I presume goodness from Rivendell. I rode my 58cm Atlantis today and brought my tape measure just for fun. I double checked the (level) top tube length, and it's 585mm, just like the chart says.
Daniel said: "I'm hoping to use my Hunq as one of a few data points for an upcoming custom, but maybe I should just leave it out..." So Daniel, are you saying you already own a Hunqapillar, and like it, and want to provide Hunqa-numbers to your frame builder? Or are you saying you are going to buy a new Hunqapillar, and are going to use your experience on that bike to inform what you will have built custom? Or are you saying you have ridden somebody else's Hunqapillar, and want to provide Hunqa-numbers to your framebuilder so you can tell them "build me one like that"? Or is it something completely different? If it's one of the former, you could just give the framebuilder your bike and he can make any number of useful measurements to help him build exactly what you want. If it's the latter, where you don't have confidence that a geometry chart in 2016 matches exactly some previously ridden bike, that you no longer have access to, then I can see why you might punt on using it as a reference point. Bill Lindsay El Cerrito, CA On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 4:29:28 PM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > I used the Hunqapillar and Quickbeam charts to compare my 62 Hunqapillar > (original frame geometry) to the 66 Quickbeam. Riv's charts show them as > being identical in terms of how they will fit, and they are. Granted, > that's Riv chart to Riv chart, and anyone measuring a different way than > went into that chart would get a different result. > > That said, I got a measurement of 63.5 effective top tube for my > Hunqapillar, attempting to use a level and tape measure to make it > semi-accurate. Measurements easily could have ranged from 62.5-64.5 > eyeballing it. Might it be reasonable to presume goodness and > professionalism on Rivendell's part and we presume they know what they are > talking about? Perhaps they aren't measuring center to center? I have no > idea, but it seems preposterous to question Rivendell's chart based on the > info at hand. > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:19:58 PM UTC-7, Daniel Jackson wrote: >> >> Agreed...still unsure despite the word from Riv that the chart on the web >> is what waterford uses. I'm hoping to use my Hunq as one of a few data >> points for an upcoming custom, but maybe I should just leave it out... >> >> On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: >>> >>> >>> Lol . . . I wonder if Riv actually measured the frames or they just >>> looked it up somewhere as Bryan's direct measurement confirms it is indeed >>> incorrect, at least for the 62 frame. >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:44:16 PM UTC-5, Daniel Jackson wrote: >>>> >>>> OK folks. Geo chart copied above is correct for the Hunq. And the chart >>>> on the website is correct for the Hunq. Effective TT for size 58 is 60 cm. >>>> >>>> This will change of course when they release new Geos this summer... >>>> >>> -- 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.
