| |
Main
Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:18:09
From: Rik O'Shea
Subject: A modern double top tube
|
A modern double top tube...
http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
I still dont get it...
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 07:52:13
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 10, 9:25 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:15:01 -0600, Tom Sherman
>
> <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
> >Are your sure that is not the new Rivendell "Homer J. Simpson" prototype?
>
> doh!
>
> I wonder if they put 650s in that frame?
The Grant will be working on some new(!) ISO 685 rims for those big
Homers. Just another way to keep the faithful tied to Rivensell.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:34:53
From: velodancer
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 7, 7:50 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> What are the drawbacks to using long chainstays for short riders?
Less weight on the rear wheel means potential for slipping wheels.
This is more important typically on dirt, but I've had issues with wet
paved roads when it gets steep with an 18 inch chainstay and skinny
tires.
Not sure that there is any science behind it, but power transfer feels
subjectively less direct with longer chainstays, especially while
standing.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:20:33
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 10:24 am, "Kerry Montgomery" <kamon...@teleport.com > wrote:
> "Rik O'Shea" <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194347889.563112.47160@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > A modern double top tube...
> >http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > I still dont get it...
>
> Rik,
> Thanks very much for this posting - I hadn't heard anything about the first
> Oregon Handmade Bicycle Show - will definitely go there.
> Thanks again,
> Kerry
See http://www.oregonbca.org/ -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:00:04
From: landotter
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 7, 7:21 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:58 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DougC wrote:
>
> > > A Muzi wrote:
>
> > > > something like this steel bike?
> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
> > > > story:
> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>
> > > Two points:
> > > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
> > > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
> > > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
> > > than the seat tube...
>
> > I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
> > do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
> > bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
> > a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
> > contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>
> > Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> > using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> > size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>
> > I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
> > with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
> > (533mm).
>
> > > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
> > > someone so tall.
>
> > Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
> > but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
> > the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
> > should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
> > and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
> > folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
> > shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>
> > When you get as tall as YaoMing, you pretty much have to choose
> > normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
> > bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
> > try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>
> > Chalo
>
> Dear Chalo,
>
> Given the topic and your tall-bike interest, you might find this older
> model attractive:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=giraffe+new...
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/3a4o4c
Is it possible to ride the bike on page 163 w/o sucking face?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:24:10
From:
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:00:04 -0800, landotter <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 7:21 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:58 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > DougC wrote:
>>
>> > > A Muzi wrote:
>>
>> > > > something like this steel bike?
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
>> > > > story:
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>>
>> > > Two points:
>> > > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
>> > > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
>> > > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
>> > > than the seat tube...
>>
>> > I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
>> > do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
>> > bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
>> > a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
>> > contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>>
>> > Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
>> > using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
>> > size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>>
>> > I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
>> > with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
>> > (533mm).
>>
>> > > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
>> > > someone so tall.
>>
>> > Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
>> > but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
>> > the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
>> > should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
>> > and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
>> > folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
>> > shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>>
>> > When you get as tall as YaoMing, you pretty much have to choose
>> > normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
>> > bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
>> > try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>>
>> > Chalo
>>
>> Dear Chalo,
>>
>> Given the topic and your tall-bike interest, you might find this older
>> model attractive:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=giraffe+new...
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/3a4o4c
>
>Is it possible to ride the bike on page 163 w/o sucking face?
Dear LD,
Don't let the side view of old-fashioned saddles mislead you--look at
where the handlebars are.
Both riders are facing forward on that tandem.
The seating is the same as the seating on the tandem on page 162 and
the famous tandem highwheeler on page 161.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 05:48:43
From: DougC
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Dear LD,
>
> Don't let the side view of old-fashioned saddles mislead you--look at
> where the handlebars are.
>
> Both riders are facing forward on that tandem.
>
> The seating is the same as the seating on the tandem on page 162 and
> the famous tandem highwheeler on page 161.
>
.....And on the bottom of page 164 of that same book, we see a tandem
with the /proper/ form of a double top-tube.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA164&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=91MjSH8PIbrNUzsFAVjCe96kJNo&ci=77,769,635,628&edge=1" border="0" alt="Text not available"
Some of those tandems look like a plastic surgeon's wet dream.
~
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 17:21:33
From:
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 7, 11:58 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
> > A Muzi wrote:
>
> > > something like this steel bike?
> > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
> > > story:
> > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>
> > Two points:
> > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
> > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
> > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
> > than the seat tube...
>
> I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
> do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
> bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
> a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
> contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>
> Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>
> I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
> with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
> (533mm).
>
> > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
> > someone so tall.
>
> Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
> but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
> the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
> should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
> and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
> folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
> shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>
> When you get as tall as YaoMing, you pretty much have to choose
> normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
> bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
> try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>
> Chalo
Dear Chalo,
Given the topic and your tall-bike interest, you might find this older
model attractive:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=giraffe+new+rover+cob&as_brr=0
or http://tinyurl.com/3a4o4c
I only recently discovered that Google books has the full text of
Sharp's 1896 "Bicycles & Tricycles" online.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 15:41:39
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 7, 1:58 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
> > A Muzi wrote:
>
> > > something like this steel bike?
> > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
> > > story:
> > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>
> > Two points:
> > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
> > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
> > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
> > than the seat tube...
>
> I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
> do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
> bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
> a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
> contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>
> Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>
> I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
> with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
> (533mm).
>
> > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
> > someone so tall.
>
> Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
> but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
> the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
> should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
> and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
> folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
> shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>
> When you get as tall as Yao Ming, you pretty much have to choose
> normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
> bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
> try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>
> Chalo
Gahd! The smaller steel tubes makes it look even taller. I'm 6'3, but
a frame like that _really_ puts into perspective just how freekin'
enormous these guys are. At first I thought, well, it's an mtb so it's
going to look big, but that thing says it's a 29'er!
Not only is he sitting right on top of the rear hub, but that's a lot
of post showing at his weight. Short stays are good for climbing
traction, but it looks like he's going to wind up on his back
attempting to ascend his driveway (which, on further thought, is
probably of considerable length.)
/s
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 11:04:50
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 7, 12:31 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:56:14 -0800, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>
> Is that to the center of the top tube or to the center of the er,...
> ah... other tube?
Ask The Grant, he's good at doubletalk. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:58:15
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
DougC wrote:
>
> A Muzi wrote:
> >
> > something like this steel bike?
> >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
> > story:
> >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>
> Two points:
> ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
> I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
> don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
> than the seat tube...
I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
size. It just doesn't work right that way.
I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
(533mm).
> ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
> someone so tall.
Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
When you get as tall as Yao Ming, you pretty much have to choose
normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
try both, even if that means two custom frames.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 03:50:03
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On 2007-11-07, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> size. It just doesn't work right that way.
What are the drawbacks to using long chainstays for short riders?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:51:01
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
>> using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of
>> wheel size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>
> What are the drawbacks to using long chainstays for short riders?
Huh? The problem is in the other direction. As the seat tube
lengthens, the rider's weight is moved further back. If the chainstays
remain at the same length, the bike's weight distribution is biased
increasingly towards the rear wheel. This adversely affects cornering
and climbing because the front wheel is too lightly loaded.
I'm not as tall or as heavy as Chalo (I'm 6'4" and 210 lbs) and I have
trouble with bikes with short chainstays. They were terrible in crits
because the front end felt like it was going to wash out and bad for
climbing seated on steep grades because the front wheel lifted easily.
The taller you are, the more pronounced the problem is.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 05:45:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
In article <slrnfj51rc.mg5.usenet@panix1.panix.com >,
Steve Gravrock <usenet@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> > using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> > size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>
> What are the drawbacks to using long chainstays for short riders?
None.
--
Michael Press
Happy on 450 mm chain stays.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:05:08
From:
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Chalo Colina writes:
>>> something like this steel bike?
http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
>>> story:
http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>> Two points:
>> ... the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least
>> two-thirds, I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with
>> the matter--you don't see too many upright frames that have the
>> seatstays more-vertical than the seat tube...
> I don't know why, but most frame builders-- even those who
> exclusively do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay
> lengths on tall bikes. Why don't people get that what they're
> trying to establish is a certain geometric relationship between the
> saddle and the rear contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and
> fixed chainstay length?
> Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
> using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
> size. It just doesn't work right that way.
> I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a
> frame with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were
> 21" long (533mm).
I recognized that problem with my first bicycle while climbing seated
because I would do wheelies on steep spots. After that I got a longer
frame. That's how I put my Silca pump between the seat tube and rear
wheel with plenty of space... to wipe my tires of course.
>> ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
>> someone so tall.
> Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and
> 205mm), but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just
> fine with the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in
> principle should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes
> lower cadence and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit
> everybody, so folks who want to spin fast should bias toward
> commonly available (or shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
Tall riders have larger feet and longer legs and reciprocating mass
doesn't like high rev's. Just the same, I got accustomed to 180mm
cranks long ago and don't care to change now.
> When you get as tall as Yao Ming, you pretty much have to choose
> normal or super long cranks from the outset, because the requisite
> bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford
> to try both, even if that means two custom frames.
BB height measured from dropout CL for me is (240mm - crank length)
for 700c x 25 wheels. That gives me reasonable ground clearance for
cornering.
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 15:09:15
From: landotter
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 2:11 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>> Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
> >>>> I still dont get it...
> >> Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
> >>> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
> >>>http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
> > Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/drunk.jpg
> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
> > Shit, it made me dizzy.
>
> Typical view of 'woman at bar time'.
Nasty, she's mono nostriled...hic...
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 23:14:44
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
landotter wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:11 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>>>>>> I still dont get it...
>>>> Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>>>> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>>> Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/drunk.jpg
>> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Shit, it made me dizzy.
>> Typical view of 'woman at bar time'.
>
>
> Nasty, she's mono nostriled...hic...
I see two nostrils. Four nostrils would be unusual.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 22:35:42
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 10:56 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > > I still dont get it...
>
> > Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
> I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>
> As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
> practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
> aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
> priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
>
> I'm sure The Grant will find a few mesmerized suckers to buy that
> silly POS, though.
I once saw what I was believably told to be Shaq's Cannondale at Sid's
in NYC. That bunch of criss-crossed, HUGE aluminum tubes. I wouldn't
say it was particularly pretty either.
/s
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 18:36:04
From: Alan Hoyle
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:35:42, Scott Gordo wrote:
>> I'm sure The Grant will find a few mesmerized suckers to buy that
>> silly POS, though.
> I once saw what I was believably told to be Shaq's Cannondale at Sid's
> in NYC. That bunch of criss-crossed, HUGE aluminum tubes. I wouldn't
> say it was particularly pretty either.
I posted about this before (http://tinyurl.com/3dqwwf), but here's a
link to a picture of a custom Litespeed Ghissalo made for a 7'5"
former UNC and Pro basketball player:
http://www.alanhoyle.com/images/Serge-bike.jpg
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 16:52:06
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
>>> Rikk O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>>>> I still dont get it...
>> Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>> As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
>> practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
>> aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
>> priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
>> I'm sure The Grant will find a few mesmerized suckers to buy that
>> silly POS, though.
Scott Gordo wrote:
> I once saw what I was believably told to be Shaq's Cannondale at Sid's
> in NYC. That bunch of criss-crossed, HUGE aluminum tubes. I wouldn't
> say it was particularly pretty either.
something like this steel bike?
http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
story:
http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 18:57:12
From: DougC
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
A Muzi wrote:
>
> something like this steel bike?
> http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
> story:
> http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
Two points:
...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
than the seat tube...
...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
someone so tall.
~
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 12:08:47
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 1:50 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> On 2007-11-06, bfd <bfd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bernie Mikkelsen, who apparently has recovered from a stroke and is
> > back working again, has done this type of frames way before Grant:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3ahgyq
>
> The extra water bottle cages on the fork legs are interesting. I wonder
> if one could get away with that on a mountain bike that sees off-road
> use.
With a suspension fork, you could use 'em to mix Margaritas.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 12:04:45
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 9:52 am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > > I still dont get it...
>
> > Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
> http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/drunk.jpg
>
> /s
Shit, it made me dizzy.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 14:11:37
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
>>> Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>>>> I still dont get it...
>> Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
> Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/drunk.jpg
andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> Shit, it made me dizzy.
Typical view of 'woman at bar time'.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:48:18
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:11:37 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
>Typical view of 'woman at bar time'.
Only if you're lying on your side and she's upright. Otherwise the
duplication would be sideways.
Jasper
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 10:40:40
From: bfd
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 7:56 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > > I still dont get it...
>
> > Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
> I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>
> As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
> practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
> aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
> priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
>
> I'm sure The Grant will find a few mesmerized suckers to buy that
> silly POS, though.
Bernie Mikkelsen, who apparently has recovered from a stroke and is
back working again, has done this type of frames way before Grant:
http://tinyurl.com/3ahgyq
So, if you are tall, need a double top tube for support and don't
necessarily want all the flash of an AHH, Bernie can make it. Further,
he will custom fit it to your specific needs and I bet its less
expensive than the Riv. Of course, the Riv is lugged and has the fancy
paint job, so it may be an apples and oranges comparison.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 19:50:18
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On 2007-11-06, bfd <bfd853@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bernie Mikkelsen, who apparently has recovered from a stroke and is
> back working again, has done this type of frames way before Grant:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ahgyq
The extra water bottle cages on the fork legs are interesting. I wonder
if one could get away with that on a mountain bike that sees off-road
use.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 10:24:02
From: Kerry Montgomery
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
"Rik O'Shea" <rikoshea@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1194347889.563112.47160@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> A modern double top tube...
> http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> I still dont get it...
>
Rik,
Thanks very much for this posting - I hadn't heard anything about the first
Oregon Handmade Bicycle Show - will definitely go there.
Thanks again,
Kerry
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 17:53:41
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
> practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
> aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
> priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
Big fat aluminum frames in such sizes would be lovely, if anybody made
them. But if you need a size that mainstream manufacturers won't
provide, you have to get one from a framebuilder. And if you get a
frame from a framebuilder, you'll get it in the material he or she
works with.
I was able to get a big fat brazed steel frame (2" downtube, 1.5" top
& seat tubes) from David Bohm of Tucson AZ. It was an ordeal for him
to make it. Several other "custom" builders including Waterford
Precision told me they would not do my project. (I did not specify
that I needed big tubes, only that I wanted the frame length-- top
tube and chainstays-- to scale up with the frame size.)
There are some features, like lugs, that aren't available for
seriously oversized frame tubes. If you want your own special bike to
have those, you'll be using pretty conventional diameters of tubing.
It would make sense to use tubes with walls thick enough to delver the
requisite stiffness, but I think it offends the sensibilities of many
builders to use straight-gauge aircraft chromoly or the equivalent in
order to meet the challenge. Certainly Dave Bohm did not think that
straight gauge tubing of any kind would be a worthy material to use in
my frame.
The kinds of reinforcement that work well for very large frames and
traditionally sized tubing are all on display in tandem frames. The
"single marathon" frame design (large tube from middle of head tube to
middle of seat tube, third set of stays from that point to the
dropouts) works as well for a large single frame as it does for a
tandem, and to my eyes it looks very nice too. Full length mixte-
style stays also do the job, as does a "direct lateral" tube to the BB
shell.
>From my own experience, and speaking as a rider who is not only very
tall but also very heavy, I can say that frame flex is not nearly as
annoying or debilitating as its reputation would suggest-- that is, so
long as the parts attached to that frame are not themselves twisty and
flexible. I have an old 68.5cm 1970s Nishiki road bike with a 1" top
tube and 1-1/8" down tube, and it provides me a fine ride with which I
have no complaint. But the bike is fitted with a rugged BMX crank
with a solid 22mm spindle, slingshot-type MTB stem holding very thick-
walled motocross handlebars, and stout 48-spoke wheels. The frame's
sway is perceptible, but the overall effect is that of a pretty solid
bike.
I reckon that folks who are bothered by flex on an old or old-
fashioned road bike frame would do well to try one of the new external
bearing cranks with a big steel spindle. That alone would probably
make enough difference to restore a confidence-inspiring feel.
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:33:25
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Rik O'Shea wrote:
> A modern double top tube...
> http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
> I still dont get it...
'it's for selling'
btw, Pereira was in the NYTimes yesterday, with photo!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 08:16:01
From: landotter
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 9:56 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > > I still dont get it...
>
> > Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
> I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>
> As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
> practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
> aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
> priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
Usenet needs an eyewash station. That's just UGLY. I agree, though I'm
a fan of simple tig welded steel frames for the visual simplicity--if
you're an ogre, then use appropriate materials.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 07:56:14
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 9:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > I still dont get it...
>
> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
As much as I appreciate 'traditional construction', there is a
practical limit. A frame that size needs oversized tubes. Big, fat,
aluminum tubes would probably work well and allow a strong, rationally
priced frame that doesn't look just plain stupid.
I'm sure The Grant will find a few mesmerized suckers to buy that
silly POS, though.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:31:46
From: still me
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:56:14 -0800, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>
Is that to the center of the top tube or to the center of the er,...
ah... other tube?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 10:39:58
From: Kerry Montgomery
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8114j35r3pbu1088f1e9aptajh3thkttc6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:56:14 -0800, Ozark Bicycle
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
>>I've seen it. Apparently, no 69cm, but a 72cm is available.
>>
>
>
> Is that to the center of the top tube or to the center of the er,...
> ah... other tube?
>
>
Is that to the center of the top tube or to the top of the center tube?
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 15:52:47
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 10:38 am, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > I still dont get it...
>
> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/drunk.jpg
/s
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 07:38:23
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> I still dont get it...
Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 23:15:01
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>>
>> I still dont get it...
>
> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>
Are your sure that is not the new Rivendell "Homer J. Simpson" prototype?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 15:25:21
From: still me
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:15:01 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>>
>Are your sure that is not the new Rivendell "Homer J. Simpson" prototype?
doh!
I wonder if they put 650s in that frame?
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 12:05:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
still me wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:15:01 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
>>>
>> Are your sure that is not the new Rivendell "Homer J. Simpson" prototype?
>
> doh!
>
> I wonder if they put 650s in that frame?
Read the description for yourself. 700Cs in the AHH.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 00:50:23
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
In article
<1194363503.884843.92250@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:18 am, Rik O'Shea <rikos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > A modern double top tube...http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
> >
> > I still dont get it...
>
> Ozark's gonna love this one, a 69cm A. Homer Hilsen:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jjeg
Sized for ISO 584 tires?
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 05:28:57
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On Nov 6, 4:41 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Rik O'Shea wrote:
> > A modern double top tube...
> >http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> > I still dont get it...
>
> It keeps the down and top-top-tube from flexing as the head tube bends
> downwards, as (we might suppose) under hard front braking.
>
> The stubby head tube used is not optimal for the advantage however.
>
> Even sillier is the Flying Merkel-style style fork bars (-missing the
> crown brace, and therefore rather useless).
> ~
Actually, what happened is that they guy took that bike out for a spin
and the first time he had to brake, he bent the top tube. To prevent
the top tube from bending any further, he brazed it with an extra top
tube. the extra tubes on the front are for aerodynamics.
Andres
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 15:45:29
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
On 2007-11-06, andresmuro@aol.com <andresmuro@aol.com > wrote:
> On Nov 6, 4:41 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>> Rik O'Shea wrote:
>> > A modern double top tube...
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>>
>> > I still dont get it...
[...]
>> Even sillier is the Flying Merkel-style style fork bars (-missing the
>> crown brace, and therefore rather useless).
>
> Actually, what happened is that they guy took that bike out for a spin
> and the first time he had to brake, he bent the top tube. To prevent
> the top tube from bending any further, he brazed it with an extra top
> tube. the extra tubes on the front are for aerodynamics.
Actually, the extra tubes make the front end laterally stiff yet
vertically compliant.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 05:41:01
From: DougC
Subject: Re: A modern double top tube
|
Rik O'Shea wrote:
> A modern double top tube...
> http://tinyurl.com/3ydhhm
>
> I still dont get it...
>
It keeps the down and top-top-tube from flexing as the head tube bends
downwards, as (we might suppose) under hard front braking.
The stubby head tube used is not optimal for the advantage however.
Even sillier is the Flying Merkel-style style fork bars (-missing the
crown brace, and therefore rather useless).
~
|
|
