[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

iamkeith , There are no limitations/exclusions to Riv or any other brand of frame/bike . Any "sense" of limitation is not of the frame, brand or designer, it's only within one's self understanding . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

II would disagree with this statement if it is in earnest. I don't think anyone needs me to point out that one big *raison d'**être* of Rivendell is to fill a need for bicycles not constricted by frames that don't allow for raising the handlebars to a comfortable height. Other limitations would

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

You guys might be giving credit for thinking more deeply than I actually am. I simply find it fascinating (and inconvenient for someone of my particular size and proportions) that there is such gap in the sizes of so many Rivendell models. Or at least a larger incremental jump / less

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

This is kind of interesting. Thinking about Liesl's current attempt at model chronology thread, I browsed over to the cyclofiend archives and found the following. It's some notes by Grant, from way back in 2009, discussing the pending move to "expanded" frame sizing, sloped top tubes, and

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Keith I think the 59 is going to be perfect for you FYI the blue one is more like the blue from the previous Rivs not dark On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:17:45 AM UTC-7, Edwin W wrote: > > I was trying to see what the effective top tube lengths are for the Clems. > I am getting a small

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Picked mine up this morning at the shop.:) On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:17:45 AM UTC-7, Edwin W wrote: > > I was trying to see what the effective top tube lengths are for the Clems. > I am getting a small frame for my boys to grow into and was trying to > figure out what kind of stem/bar

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

First of all, your Team Stumpy is hot! That and an Ibis Scorcher are pretty much the only bikes on my wish-list of vintage bikes I'd still like to own some day. I probably didn't say it well enough, but I *am* looking at the standover figures in terms of how they would translate to the

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Standover. That's another great feature of the Clementine. I had an Ibis Scorcher for many years, was surprised to find out what an iconic bike it had become. The first problem with that bike was the cheap fixie wheel they spec'd it with--the cog just kept stripping off the hub. I finally put

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Keith, don't you want to be between the stand over heights? I would think it would make it harder to choose if you were right on one of the numbers. On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-7, iamkeith wrote: > If the standover works for you, I think you're golden. Me, I'm still >

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

If the standover works for you, I think you're golden. Me, I'm still worrying. Since they're shipping out in just a few days, this will by my last obsessive, worry-driven, over-analysis. Looking at the Clem and Hunq charts together again, I just noticed something else. Based on the

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

If the standover works for you, I think you're golden. Me, I'm still worrying. Since they're shipping out in just a few days, this will by my last obsessive, worry-driven, over-analysis. Looking at the Clem and Hunq charts together again, I just noticed something else. Based on the

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

That's a strange and curious pattern for sure. Curious as I feel that big gap would be a very common and popular size for the average sized male (5'9-6'1). What is a good amount of stand over anyway? If the 59 Clem with 700x60's has an 88cm stand over and I have a 90 pbh in bare feet, I think

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

What should those values be? On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:13:41 PM UTC-4, David Banzer wrote: > > The trail numbers are incorrect for 26"/559 & 650b wheel sizes. Other than > that, interesting to see how Clem compares to the Hunq. > David > Chicago -- You received this message because

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

65mm of trail for both 26" and 650B. Both based on a 60mm tire. On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:11:34 PM UTC-5, Wayne Naha wrote: > > What should those values be? > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:13:41 PM UTC-4, David Banzer wrote: >> >> The trail numbers are incorrect for 26"/559 & 650b

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Corrected: -- 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

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Keith, great analysis. I have to admit, I thought I had a good grasp on fit and geometry charts, but can honestly say that I have I no idea how front centre translates to ride and fit. I come from a road background and always based my sizing on tt length and head tube (a little thought was put

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM UTC-6, Tim Wood wrote: > > > I'm a little concerned about the 64cm of tt length I'll be rocking on my > 59 but with bosco bars I'm sure reach won't be a major concern. Going to be an interesting experience, isn't it?! Here's thought: Compared

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

The trail numbers are incorrect for 26"/559 & 650b wheel sizes. Other than that, interesting to see how Clem compares to the Hunq. David Chicago -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Thanks for posting that!!! When the complete bikes were first shown months ago, I rendered the 52cm version in BikeCad to get some sense of how it would fit me. Not much was available on the geometry so I took some measurements from other RBW 650B bikes and simply guessed at others, based

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Thanks for posting that!!! When the complete bikes were first shown months ago, I rendered the 52cm version in BikeCad to get some sense of how it would fit me. Not much was available on the geometry so I took some measurements from other RBW 650B bikes and simply guessed at others, based

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Thanks for posting that!!! When the complete bikes were first shown months ago, I rendered the 52cm version in BikeCad to get some sense of how it would fit me. Not much was available on the geometry so I took some measurements from other RBW 650B bikes and simply guessed at others, based

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

Thanks for posting that!!! When the complete bikes were first shown months ago, I rendered the 52cm version in BikeCad to get some sense of how it would fit me. Not much was available on the geometry so I took some measurements from other RBW 650B bikes and simply guessed at others, based

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

I don't believe it's been posted yet. If you do call, report back what you find out. I've been contemplating a custom front rack for my Clem and would like to see if geometry is posted so I can ask a framebuilder if they can work off that or if they need the actual frame/fork in hand. David

[RBW] Re: Clem Geometry

if you want the tt measurement for the 48cm clem, i can get that this evening. my wife has the little protovelo. -- 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