider, but many bike designers seem to disagree, and they're the experts. It certainly makes for a bombproof bike.

Murray

Victoria, BC

On Dec 8, 2016 12:36 AM, "Peter Turskovitch" <patric...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm a bit ignorant about frame flex. What kind of difference would you see going from 858 to 969, both OS?

Peter

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Peter Turskovitch]

I mean that the pictures I've seen often feature bikes with trendy componenets and accessories that don't seem to spell any particular coherernt plan.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLxXQyzjhwt/?tagged=romance%C3%BCr&hl=en

It's hard for me to square that picture with any scenario besides a guy who reads BQ and the rivendell blog and doesn't sense any tension between their bike prescriptions.

I'm probably wrong, of course, but the point remains that I haven't seen any in-depth written review. I'd like to! It's an interesting bike.

Peter

[Philip Kim]

that bike looks good to me. docena bags are huge, so the P&S rack makes sense, especially for a low trail front loader. The romanceur is also square geometry, so the mustache bars to stretch out also don't seem outta place for me.

the paul klampers have gotten really favorable mentions by those who actually use them. and if you're gonna build a bike from frame up, why not get the color you want? we all have bike aesthetics, that also contribute to us wanting to ride our bike more.

i think it's a presumptuous to think that someone doesn't ride much because they don't prescribe strongly in one or the other camp of riding, as if they are mutually exclusive, or as if BQ & Rivendell don't promote comfort and getting more enjoyment out of riding a bike.

[Ryan Watson]

Looks like a fun/comfy/practical setup to me :-)

Ryan

--
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.

[Steve Palincsar]

The owner apparently works at Ocean Air Cycles, that we can tell from
his email (in the sidebar). Beyond that: he likes moustache bars. I've
never tried them, but although they haven't ever featured in any BQ
article, I'm not sure why the necessarily would indicate that the owner
doesn't ride much. Same for all the rest of the components.
Personally, I don't see them as being particularly "incoherent," and I'm
not sure why you do. Downtube shifters with disc brakes? May be a bit
unusual, but again, if you like downtube shifters (which I personally do
not, although I do have them on my shopper) and the frame you've
purchased was made for disc brakes as so many seem to be these days, why
not? The combination ought to work as well as any other - or, at least,
doesn't present any kind of incompatibility that I can discern. Perhaps
I'm missing something?

[Alex Wetmore]

Steve,

Have you used Instagram?  He is tagging in oceanaircycles, not sharing his email address.  Ocean Air Cycles is one person.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 11:02:36 AM
To: 65...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [650B] Re: Help Me Mull over new bike: Crust Rom. or BDB Pel.

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/08/2016 02:05 PM, Alex Wetmore wrote:

Steve,

Have you used Instagram? 

Only as much as looking at pictures such as that one linked to.   I must have missed the space between his name and the @ sign and read it as an email address.  Apologies for the incorrect conclusion.

[Chris Cullum]

Mitch Harris on iBob list got a Romanceur and gave his early impressions. He also has a Boulder All-road which fairly analogous to the BDB Pelican you are also considering. It would be worthwhile to get his take on it.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Alistair Spence]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:

The owner apparently works at Ocean Air Cycles, that we can tell from his email (in the sidebar).  

I don't see anything indicating that. The geo tag says the picture was taken in Bellingham WA. He tags Ocean Air and Swift because they designed and built the front bag.

Alistair Spence,

Seattle, WA.

[Austin ^]

I've really been enjoying my romo - Granted it's only been built for maybe six weeks and it's just approaching around a thousand, but my initial impressions are positive. It's lively on pavement and handles everything I've thrown at it with enthusiasm - I'm 6'2", 190 fwiw. Sram force group, 27.5x2.1" thunder burts on wtb koms. I probably won't write an in depth review because I'm usually out riding instead of blogging but it's a super fun bike regardless of how you feel about 1" threaded or whatever else. 

[Hudson Doerge]

Originally the roadeo had 7-4-7. Actually grant said it was .69-.39-.69. Maybe that's changed.

[Igor Belopolsky]

what about an ebisu?

[adam leibow]

hey all, sorry for my lack of posting in my own thread. it's been a busy couple of days, but I use thinking about bikes as stress relief, so all your helpful & informative replies have been a joy to read. I'm still vacillating between the lightweight and not-so-lightweight tubing thing. My Soma GR and A Homer Hilsen were great bikes for cruising around SF and hitting some dirt trails here and there, including climbing. I sold the GR to a good friend in order to afford the Hilsen, and I sold the Hilsen because I determined the size was just a bit too small (too much stem and post showing). I liked both of those bikes, but I wanted something fancier than a SOMA, and I missed out on low trail with the Rivendell. So this is why I'm considering another similar bike - something to do long, mixed terrain rides and light tours on, as well as grocery-get and bar hop. I live in the boonies of San Francisco, out by Ocean Beach, so any time I want to go meet up with friends for drinks and dinner I like to ride a faster on-road bike than my Hunqapillar, which is what was great about the A Homer Hilsen. I am strongly attracted to the Jeff Lyon option, but I would not want to lock up such a nice bike and with such lightweight tubing. Whereas, I would feel fine locking up the Crust. 

Also, it's not that I would buy any of these bikes in order to ride rock-gardens. I have a surly krampus which is great for that. I simply don't want to feel like I'm going to break my multi-thousand dollar bike if I decide to hop a curb or jump some roots in the park on the way to the post office. I tend to gravitate towards riding dirt, and I would like my rando-y bike not to be limited if I want to ride some technical singletrack, underbiking as it is. 

[satanas]

I'd be much more inclined to lock up a bike without disc brakes than one which had them as I'd think discs = new = more fashionable = more attractive to thieves.

FWIW, my old custom MTB has Ritchey Logic WCS tubing with 958x28.6TT, 958x31.8DT and 96ST and it's not seemed to stiff for me at 140 lbs. In fact, I've thought a stiffer top tube wouldn't be a bad thing when loaded, however YMMV, and I really hate bikes that won't go where they're pointed, or that shimmy. Bottom bracket flex doesn't bother me at all though.

Later,

Stephen

[Igor Belopolsky]

Did you sell your Black Mountain?

[adam leibow]

no, i haven't sold it yet. i'm kind of on the fence about letting it go... i have a friend who might be interested and if so, that would fund this purchase. 

[Murray Love]

Stephen, since we can more or less ignore the butted sections, especially when they're short like on Logic WCS tubing, your 0.5-walled MTB frame comes close to the stiffness of the old SP tubing.

To be clear, I'm sure 969 OS is appropriate for off-road touring and similar uses, but based on my own experience, I'd steer clear of it for any predominantly on-road use. My own bikes are both large (60/62cm) and very flexible (Vitus 979/531C), and they've never felt anything other than rock-solid beneath me. But for off-road use, I'd certainly go with something heavier.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

[Greg Achtem]

I wonder what the Alan and vintage Vitus cyclocrossers were? Those were certainly off road capable. While not rock gardens, I wonder what a frozen muddy field would be classified?

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:43:39 AM UTC-7, Daniel Jackson wrote:

I disagree that both have relatively light weight tubing. In your size, the Crust is 9/6/9 OS - depending on your height/weight and load intentions, that could be a gas pipe beast...

The Reynolds 853 tubeset is widely thought of as one of the very best steel tubesets. Odd to hear it described as "gas pipe" whatever gauge chosen for a particular application. 

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 5:36:37 PM UTC-7, Austin ^ wrote:

I've really been enjoying my romo - Granted it's only been built for maybe six weeks and it's just approaching around a thousand, but my initial impressions are positive. It's lively on pavement and handles everything I've thrown at it with enthusiasm - I'm 6'2", 190 fwiw. Sram force group, 27.5x2.1" thunder burts on wtb koms. I probably won't write an in depth review because I'm usually out riding instead of blogging but it's a super fun bike regardless of how you feel about 1" threaded or whatever else. 

My impression riding the Romanceur is similar to Austin's, lively on pavement and gravel, wants to sprint and go fast. 

Like Chris mentioned, I'm comparing it to a Boulder Allroad with lugged skinny diameter 8-5-8 toptube and downtube. 58cm square and the 58cm tt is longer than Mike preferred to make an 8-5-8 toptube but he was willing to go the full 58cm at my request. Mike is probably more conservative about light gauge that some of us on these boards are; Murray reports he rides big bikes with long skinny top tubes at even thinner gauges. I really like the Boulder and find it flexy enough that it's as planey as I want to go. I wouldn't change it but I'm no longer needing to try 7-4-7 tubing because the Boulder is my personal flexy limit. I'm a bit smaller than Austin and I spin fast and am a smooth rider so I might have expected to be wanting the lightest gauge possible. But I have a background as a track sprinter and years of racing so that goes in the other direction. This thread shows how individual these preferences are--Murray and Stephen both are tall and slender but have different frame flex preferences. 

I also compare the Romanceur ride to other bikes besides the Allroad, mostly my old skinny tube race bikes in SP, SL, and 531. Murray has mentioned how to compare various tubesets on a kind of continuum with SP, SL, 531 which seems useful but I can only say what my direct experience is riding SP and SL bikes. SP is reported to 1.0-.7-1.0 tubes and my two SP bikes ride WAY more stiff than my SL bikes which feel almost as flexy to my as the Boulder. SL is reported to be 9-6-9 so you'd expect them to be flexier than SP bikes but my SL bikes feel if anything, even flexier than my 531 bikes. 531 has a lot of variations but my 531 bikes ride flexy/planey and have 8-5-8 top toptubes, so for the 9-6-9 SL bikes to be more flexy is a little surprising. This has sometimes been explained by light gauge SL chainstays and seatstays. Fork blade gauge and shape may be an important variable too. All of these including the Romanceur feel flexy compared to my two (skinny tube) SP 1.0-.7-1.0 bikes. 

My SP bikes have a "dead" feeling just riding around but they always felt lively in actual racing. My SL bikes seemed a little too flexy in hard turns while racing, and I agree with Stephen that sometimes you want the front end to stay in plane during turns that exert strong twisting forces. I love riding my Allroad but I would not want to race it because I think the front end would let the head tube go out of plane and race steering would be wonky in racing conditions. Not an issue because I don't race now. 

If I were rating these various bikes on stiffness/dead-feeling versus flexy/planing feeling where 10 equals my stiff SP bikes and 1 equals my flexible Allroad, the SL bikes would be 2, the 531 bikes 3 and the Romanceur 3 or 4, but when it feels like a 4 I think it's mostly the stiffer disc fork. There are bikes way stiffer than my SP bikes and bikes more flexible than my Allroad but these are my direct comparisons and the Romanceur rides for me much more like my 531 bikes than my stiff SP bikes. 

I don't know about other bike flex connoisseurs like Murray and Stephen who have ridden lots of lightguage bikes, but for me sometimes it's easy to tell when you're feeling fork flex versus other frame flex that is not so much from the fork. Distinguishing between frame flex that is from the main triangle versus rear triangle flex is harder for me to discriminate. 

I do have two other OS tubing bikes to compare to the Romanceur ride, a mid 90s Santa Cruz Bontrager Race and a 94 MB-1 of light gauge OS prestige. The Bontrager Race is one of the flexiest mtbs I've ridden, a joy to ride, and for me was a little too flexy for racing but of course many loved it for racing. The Bontrager Race is 9-6-9 OS top and down tubes like the Romanceur is reported to have but a different shape frame. The Bontrager rear end is known for being flexible and the Romanceur's rear may be flexy too but it doesn't feel like the Bontrager. The Romanceur chainstays are quite deeply indented to fit wide tires so on paper they should have flex but I have not had any ghost shifting or other indications of heavy side-to-side BB flex (I feel some of that on the Allroad). The flexy rear end on the Bontrager sometimes feels like it's hinged--stable steering up front but a tail that can wag if I push it hard. The Romanceur has a similar stable feeling front end but frame flex feels spread out front to rear, not hinged like the Bontrager. Overall, the Romanceur feels more flexible than the Bontrager Race but it's also a larger frame. 

So, that was a long post but since this thread had moved toward detailed abstract comparisons between what the Romanceur should feel like compared to what other tubesets should feel like, it seemed a good opportunity to compare actual Romancer riding to actual riding of bikes with those tubesets. Also, we should make the disclaimer that frame tube diameter and gauge are only a couple variables of several that determine how a frame flexes.  

I also hope those who are curious about the Romanceur can benefit from my own impression of how it flexes compared to my SP, SL, and 531 bikes. 

For anyone deciding about the Romanceur, the difference between the flex of a stiff disc fork vs flexible rim-brake fork is, for me, a much much bigger difference than the difference between the moderately light gauge OS Romanceur tubing and more flexible light gauge main triangle tubing, OS or skinny. For me there would be no comparison at all between a light gauge Jeff Lyon with flexy fork and a Romanceur. The fork feel difference would dwarf other frame feel differences. First choose whether you want disc brakes and the good and bad that goes with discs. Someone wanting a disc brake road bike that is lively and super-versatile should definitely consider the Romanceur and compare it to other excellent bikes like the NFE. 

--Mitch 

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/09/2016 06:10 PM, mitch....@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:43:39 AM UTC-7, Daniel Jackson wrote:

I disagree that both have relatively light weight tubing. In your size, the Crust is 9/6/9 OS - depending on your height/weight and load intentions, that could be a gas pipe beast...

The Reynolds 853 tubeset is widely thought of as one of the very best steel tubesets. Odd to hear it described as "gas pipe" whatever gauge chosen for a particular application.

Perhaps Daniel meant "as stiff as..."

[mitch....@gmail.com]

I thought that was pretty obvious. 

[Kieran J]

Interesting report on the stiffness continuum using personal experience. The Romanceur is definitely more lively than I would have expected.

Thanks for posting, Mitch.

KJ

[Reed Kennedy]

Hey Adam,

Don't neglect the Cycles Toussaint Velo Routier. I bought it as a low trail bike I could lock up outside, and it has ended up being my almost-everything bike. It might be a bit less prone to planing than my MAP, but I enjoy riding it just as much. Sometimes even more, as it takes wider tires and the brakes work better.

My girlfriend has a Soma Grand Randonneur and from what I can tell it is also quite nice, but I prefer the brakes and the horizontal top tube of the Velo Routier. The GR also seems a bit less supple, as best as I can tell from riding a bike that doesn't at all fit me. 

I'd say the Velo Routier is certainly more flexible than my Hunqapillar or my Soma San Marcos, and probably about the same as my old Riv Redwood. It seems less flexible than my MAP (8/5/8 TT, rest 8/6/8) or my Tom Kellogg designed Ross 290S (standard diameter Ishiwata tubes of some sort, I'll check if anyone cares).

I love my Velo Routire and you can't have it. ::smile:: But you can come test ride it if you can fit on an XL (60cm) frame. I'm also in SF, over in SOMA.

Best,

Reed

[Nick Favicchio]

Fwiw, I ride a custom that'll fit 650b x 2.1" knobs and has a 1" 747 tt and 1.125" 858 dt. At first i was worried about breaking the thing but crashing HARD doing 20+ mph on a rutted mess of a jeep trail made me worry less. Bike is fine. That crash hurt!

I'm 205 lbs and just shy of 6'. It's a big frame. It's the greatest bike ever made by humans.

Bontrager Race Lites used 757 tubing and Keith built bikes for racers who broke bikes (Keith's words). I love my Race Lite too :).

In my experience, if the bike is properly built, the tubing will hold up. And if you've not been a big fan of stiff bikes in the past, my guess is that you'll dig the super thin wall stuff. Easy to dent and if the bike falls over wrong you can prolly dent/bend the tt but, yea, so far, super worth it for me.

Just weighed the bike too. With all the crap on it (including aerobars), just shy of 27 lbs. Another nice thing about the creepy thin tubing.

Frame and fork was $1600 from Zak Hinderyckx. www.hinderyckxbikes.com

https://flic.kr/p/PDCA5L

Nick "Please Don't Judge Me By My Aerobars" Favicchio

[Nick Favicchio]

https://flic.kr/p/KNbp9L

With her battle boots on :)

[Igor Belopolsky]

Is it true the Velo Routier will fit Compass brakes? They claim it will..Hmmmmm

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Poole]

On 10 Dec 2016 6:37 am, "Greg Achtem" <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder what the Alan and vintage Vitus cyclocrossers were? Those were certainly off road capable. While not rock gardens, I wonder what a frozen muddy field would be classified?

The old ALANs (ie Competition & Super) were probably more flexible in the main triangle than just about any steel frames, while the round bladed forks were very stiff laterally, but quite flexible - and very comfortable - fore and aft. All I rode were exceptionally stable, and tracked perfectly.

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Murray Love <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stephen, since we can more or less ignore the butted sections, especially when they're short like on Logic WCS tubing, your 0.5-walled MTB frame comes close to the stiffness of the old SP tubing.

^ I'd say that unloaded the above frame feels good, but a bit stiffer with a load would be  better. I've also ridden a prototype S-Works Steel frameset (perhaps similar tubing but 31.8 DT & TT) and that was amazing unloaded.

Later,
Stephen

[satanas]

Re tubing: IME seatstays can make a big difference. I have two frames with effectively the same main triangle and chainstay tubing, but one has 1/2" x0.9mm 531 fastback seatstays and cantis, while the other has 531 Pro 0.5mm double taper stays and sidepulls. The road bike with double taper stays is much more comfortable at tge saddle, despite shorter chainstays and smaller tyres. Everything matters.

I'm also inclined to think that anything that makes the fork much stiffer (ie most disc forks) is also going to reduce comfort on long rides, unless some sort of suspension is added. Lateral fork stiffness is good for handling, but fore-aft stiffness is bad news for bump absorption, IMHO.

Later,
Stephen

[Reed Kennedy]

I can't say if the Compass brakes fit, because I absolutely love the braised on Dia Compe 750s on my Velo Routier. They offer the best balance of modulation and outright power of any rim brake I have used. 

I have been tempted to replace them, simply because they look so... basic. But they work too well!

And while I look forward to having a custom with Compass brakes someday, they would be an odd choice for the Velo Routier. The brakes would cost almost as much as the frame!

Reed

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Chan]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:19 PM, satanas <nsc.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re tubing: IME seatstays can make a big difference. I have two frames with effectively the same main triangle and chainstay tubing, but one has 1/2" x0.9mm 531 fastback seatstays and cantis, while the other has 531 Pro 0.5mm double taper stays and sidepulls. The road bike with double taper stays is much more comfortable at tge saddle, despite shorter chainstays and smaller tyres. Everything matters.

   This has been one of the things I've been curious about, whether anyone has actively been searching out how to get the

desired flex via seatstays, or perhaps more cleverly, the joinery between the seatstays and the seat cluster. It sounds like the Bontrager Race Lites had a flexible seatstay to seat cluster connection, perhaps with a smaller diameter and thinner walled monostay segment.

   The Romanceur, based on the TT diameter and wall thickness, should be a pretty stiff bike - I wonder if the top of the seatstays, and the long flattened sockets enable some torsion at the seatstay/seatcluster joint?

--

"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel Smiles

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:56:51 PM UTC-7, Steve Chan wrote:

... It sounds like the Bontrager Race Lites had a flexible seatstay to seat cluster connection, perhaps with a smaller diameter and thinner walled monostay segment...

It seems likely to me the Bontrager wishbone seatstay arrangement introduces flex. But the Bontrager Race and Race Lites also have chainstays that angle toward the center of the bb and attach toward the center. And there is no chainstay bridge. These features probably also contribute to a flexible rear end.

--Mitch 

  

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:01:31 PM UTC-7, Kieran J wrote:

Interesting report on the stiffness continuum using personal experience. The Romanceur is definitely more lively than I would have expected.

Thanks for posting, Mitch.

Surprised me too, a little. 

One thing I've learned about this topic (light gauge tubing, skinny tubing, planing) is that among people who want a flexy planing bike there is still variation in preference.

Early on in this conversation (a few years ago) the divide was between those of us who embraced the idea of planing and wanted a flexy bike and those of us who thought planing was bunk.

The years and conversation moved on, more evidence has appeared here and there, and now most of us here embrace planing and want a flexy bike. I had for a while assumed there might be no steel bike that could be too flexy, assuming reasonable durability anyway. Jan and others have talked about looking for the limit where a bike is too flexible (and didn't his Mule keep the 7-4-7 super light gauge but switch to an OS down tube?). 

Sometimes we've theorized that frame flex might have to be optimized for a given rider weight (or maybe also rider strength) to plane properly. This fits a model where planing happens in a fairly narrow window of frame flex for a given force applied.

Other times we've assumed the planing window is big and wide and you can just get a flexier and flexier frame and enjoy planing more, or at least planing all the way. 

For example, Nick's happy experience with 7-4-7 skinny tube frame even with a big rider, and Murray's experience that 7-4-7 skinny tube large frames are only beginning to be flexy enough for him. These are at one side of the preference range.

My own experience with my 8-5-8 skinny tube Boulder became my own flex-preference limit. 

By the way from evidence here, these preferences don't seem to track rider size/weight as much as we might have thought. 

I've ridden a skinny tube 7-4-7 bike and loved the flex but it was producing some handling I don't like. My 8-5-8 Boulder is right at the threshold of having those (dislikable-to-me) handling traits but is mostly spared and a pure pleasure. 

I have to assume if Nick or Murray rode my Boulder they'd be wanting more flex and would miss what they like about their otherwise similar 7-4-7 bikes. 

One conclusion is that either the handling traits present for me in 7-4-7 skinny bikes aren't present for them, or they are just not dislikable to them. 

Preference itself has been problematic in the planing conversation because skeptics have argued that planing and flex are nothing but a preference for a particular bike handling feel. 

I prefer to embrace the idea that something more objective is going on with planing and that planing happens regardless of a rider's preference or beliefs about planing. I came to this conclusion a few years ago after my own personal tests as a skeptic trying to prove to myself that there was nothing to this idea of planing. I proved to myself the opposite. 

But even if planing is an objective fact that happens, apparently preference still plays a role. 

As far as research goes, we are only at the first baby steps of empirically demonstrating planing at all, much less measuring different amounts of planing. 

I think theoretically equating different levels of planing to different gauges/diameters of tubesets can be very helpful and I'll do it all the time myself. But much more helpful to me is knowing my own personal empirical experience of riding actual frames. The best, or perhaps only, way to do that is to ride successively lighter gauge, flexier frames till you find your baseline. Like Nick, Murray, and Jan, and others here, have been doing. For a while I resisted this, thinking that since I find my 9-6-9 SL bikes pretty flexy and comfortable then that's all I need to know. But then I had opportunities to extensively ride some lighter gauge frames (including getting the Boulder) and have enjoyed indulging my curiosity. I learned a lot about what I want and need in a bike frame.

--Mitch 

[ilter]

My Raleigh International is noticeably less "comfortable at the saddle" compared to my other bikes. I also noticed it has thicker seatstays. Did not put 2 and 2 together until I read your post :)

ilter in chicago

[Harold Bielstein]

This is a pic of my latest bike: 

It now has a summer/fall worth of riding on it. It is built on an OXPlat 747 TT and a Plat 858 DT and a Col 8x6 seat tube. All Standard dia. The fork blades are the Toei specials kit from Compass Cycles. TT angle is 73 deg and rake is 65mm so it has a trail of 35 and a 10 flop factor. SS are 16 single taper. I ride this bike at 190 lbs and even with my somewhat lower power delivery capability (getting old) this bike wants to rocket ahead on every power stroke. I suppose you can call that planing because it rides very well. However, being new to a low trail machine, I was dismayed by how quickly and easily the bike dives into corners. I had to constantly correct its trajectory to smoothly follow an actual line thru the corner. I was not expecting the steering to be quite so sensitive. Carrying maybe 5 lbs including the Ostrich bag itself. I expected the bike to shimmy with its KK headset and it would if I banged the TT with my knee. But normal riding and even hands-free riding would not induce shimmy. One other thing I found disconcerting was during seated (about 60rpm) climbing. As you pushed on the pedal and slightly pulled on the handlebar the bike would move its line from side to side. This required more concentration and was somewhat dangerous on very narrow roads with traffic. Although I’m getting used to this bike's handling, if I build another, I may increase trail numbers into the mid trail range around 45 mm. I hope my experience gives you an extra decision making data point regarding tube diameters and thicknesses.

Hal Bielstein
hkbie...@gmail.com

[Stephen Poole]

On 11 Dec 2016 8:58 pm, "Harold Bielstein" <hkbie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> However, being new to a low trail machine, I was dismayed by how quickly and easily the bike dives into corners.

^ This is one of those love/hate things with low trail. I too found the drastic reactions disconcerting.

> I had to constantly correct its trajectory to smoothly follow an actual line thru the corner.

I didn't have this problem but found riding in a straight enough line to follow a wheel closely in a paceline very mentally fatiguing.

> I was not expecting the steering to be quite so sensitive.

Exactly!!!

> One other thing I found disconcerting was during seated (about 60rpm) climbing. As you pushed on the pedal and slightly pulled on the handlebar the bike would move its line from side to side. This required more concentration and was somewhat dangerous on very narrow roads with traffic. Although I’m getting used to this bike's handling, if I build another, I may increase trail numbers into the mid trail range around 45 mm. I hope my experience gives you an extra decision making data point regarding tube diameters and thickness.

FWIW, when I changed the fork on the GR and increased the trail from ~31mm to ~45mm the reaction to turn initiation became much less sudden, riding in a straight line became easier, shimmy almost totally went away and I found no problems with low speed handling. YMMV.

With your bike, I wonder if the issues at low speed are due to geometry, flex, or some combination. It's becoming clearer to me that one size doesn't fit all as the evidence accumulates.

Re flex/planing: I'm inclined to think this is very complicated, and is going to depend on riding style, size, weight, load carried (and where/how), etc. From my experience I'm inclined to think that on an unloaded bike, when climbing at a moderate steady-state effort, nothing is going to be too flexible *in the BB* and here I include ALAN's Super, Competition & Tourist, and a bike with a 636x28.6DT. For me, 969x28.6 downtubes start to feel too stiff, for this usage.

However, if one is working extremely hard (seated or standing) a very flexible frame can begin to wander around, or auto-shift, in which case something a bit stiffer can feel better. In this situation, light gauge oversize tubing or CF can come into its own, but some frames can still be too stiff and feel totally dead, for instance many older oversize alu frames.

When descending, forks can definitely be more laterally flexible than ideal, and IME given a smooth surface a (laterally) stiffer fork = better handling. However, forks that are very stiff fore-aft can give a brutal ride.

And with any significant load a lot of this goes out the window. The rack(s) and bags need to be stiff enough that they cannot move independently or oscillate, and if rear bags are carried then the rack mounting points need to be adequately stiff. The front triangle needs to resist twisting or low speed turns can result in the top tube and head tube flexing rather than the bike going where intended. Often touring frames are just made way stiffer everywhere, ie many Surly frames, but in reality this can be overkill, and IMHO the BB doesn't necesarily need to be stiffer for load carrying, though it usually is.

Getting all this right for a given rider is complicated enough, (and is likely to need several attempts), but trying to cater to a range of riding styles and weights with production frames is even less likely to please everyone. Still, it seems many people quite like flexible frames, while some others really dislike them, no surprise really...

Later,
Stephen

[Murray Love]

I wonder a little at your interpretation (NOTE: not at your preferences, which are entirely your own). I was a low trail early-adopter back on 2006 or so, and spent a fair bit of time on the BOB list trying to harmonize the math of handling with my experience of low trail.

What I concluded was that low-trail/low flop bikes are actually *less* sensitive to handlebar movement; that is, the handlebar can "wander" quite a bit from side to side without greatly affecting the bike's line. By the same token, external inputs like bumps or crosswinds--which push the wheel/bars to one side or another--have a lower tendency to push the bike off-course. This is why Jan and others favor low trail for long rides, when a tired rider is less able to control his movements and cope with environmental difficulties.

High trail/high flop bikes tend to be more sensitive to steering inputs: a small bar movement can result in a relatively large change of direction.

I found the handlebar movement on my low-trail bikes to be unsettling at first, but got used to it relatively quickly, especially once I realized that I seemed to be able to hold a line more easily on these bikes.

Low-trail cornering behavior is one of those bug vs feature questions. Not being a particularly skilled cornerer myself, I liked the fact that low trail made it easy to adjust my line mid-turn, but I can see how others might not feel the same.

Bottom line for me was that low trail required more deliberate steering movements to cause a change in trajectory. High trail is more "telepathic", using subtle weight shifts and almost imperceptible steering inputs to control the bike. Neither is "better" in an objective sense: both my current bikes are "normal" trail (73/45 or so), but is happily go back to lowish trail if I was getting a bike built.

Murray

Victoria, BC

[Nick Favicchio]

A huge thank you to Murray, Mitch, Steven and Harold for taking the time.

Low trail to me is still "weird". Far less now but getting on other bikes makes me realize "oh, huh, different!".

IME, low trail steering is more handsy and less in the hips. The only thing that I'm not crazy about is how the front end seems more inclined to slide/wash out. I do push it and generally I won't loose the front end in a corner even if it's loose unless I'm stiff thru bumps. Then the front will break loose.

I ride a bike with 52mm of trail a lot and love it. 700c bike mostly for going fast on pavement.

I'm VERY interested in the conversation wrt rear triangle tubing. I mentioned this on the BOB list some time ago shortly after I got the custom b/c it feels like the rear of the bike has perhaps even more travel than the front fork - built with Columbus Rando blades (the Hahn Rossman jobbers). This idea was a bit poo pooed by most folks over there but I'm hearing experiences similar to mine here. Perhaps it was because I framed the question in terms of total rear triangle travel.

I'm noticing feathery rear triangles are also something I like.

[Daniel Jackson]

I too notice that my 40mm trail bike is far more prone to front end washout than my higher (65mm) trail Rivendell. I've wondered how much this was due to tire width (38 vs. 55) or trail or handlebar and riding position (aggressive drops vs. more upright albastache).

Any other ideas on this phenomenon? 

[Daniel Jackson]

Also, Adam - have you come to a decision? The suspense is...

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/11/2016 01:06 PM, Daniel Jackson wrote:
> I too notice that my 40mm trail bike is far more prone to front end
> washout than my higher (65mm) trail Rivendell. I've wondered how much
> this was due to tire width (38 vs. 55) or trail or handlebar and
> riding position (aggressive drops vs. more upright albastache).

38 vs 55 with is a HUGE difference.

[adam leibow]

i am leaning towards the crust at the moment... but it might have to wait for budget reasons. 

[Michael Arciero]

Because of the wheel flop of the high trail, it is easy to initiate counter-steer with hips or other weight shifts. This is the same reason high trail is easier to ride no-hands. I would generally agree that low trail is "easier" to adjust the line mid-corner, but only in the sense that high trail requires active counter-steer to adjust. I've not found this to be a problem in practice though. In fact, I think it's part of what gives 700c high-trail bikes their sporty handling. 

[Mike Schiller]

here is my 9/7/8 tubed 650B bike. Fits 3" 650B tires or 29 x 2.35 wheels.  Rides pretty smooth.  Needs a low trail fork still... probably will go with  60mm of rake.

mike

[Steve Chan]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Nick Favicchio <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm VERY interested in the conversation wrt rear triangle tubing.  I mentioned this on the BOB list some time ago shortly after I got the custom b/c it feels like the rear of the bike has perhaps even more travel than the front fork - built with Columbus Rando blades (the Hahn Rossman jobbers).  This idea was a bit poo pooed by most folks over there but I'm hearing experiences similar  to mine here.  Perhaps it was because I framed the question in terms of total rear triangle travel.

   It looks like I may have gotten it the wrong way as far as flex in the seatstays. This article shows that on the Bontrager Racelites they used the beefier tubing for the wishbone to support the canti brakes and then stepped down to a thinner tubing for the lower section of the seatstays. You can see the distinct step down in tubing in the third photo on the article:

I'm noticing feathery rear triangles are also something I like.

--

[Justin Hughes]

Sweet ride. More info somewhere?

[Nick Favicchio]

+1!!!

Mike, tell us everything! Dear lord!

[Mike Schiller]

Frame started life 5 years ago as an XC 29er with a 51mm offset Fox fork.  72d HTA and  low trail for a 29er. The stack height was designed a little higher than normal  to make conversion to a dropbar bike easier. down the road if the mood struck. I was riding a Singular Gryphon before I commissioned this bike.     These days  most suspension forks use tapered steerers and most new MTB's having much more slack HTA's so I was trying to figure out what to do with the frame. 

When B+ tires came out I measured my bike for possible fit and found I could easily fit a 3" wide tire at the chainstays. Seatstays were a little too tight (2mm) so I sent the frame back to Matthews to replace the seatstays ( filet brazed frame) and add braze-ons for a bolt on frame bag and an everything cage underneath. To test out my dropbar idea I picked up a Gen 2 Fargo fork and had the whole thing powdercoated. I really like the way it rides but I plan on getting a 60mm rake fork built for it sometime n 2017.  

some more pics here https://www.flickr.com/photos/37347002@N05/albums/72157629378588216/with/7046692169/

~mike

[Stephen Poole]

Hi Mike,

I looked at the pics and am wondering what the current head angle and trail is with the Fargo V2 fork. The reason I'm wondering is that I have a sorta similar frame with a V2 fork. It's intended to fit a Rohloff hub, and ~150mm Q but I don't know yet what rear tyre will fit. 29x2.1 is okay, but b+ may have problems with the corner knobs contacting the chainstays. Unfortunately, this probably means buying several tyres and seeing what will clear. It looks to me that some of the new 2.6" tyres are only just over 60mm wide and tall in reality, so they should be okay if bigger doesn't work.

I'm also wondering why you axed the suspension fork - too much maintenance?

Later,
Stephen

--
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/B3GLz03ours/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Wow. Does Chauncey still build bikes - Seems so from flickr, but my google-fu is failing to find a site..

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

[Mike Schiller]

Stephen,

the frame was designed for an 80 mm Fox fork so the sagged A-C is 470, the same as the Gen 2 Fargo fork.  Trail is 72mm with 75mm wide tires. The  bike seems like it steers itself in singletrack, not sure if its geometry, wide tires, or the dirt drops or all of it together. 

I actually like riding rigid bikes and I wanted this style of bike in my quiver. I've in queue with another builder for a 29+ hardtail with 120mm fork, 68d HTA and short chainstays.

Igor,

Chauncey's website is http://matthewscustomcycles.blogspot.com/

~mike

[Igor Belopolsky]

Thanks Mike - I saw that but wasn't sure since it has not been updated since 2013, but his Flickr is pretty recent..what are the prices like?

[Mike Schiller]

I'm not sure what his current pricing is.... send Chauncey an email and ask.  He is a part time builder, he is a High School teacher full time.

~mike

[Stephen Poole]

Thanks Mike,

Re the steering, at least one of the earlier b+ tyres isn't popular because of strange steering behaviour. There have been posts on mtbr.com about IIRC "auto-steer," but it seems this is fixable with a tyre change: http://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/27-5-tires-931412-22.html

Later,
Stephen

[adam leibow]

In case any of you were losing any sleep, today I ordered one of these bikes: The Crust Romanceur. I wasn't going to get anything because of money concerns but then Work Santa dropped me a nice little bonus to the tune of $1,297, the exact same price as a Romanceur frameset after shipping. Whod'a thunk???? Seeing as the Crust is the cheapest option I was considering, I think I'll worry about it less, and the reality is that my small apartment and having four bikes means they all sit together - sooner or later a nice frame with lightweight tubing would have gotten dented. I'll save that pinkies out stuff for when I can comfortably afford it and some nice wine and vegan nut cheese platters. 

Anyways, now all I need is a wheelset. Anybody got a Silver 650b Disc wheelset they wanna sell?

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/20/2016 09:37 PM, adam leibow wrote:
> In case any of you were losing any sleep, today I ordered one of these
> bikes: The Crust Romanceur. I wasn't going to get anything because of
> money concerns but then Work Santa dropped me a nice little bonus to
> the tune of $1,297, the exact same price as a Romanceur frameset after
> shipping. Whod'a thunk????

The Hand of Fate, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Ian A]

It's always better to spend a work bonus on something special, before unexpected expenses rear their heads and consume all the budget! Definitely a sign that the Crust is the right bike for you.

Just out of interest, why not 559? Rat Trap Pass on 559 would be good and lightly used 559 disc wheelets are probably easier to find.

650b would also be good, of course.

Ian A/Canada.

[adam leibow]

ian,

I am thinking about that as well. I am using this bike for a tour between SF>LA, and I have tires I could use for either 650b or 26", but I have fenders for 650b, and it will surely rain in january. Eventually I will have one wheelset in each size. 

Adam

[Ian A]

That's a beautiful stretch of the coast. Prepare for some cold nights. The wind coming off the ocean makes things chilly. Bring extra socks.

650b fenders should work fine over both 584 and 559, depending on tire volume.

Ian.

[Max]

I had a disc wheelset built by November Bicycles at reasonable cost, and it performed well. Sold the bike eventually, due to poor fit with drop bars, which I ultimately prefer.

The coastal route is great. Ride north to south, take the train back, or suffer the headwind. Almost any bike will do, provided your low gear is low enough for some of the passes. Beach camping, fog, vistas, ocean spray, Santa Cruz, Mexican food inland, chi-chi beach volleyball phys ed near Pepperdine, caterpillars crossing the road, good stuff all about.

- Max in A2