I think a 56 or 57 would be redundant and highly unlikely. Check out the Clem brochure. Also keep in mind that the "L" version (formerly Clementine) allows for an extra 5-6cm overlap on the low side of Saddle Height ranges. Between that and the long stems and seatposts, and the extreme sweep back of bars, these bicycles are fairly adjustable and forgiving. In my opinion, other than aesthetics (and I realize that can be important) 99 percent of uses would be 100 percent fine on the "L" version. And for the types of riding the bike is built for, there are upsides.
As for a 64cm, that will be *One Big Bike*. I was told the wheelbase on the 59s is only 6" shy of a Big Dummy. If, as in the other 3 sizes, everything is proportional, you will have 58cm chainstays, 66-67cm top tube, 635/28 x 1&1/2 rims, and 180 cranks. If it gets done, my guess is it would be offered as a frame/fork, not a complete bike (and possibly only in the H or L), if only because of the shipping obstacles (and sourcing those 28x1 1/2 rims;^) On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-5, iamkeith wrote: > > Interesting rumor. Speaks to how popular the bike was , I guess. This > probably doesn't help jim but in case others dont realize it , the 59 fits > MUCH bigger than it would appear to suggest. Someone 6'-3" to 6'-4" is > probably ideal, and 6'-6" or so might bewithin the realm of "decent fit." > At 6'-2" , it is clearly too big. Personally , I hope they add one > around 56 or 57 or so. -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
