New Crust Romanceur

[adam leibow]

I started that thread "Help me mull over new bike Crust ROM or BDB Pel." Well I ended up with the Crust. Just got it built up. So far I love the way it rides. very different from my other bikes in that the tubing feels lighter and more lively. My custom steel road bike is the most similar in feel being lightweight and zippy, but stiffer and with compact geo. Can't wait to ride it more this weekend. 

[Mark McGrath]

Pretty cool in a Retro-Modern way.  

Curious about your choice for down tube shifters versus bar end shifters or brifters.  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:18 PM, adam leibow <ad...@lightvision.net> wrote:

I started that thread "Help me mull over new bike Crust ROM or BDB Pel." Well I ended up with the Crust. Just got it built up. So far I love the way it rides. very different from my other bikes in that the tubing feels lighter and more lively. My custom steel road bike is the most similar in feel being lightweight and zippy, but stiffer and with compact geo. Can't wait to ride it more this weekend. 

--
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.

[adam leibow]

Mark, this bike replaces a Rivendell AHH and with the exception of wheels and brakes obviously, I have used every part from that bike. I like the simplicity of the downtube shifter, and my road bike has brifters. I wanted this bike to be unique in function and have as little overlap with my other bikes as possible. 

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:24:25 AM UTC-8, Mark McGrath wrote:

Pretty cool in a Retro-Modern way.  

Curious about your choice for down tube shifters versus bar end shifters or brifters.  

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:18 PM, adam leibow <ad...@lightvision.net> wrote:

I started that thread "Help me mull over new bike Crust ROM or BDB Pel." Well I ended up with the Crust. Just got it built up. So far I love the way it rides. very different from my other bikes in that the tubing feels lighter and more lively. My custom steel road bike is the most similar in feel being lightweight and zippy, but stiffer and with compact geo. Can't wait to ride it more this weekend. 

--
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.

[Paul Sherman]

Beautiful build, I think this might be my favorite Romanceur yet. Possibly because it's so similar to how I set my own bikes up ;)

Interesting to hear that this rides livelier than the Hilsen since the tubing specs are quite similar IIRC. Was the Hilsen also 650b? I've found that nice wide tires really contribute to a lively feeling bike. Looking forward to future ride reports, something similar is high on my N+1 list.

Paul
Pasadena, CA

[adam leibow]

Paul, thank you! Perhaps since this bike is bigger than the Hilsen and the tubes are longer, they allow for a little more flex. The Hilsen had the same tires, and rode really nice, too. 

[Evan Baird]

How do you find the danglebag situation offroad? I've always thought front racks were an obvious place to drop weight, but I've never been able to make it work without terrifying shimmy. Is there some secret sauce?

[Alex Wetmore]

Handlebar bag racks can be extremely light and yet still functional.  The one on my "rando" bike is 140 grams:

http://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Racks/Ivy-T-Rack/

No decaleur, but there is the weight of a pair of Ortlieb hooks and a short track.  The weight of most systems to mount this same bag to the handlebars is more than the weight of this rack and the Ortlieb hooks.  Here is a bad cell phone image of the bag mounted:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88336152@N00/16566510740/in/datetaken-public/

I know that DIY racks are out of the realm of many people, but Compass sells a nice rack that is almost as light:

https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/racks/compass-cp1-front-rack-for-centerpull-brakes/

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Evan Baird <vanst...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:50:19 PM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Re: New Crust Romanceur

 

[Ryan Thompson]

Very nice Adam. I have a 58cm Romanceur sitting in the garage waiting to be built up.  Can't decide if I should strip the parts off my Black Mountain Cycles Monster Cross (expect the wheels) or keep both and build up with different parts.

If I recall don't you also have a BMC Monster Cross?  Can you compare the ride between the two?

Ryan

[adam leibow]

Evan, the danglebag is fine as it sits 3ish inches above the front tire. It wiggles a little, i guess, but is not bad at all. 

Ryan, thank you! I have a black mountain monstercross also and I recommend keeping both. Sure theres some overlap but they're still pretty different bikes. 

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:18:27 PM UTC-8, adam leibow wrote:

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Looks like great fun Adam. 

I have not liked hanging a bag off the handlebar but that was probably the mid-trail bike I tried it on and/or the 13cm stem it hung from. My Romanceur has an 11cm stem which is probably still too long to try a danglebag. 

--Mitch

[satanas]

Mitch: I once tried a *small* in-front-of-the-bar-mounted bag on an Alan with an 11cm Cinelli stem. The effect on handling was appalling, especially out of the saddle where the front end moved all over the place; no crashing but it felt likely. The bag lasted one ride and was then removed.

Later,
Stephen

[Lude M.]

Hey Romanceürs,

just typed and sent a long posting but it got lost somehow....

I have been looking at the Romanceür long and hard for the last couple of weeks but need to ask some questions to people who already own and ride the frame.
Crust stated that the R. was intendended as a "flexy" frame, yet most builds I have seen online were all tricked out touring bikes with racks and hangers all over the place. So I was relieved that Adam wrote about his miminal build that it is "lighter and more lively" than his other bikes. Could other Romanceür owners give me some insides on the frame set? Flexy and leightweight or stiffer touring frame?

I am really thinking about picking up a 62cm frame from the next batch so any insight is very much appreciated.

Later,
L.

[Lude M.]

Hi, I just entered this group since I have had my eyes on a romanceür frame for quite some time now but need to ask some questions before pulling the trigger on the next batch.

I am still wondering about the ride / "planing" quality of the frame. Crust states on their site that is supposed to be quite a lively frame, yet most builds seem to be full blown touring bikes, with racks all over the place - which makes me a bit skeptical regarding the Curst statement. Adam, your build is one of the few minimal builds I have seen so far and I am a little relieved after reading your statements regarding the available flex and liveliness of the frame.

Are there any other Romanceür owners around? Would love to hear your opinions regarding this aspect (especially regarding the 62cm frame ;)  )

Later,

L.

Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017 03:18:27 UTC+1 schrieb adam leibow:

[mitch....@gmail.com]

My 58 Romanceur rides lively, not dead or tank-like. When I'm hammering it seems to want to keep the effort up and I find I climb and sprint harder for longer than I do on my old trad SP race frame for comparison.

But it's not flexy-lively in the same way my Boulder or some SL and 531 standard/skinny tube bikes are. The Romanceur is oversize 28.6 top tube and ~31mm down tube and the Crust site says it's .9-.6-.9 Reynolds 853, which is not considered light gauge around here (650B, iBob) anymore. Nowadays 8-5-8 skinny tubes seem standard, and 7-4-7 is what we now call light gauge.

Might help to keep in mind one of Bene's main rides before Romanceur was an Atlantis (built stiff for touring loads) and he likes Riv bikes which may seem overbuilt now to a google group used to flexy budget Rawlands. Also worth keeping in mind Bene was planning this bike with Crust who builds strong OS bikepacking bikes for touring in rugged terrain with heavy loads. That's a good context for Bene's statement about making the Romanceur light and lively.

And it does ride lively/springy for me. I like the contrast to my flexy Boulder Allroad and I love frames that plane. My Boulder is at the limit of flex that I like and based on riding it I might not be interested in 7-4-7 tubes unless they were oversize. For comparison it helps to know that trad Columbus SL bikes plane a lot for me, as do trad 531 bikes. SL is 9-6-9 skinny tubing and some have explained its planiness as due to the light gauge stays/rear end. I have a background as a track sprinter and for actual racing on the track (and for some road racing) back then, I preferred Columbus SP 1.0-.7-1.0 to SL and 531. These are reasons I wasn't deterred by OS tubing on this bike.

Anyway, frame liveliness and planing are important things we here are all connoisseurs of now, including me. So it's got to be said.

--Mitch

Below is some further Romanceur discussion I shared offlist some time ago with another group member who was deciding about the bike. I include it in case it helps someone choose. I always appreciate hearing how you all decide on your bikes:

...For me this turns out to be a very versatile bike because I built two wheelsets, and it's a different bike with RTPs vs. BSPs. I used the same model hubs and rotors so I can switch wheels without having to realign the brakes. Same Honjo fenders fit each.
One reason I'm happy with it is it solved a problem for me. I switched most of my riding to 650B BSPs, including lots of road riding on a conversion and then a custom lugged Boulder. After four years of riding nothing but the fatter fast tires my vintage racing bikes sat un-ridden. A problem because it meant I didn't have variety any more; every ride was on my Boulder. It's set up the way I like but I also like to switch between a couple bikes. [Anybody else find they need to switch between at least two bikes even for the same kind of ride?].

In the meantime two things had happened: I discovered I also like to ride RTPs a lot, both on the road and dirt. I set up a couple bikes with RTPs but I knew I needed a better fast road bike for RTPs and that pretty much had to be custom because there wasn't much out there. Second, I got very curious about disc brakes and decided for a few reasons my next bike should be disc (if only for fun and variety).

So then my "second" bike dilemma meant choosing between a back up BSP bike like the Boulder, but to get something I liked enough to match the Boulder I'd have to go lugged custom. If I chose instead a dedicated RTP bike I'd still have to go custom because there wasn't much out there. Which to choose? Then Bene was posting his Romanceur prototype on instagram, and it had almost everything I'd require in a custom and it solved my dilemma because it can be just as good at either role, backup BSP bike or RTP adventure bike. It's completely different from the Boulder so the variety is there, but it can also do the very same things I use the Boulder for. Before Bene offered the Romanceur I assumed I'd have trouble talking a builder into making a disc bike with 1" threaded and lugs, so it's almost funny he made the same bike I would have ordered. The fact that the Romanceur thing has a bunch of personality makes it good too.

Choosing Romanceur can depend on where you are in your stable and what you need. For me this bike is added to a big old stable that had evolved away from race bikes toward adventure bikes. It also came at a point for me when I'd explored planing as far as I wanted to go (the Boulder planes as much as I'd want) and I wanted to experiment with 853 OS tubes. It might not be the best choice for someone who still wants to explore the flexiest planing frames like 7-4-7 standard tubing on some older Rawlands, for example. I'd been down that road and I know what I need and the Romanceur planes for me even though it's more robust than the Boulder. Because it's so versatile I can see the Romanceur being good as the start of a stable or as someone's only bike, even someone just starting out. Assuming it fits and can do the racks you need, the only way to outgrow the Romanceur would be 1) someone who needs to explore the limits of planing with standard tubing bikes, 2) someone who decided they didn't like discs on a classic bike like this, 3) someone who decided to explore lighter weight bikes (steel crown forks aren't light and discs are heavier than Raids), or 4) if someone had doubts about QR and would regret not having thru axles down the road. I'm interested in TA too, but the Romanceur QR set up has worked perfectly for me including high speed descents on canyon pavement with lots of hard braking into hairpins, and they align to rotors every time. Also I like the QRs on a classic looking frame and don't like the extra weight of TA on a steel frame (TA on carbon frames/forks is nothing but on steel it's chunky). So for me on the Romanceur, the QR is a feature not a bug but some will disagree.

[Nick Favicchio]

Light and lively like an old fancy early 90's mtn bike. Not like a light and lively rando bike. Or even like an old 531 or similar tubed racer or sport tourer from bitd.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

I can see what you mean but in actual riding it doesn't feel anything like older nice mtbs I've ridden. That's comparing by memory but also side by side with a '93 biplane MB-1 with the same tires, both RTP and BSP, and same riding position. Maybe front end geo makes too big a difference for the tubing similarity to manifest. On second thought it does flex sort of like my flexy mid-90s Bontrager Race with a rigid low-trail fork.

I have 531 bikes that flex more and 531 bikes that flex less than the Romanceur. Maybe that's down to the range of gauge 531 came in. And/or explained by all the other variables besides tubing that goes into a bike's handling.

Caveat to say that tires make such a big difference in ride quality that to compare frames it really requires same tires/wheels. Especially comparing fat supple tires to trad race tires and tubs.
Might as well offer second caveat to say I refer to planing in my post above but have no empirical evidence about that, of course. In years past I did enough n-of-1 empirical comparison on my own to jettison my own skepticism about the existence of planing. But when I say a bike planes and another one doesn't, I go entirely on the impression I have of what happens when I hammer on short climbing sections, does it want to go or want to slow. Very subjective of course.

--Mitch

[Stephen Poole]

Thanks Mitch,

I wonder though if there is 969 R853 tubing - I thought most of it was 858...

I've sort of concluded my next 650b bike is going to be 747 x 1 1/8" main tubes; Columbus SL is neutral for me - no planing. Older 531 with thinner forks and stays almost does the job, but not quite. 636 Prestige Superlite or Alan frames are good for me...

Crust are doing some really interesting things, and I'm getting closer to ordering a Scapegoat; I'm not totally convinced I need one, but have always thought it should be possible to make a low Q fatbike with Rohloff, and the sizing works for me. (And I have a Rohloff hub that could be reurposed.) The big question is wheel size, since 26x4 needs Rohloff or SS. Other sizes up to 29+ will fit too, but multiple Rohloff hubs are not a financially viable option!

Later,
Stephen

[Justin Hughes]

Do it. Build it around 27.5x3.5. 

[Stephen Poole]

Is there such a thing? Panaracer's FBNs are apparently a bit under 3" and the Bontrager Hodags are 3.8". At least with 26" it would be possible to find some sort of tyre in India reasonably easily, and the lower BB wouldn't be a bad thing for me. 27.5 was supposed to become available (on new bikes) later in 2016, but no word on spares; they trailed bikes by a long way with 26"...

[Justin Hughes]

Yes, it's a thing. There's a 3.5" Fat B Nimble, an Origin 8 tire and maybe WTB and Maxxis offerings. If not, I suspect they're coming. 

If you're actually going to tour in remote places perhaps that's a consideration. But, to that point is some place in India going to have a 26" tire that will fit on an  80-100mm rim? Serious question. 

But, it's your fantasy, not mine. 

Justin

[Eric Daume]

My "3.5" FBN measures out about 2.6" on a Blunt 35 rim. It's the most undersized tire I've ever come across. It's barely bigger than the WTB TrailBlazer 2.8, which measures more like 2.5". 

--

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.

[Igor Belopolsky]

a bit more $ but what about the tumbleweed?

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:56:22 PM UTC-5, satanas wrote:

[Justin Hughes]

Whoa, damn. I just bought a 29x3" FbN. Anyone know if that is also so severely undersized? It's not likely to be any bigger than the 2.35" Maxxis it will replace?

Justin

[Eric Daume]

I also have a 29er FBN. It's closer to its listed size, about 2.6" on my Blunt rims. 

I actually find this a nice size, it feels a little more nimble than my Knard. 

[Stephen Poole]

On 7 Feb 2017 11:09 pm, "Justin Hughes" <justin...@me.com> wrote:
>
> If you're actually going to tour in remote places perhaps that's a consideration.

Yes, it is.

> But, to that point is some place in India going to have a 26" tire that will fit on an  80-100mm rim? Serious question.

Probably not, but since there's virtually zero chance of my riding on snow (I'm a skier in winter) then 4"++ tyres are overkill. It seems like for non-snow use people are typically using 45-65mm rims; Guitar Ted has been happy with Velocity's 45mm Dually even on snow, and Surly are now saying 50mm is okay for up for ~3.8" tyres. Back when the Pugsley came out they were saying their 65mm rims would work with ~2.3" up.

It seems like that means one could get away with 2.1" tyres on 45-50mm rims, and reasonable 2.1"+ tyres could be had in Manali last year; back in 2009 I bought a crappy 2" or 2.1" tyre in a market in Leh, so it can be done, plus one can now order stuff via local bike shops, of which there were zero a few years back. (Mail order from outside India isn't realistically possible.) I have a friend in Manali I could leave spares with too.

So far I have never seen a 27.5/27.5+/29/29+ tyre in India (or Nepal) so IMHO using them would mean 100% dependance on carrying spares, whereas one could find some sort of 26" tyre over there in a pinch. Back in 2000/2001 I saw one guy carrying a spare rear wheel(!), but those days are gone, and 8/9 speed stuff is fairly easily gettable, though 10/11 would probably be pushing it.

80-100mm rims seem like extra weight to me, and are mainly for maximum flotation on snow or deep sand, but using them would mean ~3.8" minimum, thus limiting tyre options for (IMHO) little gain.

> But, it's your fantasy, not mine. 

Not really a fantasy, it *is* going to happen. I'm very close to pinning down the start date and booking flights, just waiting on finalising skiing in June-July.

Later,
Stephen (who hates summer in Sydney)

[Justin Hughes]

Great! Start a blog and I'll follow it. Or Instagram. 

[Stephen Poole]

The Tumbleweed is quite a bit more (by 75+%), and the Scapegoat would fit me better. Both frames have been designed by people who've been going expedition touring for 10+ years, so have quite a pedigree.

The Tumbleweed is suspension-corrected, the details are prettier, and I like the grue/bleen colour much more(!) but both frames are capable, and one reason for 3+" tyres IMO is to avoid needing suspension. With a shorter fork one can have more standover clearance and/or a larger frame bag too. And I could have the Scapegoat resprayed after I got home if it really bothered me.  :-)

Later,
Stephen

[Stephen Poole]

I'm not really keen on being even more glued to a screen, and please don't mention the F-word! :-)

[Igor Belopolsky]

To add to this, the old school fat cat rims were 50mm and ran 3.8 tires

[Stephen Poole]

Rubber is flexible.  :-)

There's considerable disagreement on optimum rim widths in any case, and if things go wrong then acceptable or "just barely possible" is a lot better than nothing.

[Harry Watson]

My FBNs measure 75mm on Hugo rims. Sidewalls are very skimpy though, I went through two tyres very quickly...

[Zach Duval]

Can anyone who has tried a 2.1 or even 2.25 tire on a 45mm rim, such as a Velocity Dually, speak to its effectiveness?

I have a Romanceur I'm working to build up (slowly), and I'm a bit hung up over whether to go Blunts or Duallys. I'd like to run mostly 2.25 or 2.35 tires, but possibly 2.1s. The frame should have enough room to run these on a wide rim, plumping them up nicely, I'd hope. There are no good supple 2.4 tires that I know of, unfortunately.

[Eric Daume]

I have a WTB Scraper (45mm internal, I think) on the front end of my Jones Plus. I wish I had gotten a Blunt instead.

The Scraper plumps out a 3" tire nicely, but I don't feel any great benefit from this--it feels like the same tire does on my Blunt rim. But, when I tried to run a 2.35" Schwalbe  Big One to enjoy the Jones on the road, the otherwise fine handling of the Jones went to heck in a handbasket. I could feel the front end weave and wander whenever I tried to lean it over. I think the rim was just too wide for this tire, and it squared it off too much. This was on pavement, maybe it would be less noticeable on dirt.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Zach Duval <zrd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can anyone who has tried a 2.1 or even 2.25 tire on a 45mm rim, such as a Velocity Dually, speak to its effectiveness?

I have a Romanceur I'm working to build up (slowly), and I'm a bit hung up over whether to go Blunts or Duallys. I'd like to run mostly 2.25 or 2.35 tires, but possibly 2.1s. The frame should have enough room to run these on a wide rim, plumping them up nicely, I'd hope. There are no good supple 2.4 tires that I know of, unfortunately.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-7, Zach Duval wrote:

Can anyone who has tried a 2.1 or even 2.25 tire on a 45mm rim, such as a Velocity Dually, speak to its effectiveness?

I have a Romanceur I'm working to build up (slowly), and I'm a bit hung up over whether to go Blunts or Duallys. I'd like to run mostly 2.25 or 2.35 tires, but possibly 2.1s. The frame should have enough room to run these on a wide rim, plumping them up nicely, I'd hope. There are no good supple 2.4 tires that I know of, unfortunately.

Zach, I'm using Pacenti DL31 on my Romanceur which are pretty similar in width and profile to the Blunt SS, but way heavier than the BluntSS. RTPs are 53mm wide on the DL31s compared to 49.5mm wide on the 24mm rims I had them on at first. So they do spread out at that width rim. They don't look at all pinched on a 31mm rim.

Not sure if you're planning 559 or 584, but comparing 559 weights it would be hard for me to choose the Blunt at 35mm wide when Bene and maybe others too, ride RTPs with Duallys and swear by them so the advantages must be worth the weight. 530g vs. 610g for the 559 Duallys seems worth it for 10mm more width. One way to look at is it the Blunt is 86% of the Dually weight for only 77% of the width. Honestly, the 35mm Blunt is plenty wide for a 2.35 tire if even my DL31 seems plenty wide. Maybe it's me, but if I chose the Blunt I'd be forever curious about the Dually and would probably eventually build a Dually wheelset. 

The real dilemma for me (for a 584 wheel) would be between the 395g Blunt SS at 30mm vs. the Dually. Both those rims are arguably the best or among the best in their class (alloy), and each does something excellently: super wide or super light. The Blunt by comparison seems not wide enough and not light enough. But that might also make it the best compromise.

--Mitch 

[Stephen Poole]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-7, Zach Duval wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone who has tried a 2.1 or even 2.25 tire on a 45mm rim, such as a Velocity Dually, speak to its effectiveness?

I think the limit on the Romanceür will be the fork crown, and that really wide tyres won't fit. If this is the case, then a Blunt SS or Stans Crest MK3 will be plenty wide enough and a lot lighter than a Dually. FWIW, American Classic's Wide Lightnings are about i29, and also Jan seems to think rim width doesn't matter much with supple tyres. Another data point is that I've run 2.2" knobbies on 28mm (external) Araya RM20 rims at 12-18 psi on dirt fully loaded, and that's with tubes.

Is there any real point to using the widest rims possible that will just barely work with the most commonly used tyre size? Maybe on snow doing  this gives extra float, but surely that's not the R's raison d'être...

FWIW, I'm also struggling with rim width for 26/26+/26x3.8, but in my case anything narrower than Surly ET tyre width (64mm) would be for emergency/get out of trouble use only, so staying on the rim and having less than diabolical handling would be good enough.

There's plenty of discussion/argument on rim width at the mtbr forums, with almost everything from i21mm up meeting someone's approval.

Later,
Stephen

[adam leibow]

Hello All,

Thanks for the replies so far. My romanceur now sits with honjo H-80 fenders, a nitto F25 rack/wald basket combo, and the same handlebar bag now mounted as a saddle bag. The Horizon's are quite wide on the blunt 35's, and they come close at the edges to the fenders, causing some concern. I think I might switch to 26" eventually, for clearance purposes. the bike is very versatile and I've done some good rides on it now. It rides lively but not noodly, and I feel comfortable giving it some hell on rough trails, a nice happy medium and do-it-"all" bike. 

[Sky Coulter]

Adam,

Nice bike. What's the saddle height in this photo?

Thanks,

Sky

[Nick Favicchio]

Zach, Bene, the designer of the bike, rolled his prototype with Duallys and Rat Trap Passes which are a ~50mm tire.

[Stephen Poole]

Thanks Nick,

I was wondering about this too. It seems we've got people running everything from RTPs up to 4+" fatbike tyres on Duallys happily.

"One rim to rule them all..."

Later,
Stephen (whose pocketses are currently empty)

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Nice to see how well the 25F rack goes on there. Can't decide which of your setups I like better. I like the idea of sometimes using a transverse saddlebag on the back again (formerly my main method to carry stuf on bike) and am looking around at any simple support that uses one or two of the brazed on seatstay mounts. The Haulin Colin guys make (or used to make) a simple support for the NFE that uses the brake bolt and an upper pair of rack braze-ons.

Bene (and Crust) gave us a challenge by leaving off the standard rando/32F fork rack tabs he had on the prototype Romanceur. Instead we have the upper fork braze-ons that turn out to fit a Crust-designed rack with adjustable struts: convertible between a front platform-only rack with the four struts, or a platform plus low-riders (like the 25F) that attaches only to the upper and mid-fork braze-ons and doesn't touch the fender eyelets. Supposedly this design allows the fork to flex despite carrying low-riders. Nice idea but perhaps moot with a disc fork.

I have a pre-production or first run version of the Crust rack but I haven't seen it for sale on their site so they're either still developing it, or they just don't have stock yet, or not planning to offer it. It's nice because it has a wider platform that most rando racks - 7.75" wide 8.4" long.

Should be mentioned that that new adjustable Compass UD-1 rack (with the long struts)works with mid/fork braze-ons. I installed one yesterday to replace my hacked (broken) 32F that used the upper fork mounts but sagged under weight a bit.
The Compass UD-1 works for a very light basic rando rack for the Romanceur. I was considering custom for a simple rando rack but would have asked for something pretty much like the UD-1 (but with longer platform). All in all I would rather have had the standard rando-tabs on the Romanceur fork so I could use any rando rack. But this works too.

The Romanceur is versatile and tempts me to build it different ways for different rides. I like the idea of using a light rando rack for ordinary front loads and switching to the Crust rack for touring loads and/or low-riders. Fender-to-rack attachments make switching racks less tempting.

Do you happens to know how much the 25F weighs?

--Mitch

[adam leibow]

Sky, the saddle height pictured is roughly 76.5cm or 30". 

Mitch, I do not know the exact weight of the F25, but it does seem to add a bit of weight. I might go back to a hybrid of the two setups I've posted here - keep the fenders on but remove the F25 & wald and then put the saddlebag on the front again. And then keep the F25 on deck for when I want to get super loaded. right now I'm just not using the large rack enough to justify it. 

[Philip Kim]

i wonder why they left that nitto standard rando fork brazeons off?

[Ryan Thompson]

True, but it appears for the build recently posted on the Radavist he used Blunt 35s. 

http://theradavist.com/2017/01/benedicts-crust-bikes-romanceur-26-touring-bike/#1

Ryan

[mitch....@gmail.com]

That's interesting. He sounded very sold on Duallys and RTP ELs in his instagram updates but chose Blunts at 10mm less width for his new production Romanceur. And that build looks like it spares no expense so the choice seems deliberate.

--Mitch

[Nick Favicchio]

That build is special. Wowser.

Having Big S money looks dope :). All the jelly.

And very curious about the Leather bars.

[Zach Duval]

Definitely. I asked him about it a week or two ago, and he said the choice was for weight savings more than tire fit/handling issues. I would also infer that with a Velocity sponsorship he is given the opportunity to mix things up on different builds. I know I would like to have a wheelset for each onto make comparisons.

I'm leaning toward the Dually personally, especially for the more trail oriented build I'm going for. Hopefully I'll wind up with the ability to run a nicely plump 2.35 knobbie with another option of TBurts under fenders.

[satanas]

If the maximum tyre width that will clear the frameset suits B35/BSS rims then Duallys will just be extra weight, surely? The Blunts are already wide rims for 50-ish mm tyres. (I'm interested in the Duallys for something else that might wear tyres from 2.1-3.8".)

Later,
Stephen

[Justin Hughes]

Duallys are stupid overkill for RTPs. I don't know why Velocity doesn't make the SS in 26". Unless you're bombing rooty single track exclusively that's a great rim. 

[Philip Kim]

Velocity makes Blunt SL in 26", it's in their store, but not on their rim profile homepage. It's crazy light and wide.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Really good news they make the BluntSS in 559. Wish I'd known that before I built a 559 DL31 wheelset. (also great but basically a DH rim).

--Mitch

[Lude M.]

Hi Mitch and Adam,

thanks for posting your thoughts. I really appreciate it. I would use the romanceur mainly for road riding and some gravel roads / rides through the woods etc.
One more question: Does anyone have the weight of a 58 or 61 frame incl. fork? I know it won't be super light but I am definately interested...

Thanks,
Lu

Am Montag, 6. Februar 2017 23:49:01 UTC+1 schrieb mitch....@gmail.com:

My 58 Romanceur rides lively, not dead or tank-like. When I'm hammering it seems to want to keep the effort up and I find I climb and sprint harder for longer than I do on my old trad SP race frame for comparison.

But it's not flexy-lively in the same way my Boulder or some SL and 531 standard/skinny tube bikes are. The Romanceur is oversize 28.6 top tube and ~31mm down tube and the Crust site says it's .9-.6-.9 Reynolds 853, which is not considered light gauge around here (650B, iBob) anymore.  Nowadays 8-5-8 skinny tubes seem standard, and 7-4-7 is what we now call light gauge.

Might help to keep in mind one of Bene's main rides before Romanceur was an Atlantis (built stiff for touring loads) and he likes Riv bikes which may seem overbuilt now to a google group used to flexy budget Rawlands. Also worth keeping in mind Bene was planning this bike with Crust who builds strong OS bikepacking bikes for touring in rugged terrain with heavy loads. That's a good context for Bene's statement about making the Romanceur light and lively.  

And it does ride lively/springy for me.  I like the contrast to my flexy Boulder Allroad and I love frames that plane. My Boulder  is at the limit of flex that I like and based on riding it I might not be interested in 7-4-7 tubes unless they were oversize.  For comparison it helps to know that trad Columbus SL bikes plane a lot for me, as do trad 531 bikes. SL is 9-6-9 skinny tubing and some have explained its planiness as due to the light gauge stays/rear end. I have a background as a track sprinter and for actual racing on the track (and for some road racing) back then, I preferred Columbus SP 1.0-.7-1.0 to SL and 531. These are reasons I wasn't deterred by OS tubing on this bike.

Anyway, frame liveliness and planing are important things we here are all connoisseurs of now, including me. So it's got to be said.

--Mitch

Below is some further Romanceur discussion I shared offlist some time ago with another group member who was deciding about the bike. I include it in case it helps someone choose. I always appreciate hearing how you all decide on your bikes:

...For me this turns out to be a very versatile bike because I built two wheelsets, and it's a different bike with RTPs vs. BSPs. I used the same model hubs and rotors so I can switch wheels without having to realign the brakes. Same Honjo fenders fit each.
One reason I'm happy with it is it solved a problem for me. I switched most of my riding to 650B BSPs, including lots of road riding on a conversion and then a custom lugged Boulder. After four years of riding nothing but the fatter fast tires my vintage racing bikes sat un-ridden. A problem because it meant I didn't have variety any more; every ride was on my Boulder. It's set up the way I like but I also like to switch between a couple bikes. [Anybody else find they need to switch between at least two bikes even for the same kind of ride?].

In the meantime two things had happened: I discovered I also like to ride RTPs a lot, both on the road and dirt. I set up a couple bikes with RTPs but I knew I needed a better fast road bike for RTPs and that pretty much had to be custom because there wasn't much out there. Second, I got very curious about disc brakes and decided for a few reasons my next bike should be disc (if only for fun and variety).

So then my "second" bike dilemma meant choosing between a back up BSP bike like the Boulder, but to get something I liked enough to match the Boulder I'd have to go lugged custom. If I chose instead a dedicated RTP bike I'd still have to go custom because there wasn't much out there. Which to choose? Then Bene was posting his Romanceur prototype on instagram, and it had almost everything I'd require in a custom and it solved my dilemma because it can be just as good at either role, backup BSP bike or RTP adventure bike. It's completely different from the Boulder so the variety is there, but it can also do the very same things I use the Boulder for. Before Bene offered the Romanceur I assumed I'd have trouble talking a builder into making a disc bike with 1" threaded and lugs, so it's almost funny he made the same bike I would have ordered. The fact that the Romanceur thing has a bunch of personality makes it good too.
 
Choosing Romanceur can depend on where you are in your stable and what you need. For me this bike is added to a big old stable that had evolved away from race bikes toward adventure bikes. It also came at a point for me when I'd explored planing as far as I wanted to go (the Boulder planes as much as I'd want) and I wanted to experiment with 853 OS tubes. It might not be the best choice for someone who still wants to explore the flexiest planing frames like 7-4-7 standard tubing on some older Rawlands, for example. I'd been down that road and I know what I need and the Romanceur planes for me even though it's more robust than the Boulder. Because it's so versatile I can see the Romanceur being good as the start of a stable or as someone's only bike, even someone just starting out. Assuming it fits and can do the racks you need, the only way to outgrow the Romanceur would be 1) someone who needs to explore the limits of planing with standard tubing bikes, 2) someone who decided they didn't like discs on a classic bike like this, 3) someone who decided to explore lighter weight bikes (steel crown forks aren't light and discs are heavier than Raids), or 4) if someone had doubts about QR and would regret not having thru axles down the road. I'm interested in TA too, but the Romanceur QR set up has worked perfectly for me including high speed descents on canyon pavement with lots of hard braking into hairpins, and they align to rotors every time. Also I like the QRs on a classic looking frame and don't like the extra weight of TA on a steel frame (TA on carbon frames/forks is nothing but on steel it's chunky). So for me on the Romanceur, the QR is a feature not a bug but some will disagree.