Shaun, Based on my experience and research, I love the design of the Atlantis. However, it's a pricey option so I'm considering a LHT instead. The only thing about the Trucker that concerns me is the chainstay length of 46cm (compared to the 44cm chainstays of the Atlantis). You've ridden both so did you notice an appreciable difference in the ride/handling that can be attributed to that additional 2cm of chainstay length on the LHT?
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:19:05 AM UTC-5, meehan...@gmail.com wrote: > I've got a 64cm LHT that replaced a 68cm Atlantis. There is probably 1 or > 2 more cm of seatpost showing on the Trucker but I feel more comfortable on > it. With spacers on the steerer the vertical relationship beween the saddle > and the bars is the same as on the Atlantis (bars slightly higher than > saddle). I sized the Atlantis based on PBH, as RBW recommends, and the top > tube always felt too long on the bike. > > Shaun Meehan > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Matt Beebe <matthi...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Hi Jim, I measured a 58 and and a 62, though my measurements may have >> been off by half a centimeter give or take. The 58 seems to have a 61cm >> actual TT length, and the 62 has a 63cm actual TT length. Doing some >> trigonometry the 58 Hunq has about a 63cm effective TT and the 62 has about >> a 65cm ETT. >> >> Also there is a post here ( >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/Z-4DozId6xI/9kcJ95rY5F0J) >> where William confirmed with Keven that the numbers had changed after the >> chart was made. >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: >> >>> The following frames do not have expanded geometry: Atlantis, AHH, >>> Roadeo. >>> >>> The following do: Hillborne, Hunqapillar, Bombadil, San Marcos, Betty Foy >>> >>> The expanded ones are identified in the chart by their 6 degree toptube >>> slope (if they have a TT.) Any in that category should be showing just >>> effective TT length. If the Hunqapillar is not showing the true effective >>> TT number, then either geometry was changed without notice (since it is >>> subject to that), there is a misprint, or there is some other error. >>> >>> Matt, how do you know that the Hunqapillar's listed length is not the >>> real effective TT? Did you measure one? I've never done that on a sloping >>> frame. I guess that would be simple to do. Just curious, how did you do it? >>> (I might try a rigid meter stick held horizontal and a bubble level on top >>> of the stick, with the stick's zero positioned at the seat post center.) >>> >>> -Jim W. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Matt Beebe <matthi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show >>> the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that >>> the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length >>> though, I don't even think they are actual length. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: >>>> >>>> To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings >>>> are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit >>>> longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. >>>> >>>> But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only >>>> list the effective TT, not actual. >>>> >>>> If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate >>>> effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. >>>> >>>> -Jim W. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig <neritic...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Point taken, Matt. >>>> > >>>> > On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW >>>> that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? >>>> If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle >>>> to the tt (Hilborne).? >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>>> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. >>>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> -- >>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
