Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Where I am on...

The rSogn:

  • Rear-facing seat post clamp slot
  • Lowrider and water bottle mounts for the low-trail fork
  • Three water bottle mounts on the frame
  • Seatstay rack mounts
  • Equidistance rear fender mounts facing the tire
  • Brake cable stops at 10 o’clock
  • Stainless steel chain hanger
  • Down tube shifter mounts
  • 132.5 rear spacing. Or should it be 130? 135?
  • TIG-welded (not filet-brazed) pump peg on the seat tube similar to this:

Anything else?



stevep33 said...

132.5 is great.

John McMurry said...

I'm not a big fan of excess braze-ons, so would recommend against the water bottle bosses on the fork.

Other than that, it's sounding great!

rory said...

the pump peg on the seat tube is awesome, however, justy make sure the valve for the pump is pointed towards the bottom. from my experience of mounting it both ways, you want the valve to be on the bottom to drain any water out, where as if the pump handle was on the bottom, it holds water and grit, and causes degradation in the pump faster.

Jim G said...

Water-bottle mounts on the low-trail fork? Frankly I'm not interested in that, but if others want/need it, OK.

Seatstay rack mounts -- good.

Stainless chain hanger -- AWESOME!

DT shift bosses -- YES.

132.5 spacing -- why would you do it any other way?


Sean said...

Jim G, water bottle mounts on the fork would allow one to use a frame bag if desired. Unlike the Snekka, the low-trail rSogn will handle just fine with water bottles mounted on the fork.

John Grasty said...

I definitely agree with Jim G re: the ST pump peg fitting a known pump.

Anonymous said...

I've come a long way. But I don't think I'll ever go far enough to get to frame bags. I don't even like the sound of them. Frame bag. Ew.


Scott Gamble said...

Waterbottle bosses on the fork - YES.  Hell yes as a matter of fact.  Even capped and unused I think they look great.   I'm a biiig fan of the frame bag and having the bottle options out there is great.  Or heck, just extra water or fuel for long tours.  I like it I like it I like it!

Chain hanger and the pump peg I could take it or leave em but appreciate the value others have for them - I think it's nice bit of detail work.

DT bosses are money.  They're too universally useful not to have em.

Same for the seat stay rack mounts.

132.5 is perfect 

Hell Sean, just tell me where to send my deposit already.  I'm stoked.

Anonymous said...

* Rear-facing seat post clamp slot:

Great, be careful to provide enough space for using the Surly cable hanger.

* Lowrider and water bottle mounts for the low-trail fork:

Is the rSogn going to be a fire engine? I have never seen somebody complain about missing water bottle mounts on the fork (and even less so with the frame having a full three sets). Please don't ruin the nice lines of fork crown and blades.

* Three water bottle mounts on the frame

Two would do for me, but if there is need for three that's fine.

* Seatstay rack mounts:

As I mentioned before you might consider putting them on the inside of the seat stays (using water bottle mount hardware).

* Equidistance rear fender mounts facing the tire:


* Brake cable stops at 10 o’clock:


* Stainless steel chain hanger:

Not necessary for me, but obviously many others like them.

* Down tube shifter mounts:


* 132.5 rear spacing. Or should it be 130? 135?

135mm seems the logical choice for a more off- than on-road bike like this. I never understood the 132.5 which don't really fit either size. Those who really need 130mm could also cold set the frame.

* TIG-welded (not filet-brazed) pump peg on the seat tube:

If it fits a good pump model, otherwise I would not use it.

Michael_S said...

Please, please.... no fork water bottle mounts. Just ugly! and unnecessary, it's not a full bore touring bike! ...those people can buy a Fargo. Or put the extra water in bags.

Everything else sounds just perfect.

Lonny said...

Voting for 132.5 for the rear spacing, everything else sounds great.

karl said...

+1 for 132.5 rear spacing. With a steel frame there is no down-side to it and it gives greater flexibility in component choice.

And thanks for the chain hanger.

I think you have the specs nailed.

alex wetmore said...

There is a downside to 132.5mm spacing. It makes inserting either 130 or 135mm wheels slower and more annoying than 130 or 135mm spacing.

Spacing is easy to change, so I don't really care.

Protorio said...


Russ said...

Not just being a yes man here, but I really like where everything is headed.

I, too, vote for a pump peg which fits a common pump in currently in production.

Spacing doesn't matter to me.

Everything else is grand.

John McMurry said...

I'm not sure why everyone's enamored with the 132.5mm spacing. I've had a few frames with that spacing and it's certainly not optimal. It's a compromise for both sizes, as you're either pulling the dropouts apart for 135mm, or pushing them in for 130mm.

For a rough stuff bike that'll see lots of gravel and dirt, 135mm makes a whole lot more sense to me.

That said, cold setting the spacing after-the-fact, isn't a deal breaker.

Stuart said...

I'm surprised at all the votes for 132.5. I'd prefer if it were 135. To me 132.5 sounds like a great idea on paper but when it gets to using it what you *really* want is for the spacing to match your hub. Apparently others feel differently.

But like Alex says, respacing is not a big deal. Though forcing everyone to respace (if they want a perfect fit) seems like a weird choice to me.

Mostly I'm surprised at the enthusiasm for 132.5, but I can live with whatever. Make it 126! :)

Ryan said...

Yes 132.5! I've got several sets of 130 and 135 wheels. Sure it's no prob putting a 130 wheel in a 135 frame, and vice-versa, but 132.5 just makes perfect sense.
I like the idea of water bottle mounts on the fork. Even if i don't need all that water, they could be used for racks, lights, solar panels, stereo speakers, whatever!
I'm with Scott, just tell me where to send the check!
I'm really looking forward to this bike!

C said...

If you're going with a 650b frame then 135mm spacing makes sense. 132.5mm is a compromise and a really bad one at that. If you're going to start making such compromises why not also include disc mounts, horizontal drops, etc. all in the name of "versatility". Making everyone deal with the inconvenience doesn't strike me as very practical for anyone. Make it 135mm and the minority who really want 130mm can take it to their LBS and have them bent to 130mm.

Water bottle mounts on the fork blades seem pointless and really ugly. Vast majority of people will never need or use them. If you really need to carry that much water there are other (and better) options. If you REALLY must have that many mounts take your frame to a builder and have him add them. While you're at it have him add some to the head tube, a few on the top tube, etc.