I have to agree with Keith. At 5'10" and 85 pbh, I spent some time comparing the 54 Hunq and the 52 Clem at Riv HQ. The longer stays on the Clem made the Hunq feel almost twitchy and awkward by comparison (It's not!). The Clem was just really smooth and fun and the 650b wheels felt like they were the perfect size for someone my height/proportions. What really impressed me about the longer stays was riding with Clayton and others at China Camp soon after he had bought his Cheviot. He made riding every trail look smooth and downright graceful whistling all the way while the rest of us bounced off the trails a few times. A big part of that I'm sure was riding ability but afterward he wrote a post raving about how smooth the Cheviot was for trail riding. I've always had my eye on 52 Bombadils for the stout build and the 650b wheels. Now the idea of a 54 Hunq with 650b wheels and longer stays is very appealing. Could you imagine if it might allow even wider tire clearance?! A 650b Hunq that easily supports 2.3-2.5 tires seems almost too much to ask for! I think Riv might again be ahead off a curve that everyone else might mimic in some manner later.
John On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 8:37:33 AM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > > Holly Molly. Just for the sake of voicing the counterpoint of a more > enthusiastic reaction: This could be the best Rivendell news in years! If > not EVER. > > - In terms of people claiming revolutionary results from longer stays, I > think it HAS happened. Remember when Keven - the resident race god at > RBWHQ got his mystery bike? He immediately sold his cross bike and > everything else mainstream, and became evangelizer #1 for long bikes! But > it doesn't stop there. The only bike designer who I respect as much as > Grant, who has had as significant of an impact on modern bike design, and > who made my one bike I love more than my All Rounder is Jeff Jones. He's > pretty much moved all of his development and promotional energy to *his* > long bike, the Plus! He's so enamored with it and wants it to reach as > many people as possible, that he's already expanded the line to include > *three* sizes a year after first offering it. Which is two sizes more > than he was willing to do with his short-stay model! > > http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/staff3.htm > > > - Speaking of which, the notion that a long bike can't be can't be a > capable offroad machine is nonsense. If you believe otherwise, you really > need to watch some of these: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DJXOsP1E2Y > > https://youtu.be/z3w8dJFG8x8 > > > - On a related note: longer chainstays means it's easier to make room for > fatter tires. I know I'm an outlyer and too often vocal about this, but > lack of tire clearance is one of my biggest frustrations with Rivendell > bikes. Which is ironic in the big picture, isn't it? > > > - On the subject of too much functional overlap: Rivendell's model line > has always had a lot of overlap. Remember when you could choose between an > Atlantis, a Homer, a Rambouillet and a Roadeo? The most significant > differences were simply tire clearance and tubing thickness. I actually > think there's a *lot* more variety nowadays. Check out the diagrams I > recently posted in my "geometry comparison" thread. Current offerings can > be summarized right now as: Clem = very long front/very long rear; Hunq > = long front / short rear; Appaloosa II = short front / long rear; > Atlantis = short front / short rear. I think there's probably room to > lengthen things to varying degrees without eliminating the variety, > especially when you add in the tubing and clearance differences. > > > - The BEST part of this news though, if I read it correctly, is that some > bikes - like the Hunq. - may now be offered in the OTHER sizes?!!!!!! I > assume the upper-end models - the Homer and Atlantis - will still be > offered in smaller size increments that allow you to get a bike that fits > just perfectly - which is, to me, one of the main reasons for buying a > Rivendell. With the advent of the "expanded sizing" though, it hasn't > worked this way with all models. Depending on who you were, you either got > a bike that happened to fit perfectly, could "make due" with one of the > stock sizes but with some minor-but-less-than-ideal compromises in stem and > seatpost extensions, or didn't really fit any of the sizes no matter what. > I most often fell into the later camp. But the idea of a 56 Hunq!? Be > still, my heart! Hopefully it still has 700c wheels. And maybe eliminates > the diagatube, or uses a twin top tube?! > > As someone who often didn't fit the frames, I definitely agree that, if > one of the current bikes fits you, you should strongly consider buying one > while you can! > > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 9:23:21 PM UTC-7, drew wrote: >> >> I tend to agree. The long bike idea seems fine. I'm neither for or >> against it. I've not yet heard anyone claim revolutionary ride results, so >> I don't see it as such an immense improvement that all bikes must be long >> now. I do think the crossover is becoming redundant. Clem, joe, hunq and >> Atlantis will now be long tourish bikes capable of rough stuff. That's 4 >> out of 8 with basically the same purpose. >> I have a hunqapillar, and when I read that I was happy that I bought it >> when I did. I cannot imagine a better or more comfortable bike to be loaded >> or ridden over bouncy stuff. Also, I don't really want 650b on my 54cm >> frame. >> Anyway, I wouldn't wait, but I also wouldn't rush to buy it now. I'm sure >> the next incarnation will be just fine too >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
