Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-03-02 Thread Patrick Moore 
You might find this site helpful for comparing stems:
http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/stem.php

Back in the pre-internet days I used to create little cardboard template
stems to gauge the differences I'd need, and this method worked well, but I
always used the same model of drop bar. But  a degree in philosophy didn't
stop me.


On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 11:59 AM Paul Donald  wrote:

> ... I've been trying to figure out a formula for calculating stem/bar
> combos using my commuter bike set up in order to apply it to a bike with a
> very long ETT. Sadly I realized I have a masters in fine arts degree
> instead. After years of drops and flat bars I seem to be settling into
> swept back bars slightly above saddle height. My commuter bike (New Albion
> Privateer) uses Soma Oxford bars and the hand position is one that I keep
> returning to. The Oxfords are very close to the Riv Albatross. What I don't
> like about the Privateer is horizontal dropouts, toe overlap, and absence
> of kickstand plate (or even a space to easily fit a stand near the BB).
>
> At 6', I'm long torso, average arms and legs, and not frightened of high
> standover but I resisted looking at the two very nice 59 Clem H's that are
> being sold because I am wanting that looong wheel base, step-over life.
>
> It might be best for me to stick to a 59, even though 64's are more
> readily found as frame sets, which is what I want in order to soak up the
> excess parts I have... I've been reading posts here regarding Clem vs
> Platypus since that might be worth considering. I like the utilitarian look
> of the Clems with the flourish of curve in the TT. The Platy's look
> fabulous, but push my budget too high.
>

-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsbcK1H0tpwpSxbUQXvL34Ga9CDr1b9DbLqvJJwtAOt3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-03-02 Thread Paul Donald 
I really appreciate all these great opinions. I *could* ride a 64 judging by 
what I’ve read here, but perhaps it is more prudent to seek out a 59. Of course 
now I have to pay very close attention to the posts about Clem vs Platypus. My 
inclination is toward the extreme, and the Clem fulfills that with wheelbase 
etc. The Platypus is relatively sensible in comparison. But this is about 
bicycles, and bicycles are “inherently” sensible so, surely, anything goes 
right?

 
Paul Donald
snippy.p...@gmail.com
www.paulcdonald.com

> On Feb 26, 2024, at 3:21 PM, Mackenzy Albright  
> wrote:
> 
> I've ridden a 59 clementine and "sized up" 64 clem jr. I would have been 
> equally happy with both in terms of ride and fit. I don't feel reach (TT) is 
> an issue with hillibikes given their headtube angle and design around 
> sweptback bars. I'd be cautious sizing up if you want to run flat bars. 
> Aesthetically the saddle was a bit low in the seattube on the 64 for some 
> peoples tastes - but had no issue with leg rub etc. The main reason I kept 
> the 59 and resold the 64 was: a really tall person (the previous owner with 
> regret) wanted the 64 back if I decided it wasn't for me as well as I found 
> the previous Clementine (59) to have a slightly more traditional handling 
> feel which worked better for it's utiliarian commuter purpose as I often am 
> lugging around weight on a porteur rack for work. For unloaded trails and 
> general rides I would have slightly preferred the new gen 64. Both are 
> incredible riding bikes. I can't imagine my life without a Clem. 
> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 1:07:39 PM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
> My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of one 
> range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go with 
> the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size down. 
> That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will sometimes 
> suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never been 
> comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed stem and 
> seatpost.
> 
> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes! 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow 
>> bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of 
>> rise?
>> 
>> In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with or 
>> below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) for a 
>> level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a lot of 
>> sweepback, things could be different.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:
>> I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd pick 
>> the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already crazy 
>> long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like riding 
>> an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/qKgvFZlCf5A/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/da715ea9-1bf9-4a3e-a5f6-9c15ae4957f9n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/714D7743-E6BA-4099-8E61-875706D65053%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-27 Thread Kim H. 
I originally bought a 59cm Clem "L". I rode it for nearly two years 
thinking that it was right size for me. However, I came to realize that it 
was way too big for me to handle. I have a long torso with short limbs. 

I was fortunate to sell it locally and find a beautiful RBW blue 52cm Clem 
"Demo" at Rivendell Bicycle Works headquarters in Walnut Creek. I delight 
in riding it much more so than the 59cm with it smaller 650B wheels. I love 
my bicycle now. 

The buyer of my 59cm Clem is happy. He is the same height as I am, but he 
has longer limbs and a shorter torso, than I do. 

Kim Hetzel
... the cold, wind and rain have come back with possible snow.



On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 8:25:24 AM UTC-8 diana@gmail.com wrote:

> I own a 50cm Platypus and I wish I had sized up and gotten the 55 cm 
> because it could fit 700c bicycle tires (where the 50cm can only do 650b). 
> Something to think about if you might end up using your Clem for more 
> gravel. 
> On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-8 Mackenzy Albright wrote:
>
>> I've ridden a 59 clementine and "sized up" 64 clem jr. I would have been 
>> equally happy with both in terms of ride and fit. I don't feel reach (TT) 
>> is an issue with hillibikes given their headtube angle and design around 
>> sweptback bars. I'd be cautious sizing up if you want to run flat bars. 
>> Aesthetically the saddle was a bit low in the seattube on the 64 for some 
>> peoples tastes - but had no issue with leg rub etc. The main reason I kept 
>> the 59 and resold the 64 was: a really tall person (the previous owner with 
>> regret) wanted the 64 back if I decided it wasn't for me as well as I found 
>> the previous Clementine (59) to have a slightly more traditional handling 
>> feel which worked better for it's utiliarian commuter purpose as I often am 
>> lugging around weight on a porteur rack for work. For unloaded trails and 
>> general rides I would have slightly preferred the new gen 64. Both are 
>> incredible riding bikes. I can't imagine my life without a Clem. 
>> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 1:07:39 PM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>>
>>> My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of 
>>> one range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go 
>>> with the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size 
>>> down. That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will 
>>> sometimes suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never 
>>> been comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed 
>>> stem and seatpost.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes! 
 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:

 

 Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to 
 allow bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a 
 lot of rise?

 In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level 
 with or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is 
 perfect) for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar 
 with a lot of sweepback, things could be different.

 On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:

> I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd 
> pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already 
> crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is 
> like 
> riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 

 -- 

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
  
 
 .



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7cea62b3-e1cf-4ccd-9c31-8e148e4d6c03n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-27 Thread Diana H 
I own a 50cm Platypus and I wish I had sized up and gotten the 55 cm 
because it could fit 700c bicycle tires (where the 50cm can only do 650b). 
Something to think about if you might end up using your Clem for more 
gravel. 
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 3:21:33 PM UTC-8 Mackenzy Albright wrote:

> I've ridden a 59 clementine and "sized up" 64 clem jr. I would have been 
> equally happy with both in terms of ride and fit. I don't feel reach (TT) 
> is an issue with hillibikes given their headtube angle and design around 
> sweptback bars. I'd be cautious sizing up if you want to run flat bars. 
> Aesthetically the saddle was a bit low in the seattube on the 64 for some 
> peoples tastes - but had no issue with leg rub etc. The main reason I kept 
> the 59 and resold the 64 was: a really tall person (the previous owner with 
> regret) wanted the 64 back if I decided it wasn't for me as well as I found 
> the previous Clementine (59) to have a slightly more traditional handling 
> feel which worked better for it's utiliarian commuter purpose as I often am 
> lugging around weight on a porteur rack for work. For unloaded trails and 
> general rides I would have slightly preferred the new gen 64. Both are 
> incredible riding bikes. I can't imagine my life without a Clem. 
> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 1:07:39 PM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:
>
>> My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of one 
>> range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go 
>> with the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size 
>> down. That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will 
>> sometimes suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never 
>> been comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed 
>> stem and seatpost.
>>
>> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes! 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to 
>>> allow bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a 
>>> lot of rise?
>>>
>>> In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with 
>>> or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) 
>>> for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a 
>>> lot of sweepback, things could be different.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:
>>>
 I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd 
 pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already 
 crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is 
 like 
 riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5a3e9b43-8c08-4dc8-8f2e-c694da2e632bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-26 Thread Mackenzy Albright 
I've ridden a 59 clementine and "sized up" 64 clem jr. I would have been 
equally happy with both in terms of ride and fit. I don't feel reach (TT) 
is an issue with hillibikes given their headtube angle and design around 
sweptback bars. I'd be cautious sizing up if you want to run flat bars. 
Aesthetically the saddle was a bit low in the seattube on the 64 for some 
peoples tastes - but had no issue with leg rub etc. The main reason I kept 
the 59 and resold the 64 was: a really tall person (the previous owner with 
regret) wanted the 64 back if I decided it wasn't for me as well as I found 
the previous Clementine (59) to have a slightly more traditional handling 
feel which worked better for it's utiliarian commuter purpose as I often am 
lugging around weight on a porteur rack for work. For unloaded trails and 
general rides I would have slightly preferred the new gen 64. Both are 
incredible riding bikes. I can't imagine my life without a Clem. 
On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 1:07:39 PM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote:

> My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of one 
> range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go 
> with the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size 
> down. That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will 
> sometimes suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never 
> been comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed 
> stem and seatpost.
>
> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes! 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow 
>> bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of 
>> rise?
>>
>> In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with 
>> or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) 
>> for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a 
>> lot of sweepback, things could be different.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:
>>
>>> I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd 
>>> pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already 
>>> crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like 
>>> riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/da715ea9-1bf9-4a3e-a5f6-9c15ae4957f9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Johnny Alien 
My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of one 
range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go 
with the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size 
down. That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will 
sometimes suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never 
been comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed 
stem and seatpost.

On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes! 
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow 
> bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of 
> rise?
>
> In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with 
> or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) 
> for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a 
> lot of sweepback, things could be different.
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:
>
>> I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd 
>> pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already 
>> crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like 
>> riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 
>
> -- 
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/756ae768-8fc0-45c5-ab8e-4feb283492c8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Richard Rose 
Yes! Sent from my iPhoneOn Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of rise?In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a lot of sweepback, things could be different.On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/E0596576-D728-4ECD-B9CA-96D3457B7ADE%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Patrick Moore 
Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow
bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of
rise?

In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with or
below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) for
a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a lot of
sweepback, things could be different.

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:23 AM Josh C  wrote:

> I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd pick
> the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already crazy
> long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like
> riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Richard Rose 
To Ian’s point, the Clem is unique but very flexible & that long reach is not a limiting factor in my experience. I am (according to Riv) an “in betweener” size wise. I comfortably ride a 52 Clem L with a fistful of seatpost, Bosco bar & 135 FacePlater. Even with the long reach the Bosco needs the long stem - that’s how far back the Bosco comes. So if the longish ETT is “absurdly long” it’s what makes the bike work imho. Possibly important to note is that I have the stem almost at its limit height wise. I know I could ride one size up with less seatpost exposed and less stem exposed as well. I might also need a shorter stem, not sure.But, I also ride a large (57?) Gus which has a similarly long reach as the Clem. I only have a couple of inches of seatpost showing and use a less sweptback bar (Albacore) that has a bit of forward sweep also. So that bike only has a 35mm stem. The handlebars though different on these two bikes are in nearly identical grip positions relative to the saddle - and both are supremely comfortable. FWIW I do not have a long torso/arms. When you have a bike where standover is irrelevant there are all kinds of possibilities.Sent from my iPhoneOn Feb 24, 2024, at 12:27 PM, ian m  wrote:I'm a proponent of sizing to the largest frame that you can comfortably standover, but obviously the Clem L throws that out the window. The thing to look out for on the Clem's is the absurdly long effective top tube. I previously owned a 52 Clem H (83PBH here) and I think it had a 61cm top tube?? Could never get comfortable even with albatross bars. Looks like the current models are even longer, but you are right, the reach remains near the same as the stack increases, bringing the handlebars up and closer to begin with. But a near 47cm reach is nothing to sneeze at, unless you have a very long torso/arms you'll be running exclusively very swept back bars. For comparison a Hillborne reach averages 10cm shorter.On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 11:53:00 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:I've no advice on Riv sizing except that I personally prefer to downsize wrt their recommendations, but I do want to remind you that list rules require you to post photos of your bikes if they are at all interesting, and yours sound interesting indeed.[For the terminally earnest: No, there is no such list rule, but posting photos of interesting bikes is what old fashioned Catholic moral doctrine called a temporal work of mercy, like caring for the sick and visiting the imprisoned. That's a joke too.]So, please do!On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 9:49 AM Paul Donald  wrote:Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to their components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion Privateer, Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a proper Riv) Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not just be fiddling with the condiments.I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here and on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment with a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could do similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach than a 59.Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com.
-- Patrick MooreAlburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum---Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services---When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/35fd1dbb-a90f-4248-b6ec-7d9f62369abcn%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8DEDA51C-4DE5-4C15-938C-5C043E2B3EC7%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Josh C 
I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd pick 
the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already crazy 
long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like 
riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 

On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 12:26:54 PM UTC-5 ian m wrote:

> I'm a proponent of sizing to the largest frame that you can comfortably 
> standover, but obviously the Clem L throws that out the window. The thing 
> to look out for on the Clem's is the absurdly long effective top tube. I 
> previously owned a 52 Clem H (83PBH here) and I think it had a 61cm top 
> tube?? Could never get comfortable even with albatross bars. Looks like the 
> current models are even longer, but you are right, the reach remains near 
> the same as the stack increases, bringing the handlebars up and closer to 
> begin with. But a near 47cm reach is nothing to sneeze at, unless you have 
> a very long torso/arms you'll be running exclusively very swept back bars. 
> For comparison a Hillborne reach averages 10cm shorter.
>
> On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 11:53:00 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> I've no advice on Riv sizing except that I personally prefer to downsize 
>> wrt their recommendations, but I do want to remind you that list rules 
>> require you to post photos of your bikes if they are at all interesting, 
>> and yours sound interesting indeed.
>>
>> [For the terminally earnest: No, there is no such list rule, but posting 
>> photos of interesting bikes is what old fashioned Catholic moral doctrine 
>> called a temporal work of mercy, like caring for the sick and visiting the 
>> imprisoned. That's a joke too.]
>>
>> So, please do!
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 9:49 AM Paul Donald  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to 
>>> their components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion 
>>> Privateer, Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a 
>>> proper Riv) Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not 
>>> just be fiddling with the condiments.
>>>
>>> I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here 
>>> and on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment 
>>> with a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could 
>>> do similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach 
>>> than a 59.
>>>
>>> Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/78a9eec2-3ff4-4618-8851-9e4b89bf61bbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread ian m 
I'm a proponent of sizing to the largest frame that you can comfortably 
standover, but obviously the Clem L throws that out the window. The thing 
to look out for on the Clem's is the absurdly long effective top tube. I 
previously owned a 52 Clem H (83PBH here) and I think it had a 61cm top 
tube?? Could never get comfortable even with albatross bars. Looks like the 
current models are even longer, but you are right, the reach remains near 
the same as the stack increases, bringing the handlebars up and closer to 
begin with. But a near 47cm reach is nothing to sneeze at, unless you have 
a very long torso/arms you'll be running exclusively very swept back bars. 
For comparison a Hillborne reach averages 10cm shorter.

On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 11:53:00 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

> I've no advice on Riv sizing except that I personally prefer to downsize 
> wrt their recommendations, but I do want to remind you that list rules 
> require you to post photos of your bikes if they are at all interesting, 
> and yours sound interesting indeed.
>
> [For the terminally earnest: No, there is no such list rule, but posting 
> photos of interesting bikes is what old fashioned Catholic moral doctrine 
> called a temporal work of mercy, like caring for the sick and visiting the 
> imprisoned. That's a joke too.]
>
> So, please do!
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 9:49 AM Paul Donald  wrote:
>
>> Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to 
>> their components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion 
>> Privateer, Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a 
>> proper Riv) Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not 
>> just be fiddling with the condiments.
>>
>> I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here and 
>> on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment with 
>> a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could do 
>> similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach 
>> than a 59.
>>
>> Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/35fd1dbb-a90f-4248-b6ec-7d9f62369abcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Patrick Moore 
I've no advice on Riv sizing except that I personally prefer to downsize
wrt their recommendations, but I do want to remind you that list rules
require you to post photos of your bikes if they are at all interesting,
and yours sound interesting indeed.

[For the terminally earnest: No, there is no such list rule, but posting
photos of interesting bikes is what old fashioned Catholic moral doctrine
called a temporal work of mercy, like caring for the sick and visiting the
imprisoned. That's a joke too.]

So, please do!

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 9:49 AM Paul Donald  wrote:

> Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to
> their components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion
> Privateer, Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a
> proper Riv) Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not
> just be fiddling with the condiments.
>
> I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here and
> on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment with
> a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could do
> similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach
> than a 59.
>
> Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfguOr%2B8bctOpw-A54_PrzSJK%2Be807zmDonvaKRk-gvY7eA%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Going really large on Clems

2024-02-24 Thread Paul Donald 
Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to their 
components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion Privateer, 
Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a proper Riv) 
Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not just be 
fiddling with the condiments.

I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here and 
on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment with 
a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could do 
similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach 
than a 59.

Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com.