I had the same experience. When I asked for head tube and seat tube
angles, the man replied that he did not have those numbers. When I asked
if anyone else there did know these numbers, he referred me to Grant, as
the only person with access to the numbers. I don't understand why they
are
For clarity sake , standover height is always measured in the middle of
top tube. When comparing models you must take into account bottom bracket
drop also . I doubt the Clem is going to have as much drop as the Bombadil
or Hunqa for example , probably more like the Cheviot.
All in
Yes Matt, is does *appear *longer , even by measuring the full image with a
ruler onscreen where it definitely IS longer. So there seems to be direct
contradiction here, with Keven's info and the image shown, which should be
noted is only a prototype. The production frames are non-existent
I was getting somewhat close to putting the money down for a 59cm Clem,
until I checked the geo chart and saw that it had a 34.75 standover
height. At 6'3 with a 91cm PBH, I already find my 62cm Cross Check taller
than what I want for around town riding, and it's a touch less than 34 in
standover
I think the MAXIMUM in maximum standover height is the key word. I think
with the sloping top tube, if you tried to straddle the top tube right by
the headset, that might be why they're using the qualifier, maximum.
Just thinkin'
David
Chicago
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 6:36:34 PM UTC-5,
^^^ THIS has been my hesitation/concern all along, too!^^
As others have pointed out though, there seems to be some sort of
disconnect between the geometry numbers that we know about, the clearances
cited, the height recommendations given, and extrapolation from all other
Rivendell models we
Kai , you would hear of such a measurement from many custom frame
builders . Each builder though may measure it in their own way, maybe from
a specific point of the shoulder, etc. They often ask a whole lotta
measurements . For mass market frames though , seat tube size by far rules .
Of
But how is it that I never hear talk of pit to palm measures. That seems as
important as pbh in the overall consideration. Humans have a lot of deviations
from the norm. My father, who also stood 5'20, had shorter arms than I do, but
looked as normal as the next giant. And an ex professional
Thanks for that info Kieran. I was wondering if the big person's bike was
still going to happen because I thought that project had sort of morphed
into the Clem Smith. Argh, don't need any more bikes, but if they make a 64
cm step-through I would have to get one... and how could I not get a
apologies for the interruptive, slightly off topic question. does anyone
know the tubing diameter on the clem's? i have one of the bottleless
prototypes and im trying to find the right clamp size to put some cages on.
28.6? 31.8? 34.9?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
I heard back from Keven about the larger Clem sizing - doesn't look like
I'll fit onto a 59cm, but he did say the 64cm Clementine will happen, and
that they were also working on a 66cm Big Guy Bike that will be Clem-like.
KJ
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote:
Big bike next year's the rumor I heard when asking about the Clem stretch,
not likely a step through, yes? As for 64 Clementines, I'm 6'8 with
100pbh, maybe 101 in the morning. I ordered my 64 Hillborne without any
chatting, had they asked more questions I would surely have been convinced
that
You're going to think I ride my bike sitting on the back rack!, because
I've got a Bosco bullmoose on there. I'm getting ready to swap it back to
some noodles, probably. I really like to Bullmoose's triangle for running a
cable through when I lock up in theft prone NYC, just wish it had a
I'm sure the final geometry is probably still in the works but the top tube
on the prototype 59cm on the blug definitely looks longer than 61cm.It
looks like it's about ~63cm actual, and maybe ~65cm horizontal.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote:
I had some
The Hightower manoeuvre! You're a lot taller with me with the same PBH so I
can see how the reach on a 64 would be too short.
On Thursday, 19 March 2015 22:31:35 UTC+1, Kainalu wrote:
You're going to think I ride my bike sitting on the back rack!, because
I've got a Bosco bullmoose on there.
Wow, a 64 cm Clementine would be ace, especially if the fit was like a 64 cm
Bombadil. For me it's perfect with a 150 mm bullmoose bar (not bosco) but I
guess I have a short reach. I don't really need another bike but I would love
an enormous stepthrough, so I'd be in anyway!
--
You received
Thanks for sharing Garth. What is your height/PBH?
Incidentally, I sent Keven some questions regarding my fit on a 59cm Clem
last night, waiting to hear his thoughts on it. The TT value you mention
certainly is shorter than I would prefer as well.
Maybe they'll make a embiggened Clem too,
Liz,
I'm pretty sure the detailed specs are no secret, but this is moving pretty
fast and the geometry specs simply aren't widely disseminated yet even
among the employees. For example, I have sizing questions and we are
waiting until Friday when they are all built to set seat heights and take
Lucky you!
I tried to get geometry information on the smallest Clem and Clementine and
the person I spoke to effectively refused to give it to me.
-- Liz
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote:
I had some questions about the Clem for Keven about the 59cm. Clem
Thanks for the research, Garth. does anybody know how Rivendell
usually cites their top tube measurements? Actual or effective? An
actual 61cm top tube with a 6 degree slope and a 71 degree head tube would
seem to be equivalent to about 62.86 cm (24 3/4) horizontal (effective)
top tube.
: iamkeith
Sent: Mar 18, 2015 8:38 AM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com javascript:
Subject: [RBW] Re: Clem info for the Tall and Long
Thanks for the research, Garth. does anybody know how Rivendell
usually cites their top tube measurements? Actual or effective? An
actual 61cm top tube
the listing as actual TT length.
-Jim W.
-Original Message- From: iamkeith <keithhar...@gmail.com>Sent: Mar 18, 2015 8:38 AM To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: [RBW] Re: Clem info for the Tall and Long
Thanks for the research, Garth. does anybody know how Rivendell usuall
Oh yes, bike fit to me is quite personal . Yes, there are generalities
and not only is every body form different, but so is flexibility/function
of that form, and the ever so infinite intangibles , called feel or
sense of unity and balance with the bike , etc . Based on body shape
alone
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 11:37:21 AM UTC-6, Garth wrote:
I'm 'bout 6'2 with a PBH of 'bout 36.5 . Yes, I was under the impression
that the 59 would be longer than it was also I was kinda expecting
it to be really long and tall in the front also . The 59 Clem isn't long
KJ, I'm 'bout 6'2 with a PBH of 'bout 36.5 . Yes, I was under the
impression that the 59 would be longer than it was also . The 63cm TT on
the Bomba is about perfect for me with Albatross bars .
Speaking of peachy ... wouldn't a Peach colored bike be awesome ?! That's
a color I never see .
25 matches
Mail list logo
