Dirt road touring frames"

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:45:44
From: datakoll
Subject: Dirt road touring frames"

Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
suspension except for the tires.

Date: 16 Aug 2007 02:36:11
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

that's an option ( for the new yorker or seattler or SFer) but where
were you on post 24?

another odd discovery: 700c 29's are 32 spokes (with a bridge work
cross section of good old grumman alloy) then the 26"'s are 36 spokes-
this is wind tunnel biz or what? an escapee from Cannondale?
then the euro's and uknowwho are one cavity double walls and they
advertise it as an advantage.

Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:37:33
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> that's an option ( for the new yorker or seattler or SFer) but where
> were you on post 24?...

I have never been stationed to Post 24.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:50:36
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

starting a frame comparison, first thing noticed is the narrowness of
cyclocross tires. Now I understand the photo stream of cyclocrossers
carrying cyclocross bikes.
then flaaaassshhh I unsderstoos a basic difference of dirt and road
geometry: dirt tires run in a groove. When the dirt tire turns, the
tire wall runs into the groove wall then either thru it or up and over
then into another groove after skidding across a plateau, if you're
AATW: groove geometry.
the grinning buddy bear carries a fork.

Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:11:01
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> ...
> the grinning buddy bear carries a fork.

Unless the mountain biker the bear ate was riding a Cannondale Lefty!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 03:47:19
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

landotter wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I think the fork offset on the Redline is really too short for the
> > head angle and wheel diameter; 3.2" of trail is more than necessary,
> > and the short fork offset contributes to frame drop (and therefore
> > wheel flop) when the front end is turned.
...
> > It would be improved
> > by a fork with about 2.5" to 2.75" of offset. I'm not bothered enough
> > by it to seek out a custom fork, though.
>
> Isn't that design perhaps there to comp for the possible user swap to
> a suspended fork, which would reduce the trail?

Probably so, since this is a suspension-corrected fork. However, even
a suspension-corrected fork for a 29" wheel and a recognizably MTB-
like head angle would do well to have at least 2.5" of offset. It
mostly has to do with the wheel, whose natural trail is in proportion
to its diameter.

> My Redline 925 that I've got fenderless and lean in summer mode is the
> most perfect handling wonderful bike I've had the pleasure to own.

That's a nice bike for an average-sized person. I'd switch to
reversed brake levers to clear up the bars, but otherwise it seems
pretty much good to go.

> It's spicy enough on road, does fire trails without a whimper, and I
> can ride for long distances hands free in case I need to do work on my
> laptop.

Har!

Chalo

Date: 15 Aug 2007 03:09:56
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 14, 7:56 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > Michael Press wrote:
>
> > > > What are the fork offsets?
>
> > > Cannondale touring - 2.1"
> > > Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"
>
> > Neither bicycle is particularly nifty. The Cannondale
> > has a steeper head tube angle and shorter wheelbase but
> > the Redline has a much shorter fork offset. The Redline
> > is quicker.
>
> I think the fork offset on the Redline is really too short for the
> head angle and wheel diameter; 3.2" of trail is more than necessary,
> and the short fork offset contributes to frame drop (and therefore
> wheel flop) when the front end is turned. The specifics of this bike
> are pretty tolerable, but wheel flop is clearly not equal to steering
> quickness in the conventional sense of the term. It would be improved
> by a fork with about 2.5" to 2.75" of offset. I'm not bothered enough
> by it to seek out a custom fork, though.

Isn't that design perhaps there to comp for the possible user swap to
a suspended fork, which would reduce the trail?

My Redline 925 that I've got fenderless and lean in summer mode is the
most perfect handling wonderful bike I've had the pleasure to own.
It's spicy enough on road, does fire trails without a whimper, and I
can ride for long distances hands free in case I need to do work on my
laptop.

Date: 15 Aug 2007 00:56:15
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Michael Press wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >
> > > What are the fork offsets?
> >
> > Cannondale touring - 2.1"
> > Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"
>
> Neither bicycle is particularly nifty. The Cannondale
> has a steeper head tube angle and shorter wheelbase but
> the Redline has a much shorter fork offset. The Redline
> is quicker.

I think the fork offset on the Redline is really too short for the
head angle and wheel diameter; 3.2" of trail is more than necessary,
and the short fork offset contributes to frame drop (and therefore
wheel flop) when the front end is turned. The specifics of this bike
are pretty tolerable, but wheel flop is clearly not equal to steering
quickness in the conventional sense of the term. It would be improved
by a fork with about 2.5" to 2.75" of offset. I'm not bothered enough
by it to seek out a custom fork, though.

Chalo

Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:00:32
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll crunch numbers on it.
No. I don't harbor anything about Rivendale. Yea, I paid G.Petersen a
defensive compliment aways back after 7-800 posters vilified him the
devil inbikeate. The sit up position compares with the hybrid design
area, no? that may be the following frame spec below as suggested
above.
The beach? Search google maps: san carlos, baja sur, mexico and tap
satellite. The barrier islands to the west and the strip inland
running south is da beach. No elephants.
Frame spec is elusive as touring asphalt gotta be a lot different
than touring dirt: different muscles as recently re-recognized at
TdF, different frame specs for optimum ease over a days ride.
Experience? Doesn't seem there's much direct medium distance dirt on
tap outside the frame specs. Graph specs with ad print?
Without experience, speculation: keeping the frame long and easy for
straight ahead with pack downforce on the fat knobby tires balanced
against headtube/fork angles for a Japanese sport tourer steering
reaction-with load considered (a known unknown) with the ability, not
compromising the preceeding, of a light running front (with or without
pack), easy to bring up over the soft spots or holes. And off course,
a pedaling position (an unknown known) for a generally loose surface.
I could buy lunch at the frame welders convention?
>From my general ignorance, I'm puzzled by the Redlines' 135mm rear
spacing. Why does a single gear bike carry a 135mm spacing meant for
9-8-7- cassettes?
What does brazing cost in your neck of the woods? I heard $35 a set?
Less in quantity.
This is a big deal. I rebuilt one bike now I try designing one off the
shelf for an extended run on the moon.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=bahia+magdelena,+baja&rls=com.microsoft

Date: 14 Aug 2007 22:50:51
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:00:32 -0000, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>
>Thanks for the suggestions! I'll crunch numbers on it.
>No. I don't harbor anything about Rivendale. Yea, I paid G.Petersen a
>defensive compliment aways back after 7-800 posters vilified him the
>devil inbikeate. The sit up position compares with the hybrid design
>area, no? that may be the following frame spec below as suggested
>above.
>The beach? Search google maps: san carlos, baja sur, mexico and tap
>satellite. The barrier islands to the west and the strip inland
>running south is da beach. No elephants.
>Frame spec is elusive as touring asphalt gotta be a lot different
>than touring dirt: different muscles as recently re-recognized at
>TdF, different frame specs for optimum ease over a days ride.
>Experience? Doesn't seem there's much direct medium distance dirt on
>tap outside the frame specs. Graph specs with ad print?
>Without experience, speculation: keeping the frame long and easy for
>straight ahead with pack downforce on the fat knobby tires balanced
>against headtube/fork angles for a Japanese sport tourer steering
>reaction-with load considered (a known unknown) with the ability, not
>compromising the preceeding, of a light running front (with or without
>pack), easy to bring up over the soft spots or holes. And off course,
>a pedaling position (an unknown known) for a generally loose surface.
>I could buy lunch at the frame welders convention?
>>From my general ignorance, I'm puzzled by the Redlines' 135mm rear
>spacing. Why does a single gear bike carry a 135mm spacing meant for
>9-8-7- cassettes?
>What does brazing cost in your neck of the woods? I heard $35 a set?
>Less in quantity.
>This is a big deal. I rebuilt one bike now I try designing one off the
>shelf for an extended run on the moon.

Redline used to make SS hubs that were narrow, like their BMX. They couldn't
interchange with other bikes and wheels causing gnashing of teeth.

To tour long dirt and pave I'd take my old school steel mtb the 88 Fisher and
slap some trekker bars or even a mustache on it, bolt up racks and call the
thing ready. It's already got 2" checkerboard tires and fenders and a crappy
rear rack.

Ron

Date: 14 Aug 2007 09:19:33
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll wrote:
>
> there'sChalo'sRedline single suggestion but I don't know if the
> dropouts and dropout spacing can be modified to 135mm 8 speed with
> deray tab?

I post and reply to the following back channel email exchange in this
group at Gene's request:

[datakoll] wrote:
>
> Chalo-
>
> Please put your email online!! It's essential.
> YOU are riding the Redline monodog as a single speed? Not only as shop
> stock?

It's my own bike. I set it up with a SRAM Spectro 7 speed gearhub,
though.

> What's a front opening dropout?

Technically, a "dropout" is only a dropout if the wheel can be removed
without first lifting off the chain, so vertical dropouts and
horizontal dropouts ('80s bikes and earlier) all count. Track
"dropouts" (technically fork ends), BMX dropouts, and pre-WWII cruiser
dropouts all open towards the rear, and therefore are not dropouts in
the strictest sense. Adapter claw-type derailleur hangers are pretty
much all made for horizontal dropouts.

> The 29er fire road special should stabilize between front and rear wheels
> not pivot on the rear for getting around street and boulders but fit into
> the slow end of a sports tourer road category then get the wide tires into
> the platform.
> Do you feel the Monodog will carry a camping load?

Yes, in that it's plenty rugged and stiff, even under my almost 350
pound weight. No, in that it totally lacks eyelets for any kind of
racks.

The Monocog 29er has a heavy frame made of large diameter CrMo steel
tubing, so it's very strong and relatively stiff. With the addition
of rack eyelets it would be a capable loaded tourer. Adding brazeons
would be a relatively expensive enhancement to a relatively
inexpensive frame, though, especially if you wanted to restore the
paint afterwards.

> I don't know how to guess
> at that yet beyond wondering if an MTB frame is up to it-again the
> chainstays, rear pivot tree dodgem geometry.

The chainstays of a 29er are pretty long-- The Monocog's are 17.5" to
18" depending on chain length. Some manufacturers resort to foolish
measures to shorten them, like the s-bend seat tube of the Surly
Karate Monkey, or a 73mm BB shell. Shorter than 18" chainstays are of
no practical benefit on a bike with 29" wheels, which is necessarily
going to be a pretty big bike.

> I'm gonna see about the Cannondale geometry tomorrow and place it over
> several frame types. I formed an opinion the C-ville people are effectively
> crazy.
> Great analysis!
> Use it? Oh yeah. The animal communications research I work at develops from
> the bike-covering ground outside and visible to the wee critters- and from a
> kayak. Shopping also-the gas van can stay parked. I'm hording $10 MO end of
> season parts.
>
> Gene Daniels
>
> chalo wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> >
> > how does the average consumer of the bikes in these categories develop
> > an informed opinion of the top 3 choices?
>
> Me? I start by eliminating hokey things, like integrated headsets,
> curved tubes, nonstandard BB width or nonstandard anything else.
>
> All candidates have to pass another filter, which is "do I believe
> this bike will last if I ride it?"
>
> Then, I look for the things that will make the bike fit me better, or
> make it easier to fit to me with normal parts. If a bike has a 23
> point something inch top tube, I know I'll have to come up with a
> ridiculously long stem to make it work. So I favor things with top
> tubes 25" or longer.
>
> I like long chainstays, the longer the better. The taller the bike,
> the longer the chainstays should be, to keep from putting all the
> weight on the rear tire. Manufacturers don't seem to get this.
>
> I like slack head angles because they lengthen the bike's wheelbase
> and make it track straighter. So all else equal, I give bonus points
> for slack head angles.
>
> Seat angle is somewhat negotiable, since between different posts and
> seat adjustment, I can get at least 4" of range. I like 70 degrees if
> I have the choice.
>
> Other than that, it comes down to details. 1" or 1-1/8" fork? For
> me, bigger is better. Do I get dropout eyelets with that? Will my
> wife approve of the color?
>
> All these factors must be evaluated within the framework of "do I
> need this bike?" (Answer is always no.) And "am I willing to pay what
> this bike costs?"
>
> My 29er frame was cheap; about $200. I already had most of the parts
> to build it up. It was an easy decision.
>
> > does your Redline moncog adapt to 8 speed deore with a drill and
> > adapter plate for rear deray, then triple CR BB?
>
> The Monocog frame has rear-opening dropouts, so to mount a derailleur,
> you could do one of two things:
>
> 1) Use an adapter claw for a front opening dropout, but have to remove
> it every time you remove the wheel-- basically like having your
> derailleur mounted to an axle washer.
>
> 2) Braze on a hanger tab to the bottom edge of the dropout. Andy Muzi
> could easily do this, but it will burn the paint around that area.
>
> > how wide a tire can it take? a 2.1"
>
> I run 2.35" slick tires on big fat 38mm wide rims, and there's about
> 6mm of minimum clearance on each side at the chainstays.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chalo

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:14:07
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 13, 6:36 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> i agree: readhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29er_(bicycle)
>
> i'm 6'4" looking to ride fire road/dirt road/beach road/railroad with
> camping load that is nooooo tree dodgem, no careeening downhill,
> definitely noooooo careening uphill
> ROLLING! NEWTON.
> Does wiki deal with centripital and/or centrifugal effect? ask the
> fallen in the TdF rain trial. A mighty tool for sand traps?
> Chosing a rim with steel eyelets having width for 2.1" low profile
> knobs and width for the widest slick is no problem in 700c. Granted
> the wild assortment of 26" isn't there but that lessens the potential
> for buying crap.
> super knobby? take a look at the conti vapor.
> choosing geometry is the problem.
> I'll try using the exotic cannondale as a template for the lesser rigs
> and sample that method a few times.
> there's Chalo's Redline single suggestion but I don't know if the
> dropouts and dropout spacing can be modified to 135mm 8 speed with
> deray tab? it's got the real price from which all others could be
> judged even if the welders escaped from an asylum not packed in
> Wisconsin made in China price.

The Redline Monocog is already spaced 135, but there's no good way to
mount a rear derailleur on it. If you're only shooting for 8 speeds,
then maybe a Nexus 8 hub would do the trick? I have one that I put on
my oldest mountain bike, and it's endless fun to ride. With 42-19
native gearing, I have a 35-90 inch range, which gets me up the
steepest hills I need to, and I only spin out my big gear going down
that same steep hill. Cruising the flats, I'm usually in 6th or 7th,
and on most hills, I don't go below 2nd.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:29:36
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 13, 3:19 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1186979272.943081.106...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Nate Knutson <biken...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> > > sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> > > should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> > > surfaces.
> > > the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> > > with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.
>
> > 29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
> > geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
> > high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
> > handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
> > road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
> > others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
> > For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
> > be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
> > chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
> > be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
> > touring bikes have low BB height.
>
> What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
> provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
> bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
> surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
> standstill.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 10:06:10
From: Bob Quindazzi
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:29:36 -0700, Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net >
wrote:

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
>portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

Quite the opposite. The higher the center of gravity, the easier it
is to balance.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:41:22
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Bob Quindazzi wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:29:36 -0700, Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
>> portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.
>
>
> Quite the opposite. The higher the center of gravity, the easier it
> is to balance.

And the less fun to ride.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:11:42
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article
<1187058576.816582.63950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net > wrote:

> On Aug 13, 3:19 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1186979272.943081.106...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Nate Knutson <biken...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> > > > sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> > > > should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> > > > surfaces.
> > > > the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> > > > with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.
> >
> > > 29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
> > > geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
> > > high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
> > > handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
> > > road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
> > > others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
> > > For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
> > > be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
> > > chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
> > > be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
> > > touring bikes have low BB height.
> >
> > What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
> > provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
> > bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
> > surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
> > standstill.
>
> In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
> portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

No. With the weight higher a lateral displacement makes
a smaller angular displacement, allowing the rider more
time to correct; hence greater dynamic stability.

--
Michael Press

Date: 14 Aug 2007 02:04:47
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 13, 5:28 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
>
> What are the fork offsets?

Cannondale touring - 2.1"
Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"

Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:36:32
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article
<1187057087.472225.77600@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Aug 13, 5:28 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > What are the fork offsets?
>
> Cannondale touring - 2.1"
> Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"

head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0" 457 mm
top tube (effective) 23.5" 597
BB drop 2.6" 66
wheelbase 42.5" 1080
trail 2.0" 51
fork offset 53

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21" 533
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5" 444
top tube 25.2" 640
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 65
wheelbase 44.5" 1130
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 81
fork offset 38

Neither bicycle is particularly nifty. The Cannondale
has a steeper head tube angle and shorter wheelbase but
the Redline has a much shorter fork offset. The Redline
is quicker.

--
Michael Press

Date: 14 Aug 2007 01:40:49
From: Your Name Here
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll wrote:
>
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

You might want to look at Rivendell's new 700c Hilson. Lots of fender and
tire room I understand. Made for all around adventure riding.

Phil
>

Date: 13 Aug 2007 21:04:20
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Your Name Here aka Phil Bickford wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
>> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
>> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
>> suspension except for the tires.
>
>
> You might want to look at Rivendell's new 700c Hilson. Lots of fender and
> tire room I understand. Made for all around adventure riding.

gene buying a Rivendell [1]? The idea boggles the mind!

[1] "Riverdwell" in gene-speak.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 01:36:04
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

i agree: read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29er_(bicycle)

i'm 6'4" looking to ride fire road/dirt road/beach road/railroad with
camping load that is nooooo tree dodgem, no careeening downhill,
definitely noooooo careening uphill
ROLLING! NEWTON.
Does wiki deal with centripital and/or centrifugal effect? ask the
fallen in the TdF rain trial. A mighty tool for sand traps?
Chosing a rim with steel eyelets having width for 2.1" low profile
knobs and width for the widest slick is no problem in 700c. Granted
the wild assortment of 26" isn't there but that lessens the potential
for buying crap.
super knobby? take a look at the conti vapor.
choosing geometry is the problem.
I'll try using the exotic cannondale as a template for the lesser rigs
and sample that method a few times.
there's Chalo's Redline single suggestion but I don't know if the
dropouts and dropout spacing can be modified to 135mm 8 speed with
deray tab? it's got the real price from which all others could be
judged even if the welders escaped from an asylum not packed in
Wisconsin made in China price.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:40:51
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article <1186958744.715002.320850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
>dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
>suspension except for the tires.
>

Why not stick with a 26" wheel for this? While 29'ers might have
some advantages for rough stuff, I can't see it for your
basic dirt road.

There are 26" steel tourers around ( Bruce Gordon, LHT in the
small sizes), they take fatter tires and for the same amount
of suspension( ie. tire width ), the wheels are either stronger
or lighter.

The problem as I see it is tires, outside of the swable big Apple
there really isn't much in the way of tires bigger than 38mm
that aren't super knobbies. You can get minimal tread 48mm[1]
in 26" size that will work well for this kind of use and not
be a dog for the occasional section of paved road. IMHO, you
want fat and minimal tread for this kind of stuff.

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Avocet Cross II's

Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:24:23
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

WHAT ARE WE
> DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
> winter rally?

good cartoon foundation.
waterfall/trestle
bear wearing giro helmet digs hole in cinders
bear hides in woods with buddy bear
cyclist approachs
bear pulls up sixpack ...

Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:12:00
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

> So which one has aggressive geometry? which grizzzzly likes budweiser in cans?

how does the average consumer of the bikes in these categories develop
an informed opinion of the top 3 choices?
I am overwhelemd.
the geometry mind set allowing the consumer to quickly evaluate one
frame to the other is not easily formed.
take the example you offer: quickly i go to actual seat post length
but get lost on ASPL's relationship to headtube angle and trail
quicksanding into the mental abyss caused by forming the pack weight f/
r subset. the only grip I have is backwards yeilds better always
uphill (maybe given all those tire knobs) while forwards ASPL yields
better acceleration.
Confusion on frame spec is deviously exacerbated when avoidong a full
flat sideon frame view, instead as with Surly and Redline, pivoting
the frame shot so no one can interpret it due to the warped
perspective.

I am pleased that cannondale offers a rock mtn shpt of the C-ville
29er with ludicruse monoposto fork AND C-ville people write good like
me.

does your Redline moncog adapt to 8 speed deore with a drill and
adapter plate for rear deray, then triple CR BB?
how wide a tire can it take? a 2.1"

the tire width sand gravel problem. gravel roads and loose sand roads
have a solid berm. beach sand is wet and hard. the riding problem is
patchs of looser stuff and the lowering of endo odds with a wider
tire. For example, if in the hypothetic riding day the rider stumbles
thru 3-4 loose patchs per hour causing loss of control then that is
literally out of hand. Butbutbut if control loss from loose surface
occurs 2-3 times a day then maybe we can cope, probbbabbbly thru
paying more attention to the road surface and less time spacing out on
the scenery-and off course that raises a critical point! WHAT ARE WE
DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
winter rally?

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:12:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> ...
> the tire width sand gravel problem. gravel roads and loose sand roads
> have a solid berm. beach sand is wet and hard. the riding problem is
> patchs of looser stuff and the lowering of endo odds with a wider
> tire. For example, if in the hypothetic riding day the rider stumbles
> thru 3-4 loose patchs per hour causing loss of control then that is
> literally out of hand. Butbutbut if control loss from loose surface
> occurs 2-3 times a day then maybe we can cope, probbbabbbly thru
> paying more attention to the road surface and less time spacing out on
> the scenery-and off course that raises a critical point! WHAT ARE WE
> DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
> winter rally?

If gene is riding along the beach, it is not surprising that the scenery
is distracting him from the road ahead. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 13 Aug 2007 10:04:57
From: Tom Schmitz
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186958744.715002.320850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.
>
Gene -

I'm having good luck with the Nashbar Touring frame, but it is aluminum. Why
do you want a ferocious frame?

I use it for commuting and ride it under and over all sorts of things.
Railroad tracks, down stairs, dirt roads, sand drifts. I'm around 200 pounds
and tend to be hard on things and it's holding up well at several thousand
miles.

It's not too bad for a cheap Chinee thing. Scads of clearance all around;
I'm running 700X37s on it with fenders and there's room for more. Plenty of
room for a center stand. Three water bottle bosses, canti studs, rack attach
points front and rear. Watch for a sale and it can come pretty cheap.

Downsides are:

No "Wow" factor. It's just a frame and, egad, it comes from Nashbar.
Fork is on the heavy side. Silly set up for the lawyer lips. Awful,
actually.
Sizing is not really true - I have what they call a 60 and it is 60 to the
top of the seat tube, but to the top of the top tube it's more like a 56.
That's the biggest size they have.
Hope you like green, cuz that's the only color it comes in.

Pictures available on request.

Cheers,

Tom

Date: 13 Aug 2007 09:09:15
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 13, 3:24 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
>
> > ...whether you actually want the kind of
> > aggressive geometry that 9'ers and cross bikes all have....
>
> As it so happens, my newest two frames are a touring bike and a 29er
> MTB. I'll furnish some dimensions for you so you can discern for
> yourself which one is more "aggressive":
>
> Cannondale CAAD Touring frame, size Jumbo:
> head angle 73
> seat angle 72.5
> chainstays 18.0"
> top tube (effective) 23.5"
> BB drop 2.6"
> wheelbase 42.5"
> trail 2.0"
>
> Redline Monocog 29er, size 21"
> head angle 72
> seat angle 73
> chainstays 17.5"
> top tube 25.2"
> BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
> wheelbase 44.5"
> trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
>
> So which one has aggressive geometry?
>
> Chalo

Yes, I made a generalization, but for a touring bike, the Cannondale's
BB drop is small and the ht angle is steep.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 12:11:46
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 4:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

Surley, Gunnar

Date: 13 Aug 2007 10:24:59
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Nate Knutson wrote:
>
> ...whether you actually want the kind of
> aggressive geometry that 9'ers and cross bikes all have....

As it so happens, my newest two frames are a touring bike and a 29er
MTB. I'll furnish some dimensions for you so you can discern for
yourself which one is more "aggressive":

Cannondale CAAD Touring frame, size Jumbo:
head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0"
top tube (effective) 23.5"
BB drop 2.6"
wheelbase 42.5"
trail 2.0"

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21"
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5"
top tube 25.2"
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
wheelbase 44.5"
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)

So which one has aggressive geometry?

Chalo

Date: 13 Aug 2007 15:28:25
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article
<1187000699.989460.117500@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com >
,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

> Nate Knutson wrote:
> >
> > ...whether you actually want the kind of
> > aggressive geometry that 9'ers and cross bikes all have....
>
> As it so happens, my newest two frames are a touring bike and a 29er
> MTB. I'll furnish some dimensions for you so you can discern for
> yourself which one is more "aggressive":
>
> Cannondale CAAD Touring frame, size Jumbo:
> head angle 73
> seat angle 72.5
> chainstays 18.0"
> top tube (effective) 23.5"
> BB drop 2.6"
> wheelbase 42.5"
> trail 2.0"
>
> Redline Monocog 29er, size 21"
> head angle 72
> seat angle 73
> chainstays 17.5"
> top tube 25.2"
> BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
> wheelbase 44.5"
> trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
>
> So which one has aggressive geometry?

What are the fork offsets?

head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0" 457 mm
top tube (effective) 23.5" 597
BB drop 2.6" 66
wheelbase 42.5" 1080
trail 2.0" 51

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21" 533
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5" 444
top tube 25.2" 640
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 65
wheelbase 44.5" 1130
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 81

--
Michael Press

Date: 13 Aug 2007 09:46:28
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Gary Jacobson wrote:
>
> A 29er refers to a mountain bike with a high BB. You want a touring bike
> with capacity for fat tires I think.

BB height is dependent upon the tires. A touring bike with a 10.5" BB
height on 28mm tires becomes a 29er with an 11.5" BB when 54mm tires
are mounted (if they can be mounted). A 29" MTB on skinny tires
becomes a low-BB road bike with a tall front end.

BB drop is the measurement of interest for such comparisons.

Chalo

Date: 12 Aug 2007 21:27:52
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> surfaces.
> the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
touring bikes have low BB height.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 15:19:29
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article
<1186979272.943081.106570@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Nate Knutson <bikenate@riseup.net > wrote:

> On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> > sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> > should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> > surfaces.
> > the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> > with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.
>
> 29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
> geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
> high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
> handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
> road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
> others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
> For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
> be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
> chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
> be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
> touring bikes have low BB height.

What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
standstill.

--
Michael Press

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:08:26
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote:
> In article
> <1186979272.943081.106570@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Nate Knutson <bikenate@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
>>> sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
>>> should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
>>> surfaces.
>>> the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
>>> with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.
>> 29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
>> geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
>> high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
>> handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
>> road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
>> others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
>> For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
>> be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
>> chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
>> be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
>> touring bikes have low BB height.
>
> What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
> provides better dynamic stability....

Better is a subjective matter. It is certainly easier to balance at very
low speeds with a high combined bicycle/rider CG, but this also slows
the response. With a very low combined CG (e.g. 50 cm), the bike can be
steered with very little input, which is its own kind of fun.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:06:53
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

In article <1186958744.715002.320850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

Gunnar Crosshairs would probably be a good solution.

Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:16:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
>> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
>> suspension except for the tires.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Gunnar Crosshairs would probably be a good solution.

Depends on preferred tire width, Gunnar Rock Hound 29 can go fatter.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 13 Aug 2007 03:53:18
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 11:47 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 5:09 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
> >> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
> >>> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> >>> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> >>> suspension except for the tires.
> >> See <http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/02_Febbraio/04/fdg/BICI.jpg>.
>
> >> --
>
> > Isn't that Sheldon?
>
> Maybe Didi Senft is Sheldon's long lost German cousin?
>
> Just like Sheldon, Didi is riding a trike these days:
> <http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/03/soccercycleR280306_450x310.jpg>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
> Point" - gene daniels
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

right! off Somalia. do we need a bumper sticker on DiDi?

Date: 13 Aug 2007 03:35:45
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
surfaces.
the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:24:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll wrote:
> Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> surfaces.
> the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

even 2.3's can't handle sand or loose rounded gravel - you need to go
with atv tires if that's your objective.

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:21:43
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 3:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

It really depends on what tire sizes you want access to, what kind of
weight you're carrying, what braze-ons you want/need, whether you want
to be able to run discs, whether you actually want the kind of
aggressive geometry that 9'ers and cross bikes all have, and how
strong/heavy it needs to be.

If you actually intend to ride sand much, you're going to want access
to very fat tires, like 2.3's, which rules out cross and touring bikes
and limits your options quite a bit for 9er framesets. And it still
won't be that great even with the 2.3, so it might be worth not caring
about the sand thing.

Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:52:24
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 5:09 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
> > Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> > dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> > suspension except for the tires.
>
> See <http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/02_Febbraio/04/fdg/BICI.jpg>.
>
> --

Isn't that Sheldon?

Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:47:21
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Aug 12, 5:09 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote:
>> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>>
>>> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
>>> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
>>> suspension except for the tires.
>> See <http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/02_Febbraio/04/fdg/BICI.jpg>.
>>
>> --
>
> Isn't that Sheldon?

Maybe Didi Senft is Sheldon's long lost German cousin?

Just like Sheldon, Didi is riding a trike these days:
<http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/03/soccercycleR280306_450x310.jpg >.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
�the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
Point� - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 21:41:29
From: Gary Jacobson
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Date: 13 Aug 2007 00:51:03
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Date: 12 Aug 2007 17:49:43
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

On Aug 12, 5:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

Any touring bike that's capable of fat enough tires would be fine. For
my buck, I'd go for a complete Surly Cross-Check if I was touring
light or an LHT if going heavy. Both are tremendous deals as complete
bikes.

If I was on a budget, I'd grab a Windsor Tourist, some Sapim DB
spokes, a six pack of beer, and spend an evening making the wheels
stupid strong.

It really all depends on how much you are going to carry, and if you
want a touring bike geometry or something more responsive.

The Jamis Aurora and Bianchi Volpe would also make my value list.

Whichever bike I chose, I'd likely swap the tires for what the journey
called for, and the bars for either a Nitto Noodle in super wide, or a
moustache bar. You want leverage when the pave ends.

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:09:01
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.

See <http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/02_Febbraio/04/fdg/BICI.jpg >.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Humans are not Peterbilt trucks..." - Jobst Brandt

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:11:12
From: Gary Jacobson
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

The Rivendell Atlantis in 58 and over uses 700 C wheels. I can't imagine a
frame with greater tire clearance. I use a 56cm model which is designed
around 26 inch wheels, for off road commuting and rough roads where
everyone else uses mountain bikes.

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186958744.715002.320850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
> suspension except for the tires.
>

Date: 13 Aug 2007 23:32:53
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

Gary Jacobson wrote:
> The Rivendell Atlantis in 58 and over uses 700 C wheels. I can't imagine a
> frame with greater tire clearance. I use a 56cm model which is designed
> around 26 inch wheels, for off road commuting and rough roads where
> everyone else uses mountain bikes.
>

Why spend that much when he can get a Soma DoubleCross which fits large
700c tires?

>
> "datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1186958744.715002.320850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
>> dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
>> suspension except for the tires.
>>

Greg

--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:40:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Dirt road touring frames"

G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? wrote:
> Gary Jacobson wrote:
>> The Rivendell Atlantis in 58 and over uses 700 C wheels. I can't
>> imagine a frame with greater tire clearance. I use a 56cm model which
>> is designed around 26 inch wheels, for off road commuting and rough
>> roads where everyone else uses mountain bikes.
>>
>
> Why spend that much when he can get a Soma DoubleCross which fits large
> 700c tires?

You do not get to be a "hobbit" riding a Soma.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com