Agree that the appaloosa is not comparable, with it's smaller tire clearance. The ability to fit a 2.5" tire, with fenders, is what sets the clem and hunq apart.
If one of the clems fits really well, I'd have a hard time telling someone they would should get a hunq. But don't compromise if it doesn't. I love my clem (59) but will probably swap it for a hunq now that they finally make one in my size (56). I enjoy the clem on singletrack and, if i had adequate standover clearance, might even choose it more often DESPITE the fact that i have 6 other mountain bikes to choose from. For rowdy fun on trails, i do think ultra-short chainstays are the way to go, but i enjoy the uniqueness and variety of the clem's long stays. It's almost impossible to pop the front end up and "manual" over logs and such, and requires more regular dismounts and portages. If you're not in a hurry, that's not an issue - but you should be aware. The clem's long front end makes rough descents feel confident, and difficult to endo. The "new" hunq geometries seem to have gone this way too, though. Its also an amazingly good climber if you get the handlebar position right, because you have so much room to shift your weight fore and aft as necessary. Last consideration, for someone who really wants to prioritze trail riding, is wheel size. Bigger diameter is smoother by far. So, for instance, if I fit a legacy 54 hunq, which took 29" wheels, I would absolutely choose that over a 52 clem with 650b wheels. -- 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.
