[RBW] Re: Hunq max with fenders

That was what I was most curious about. I have a set of those on my Jones and might try them. I just worry about their puncture protection for commuting. On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:25:37 AM UTC-6, Daniel Jackson wrote: > > I’ve run Schwalbe big Ones (now GOnes I think) under fenders for

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

I wanted to update this in case other folks read this wondering if V-brakes will fit their hunq. I installed the XTR M951 V-brakes on my Hunq with Haulin Collin rack and they fit great. They, unfortunately, were worn out (lots of slop in the pivots) and squealed like a banshee no matter what I

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Hey Preston, Funny you should post this today. I just got done test fitting some XTR M951 V-brakes to my Hunq a few minutes ago. It has a Haulin Collin rack which attaches like your rack and the fit looks good. I wanted to do a quick mock up before buying levers and cables to minimize expenses

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Thanks y'all. This has all been super helpful, especially the gravel bike brake arm length chart. Thanks! Preston -- 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 a

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

I have a 59cm Clem which I'm 95% certain shares the same fork as the 29er hunqs. I use a 32f front rack and Shimano XT T780 v-brakes, and it works. It is a very tight fit: the boot on the brake cable is very close to the center strut of the rack, but the cable itself does not touch or have any

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Remember also that V-brakes come in a wide number of arm lengths, as compiled on this chart: https://www.gravelbike.com/v-brake-arm-lengths/ The distance from the fork mount to the crown hole would be important in planning the rack & specific V-brake selection. dougP On Thursday, November 3

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Had a 29er hunq with Paul motolites and a pass/stow rack that attaches to the fork crown hole. I was worried about issues but it had a couple cm of clearance. In my opinion, the motolites are such a better stopping brake that it would be worth using a different rack. -- You received this mes

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Correctumundo. I used that rack with v-brakes on my first Clem (H) and I ended up with a bit of cloth tape on the rack arm that the brake wire straddled and rubbed on (that's a terrible idea, don't do it). You might get lucky with a long v-brake, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. -- Y

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

I have a Joe with stock v brakes. The brake cable between the calipers is in the way of the mounting hole in the center of the fork crown. I am currently using a Soma rack with a mounting tab that hangs over the cable and is bent into place, although the LBS set it up in such a way that the rac

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

I have a Hunqapillar fork with Schwalbe G-One 2.35s (~2.1 on synergy rims), Avid Single Digit v-brakes, SKS B-65 fenders and a Surly Front Rack. Works just fine. I'll probably get a little smaller tire for the next round with fenders because it's tight, but the v-brakes aren't the issue. Cheer

[RBW] Re: Hunq with rack and v brakes?

Rivendell has personal experience. Call them up and ask for Mark. With wide tires and fenders, your only choice is full-sized V-brakes (not mini-V-brakes), which requires you also use long-cable-pull V-brake levers. With full-size V-brakes you absolutely will not have to remove your fenders

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

I'm out for the 6th, but look forward to a ride report. (Maybe also start a new thread for this weekend ride plan.) I will also try to get a RivBOB ride for late summer out of Beacon. On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:51:52 PM UTC-4, jandrews_nyc wrote: > > Hi all > I missed this whole thread and

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Hi all I missed this whole thread and I'm the one who started it! I MAY be available for a ride on Sunday also. I won't know if I'll be in town till mid-week but will I know Sat won't work. Sunday might. Will let you all know. I just did a 35 miler yesterday up around Cottekil into Olivebridge ,

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Hey all, I'm a bit late to respond- my apologies! I'd be up for a ride from Kingston that weekend, but the best day for me would be Sunday the 6th. I can probably rally a few other riders to join us as well. Let me now what you think? -Bryan On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:49:37 AM UTC-4, M

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Not sure. I am a few hours south of Beacon by bicycle so it is not my everyday stomping ground. But I was thinking a 45-ish mile loop, maybe originating at Bryan's shop, ending at one of the Kingston eateries down by the waterfront. Anybody have a route in that area? Bryan, have you explored mu

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

A ride from Kingston to where? I'm interested. -- 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

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Anybody up for a Rivish Bobish ride from Kingston, maybe Saturday, August 5th? On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:22:15 PM UTC-4, comveo wrote: > > Anton, > > > That is quite a coincidence! Would love you to stop by when you're in town > if you're able. > > > Looking forward, > > > -Bryan > > On Wed

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Anton, That is quite a coincidence! Would love you to stop by when you're in town if you're able. Looking forward, -Bryan On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:43:15 PM UTC-4, somervillebikes wrote: > > Small world!! I grew up two blocks from there on Pearl St, and went to St. > Joseph's scho

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Small world!! I grew up two blocks from there on Pearl St, and went to St. Joseph's school across the street from your bike shop! I'll be visiting Kingston in a couple weeks, I'll try to stop by your shop! Anton velolumino.com On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-4, comveo wrote: > > H

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Aw man, I was just up in that part of the state! I would've stopped by! Will definitely do so next time I'm in town. On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-4, comveo wrote: > > Hey Jason, > > > Mark is right, you spotted me! Part of my morning commute to Uptown > Kingston, I was making the

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Hey Jason, Mark is right, you spotted me! Part of my morning commute to Uptown Kingston, I was making the trek to higher ground that morning ; ) It's also true, as Mark mentioned, that I opened a shop uptown recently. I'd love to meet any and all Riv riders/enthusiasts in the Hudson Valley ar

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

Oops, I see from the website that it's Bryan, not Brian. My brother spells it Brian, that tends to be my default. Mark, not Marc, in Beacon, not Bacon On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 12:39:03 AM UTC-4, Mark in Beacon wrote: > > I am almost certainly positive that would be Brian, who owns just such

[RBW] Re: Hunq rider in Kingston NY

I am almost certainly positive that would be Brian, who owns just such a bicycle and occasionally drops in to RBW Owners Bunch. I don't think he would mind me saying that he moved to Kingston from Beacon not too long ago, and opened a small bicycle shop, Utility Bicycle Works, at 228 Wall Stree

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

@Steve, yep long live 8sp. I really wanted indexed and I wanted all silver @Keith saddle height usually ends up being 79cm, 89cm PBH, I'm 5' 11". If I went large I would have been ON the bar and that would have been a compromise for some of the trail riding I anticipated. Also, I was dead set

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Just want to throw out a vote of confidence for XT8000 brakes. They are amazing and can be had pretty cheap. Universal had them on sale this week for 89 a side. On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 6:03:35 PM UTC-6, Zach Duval wrote: > > Anyone want to play build designer on my dime? > > Apologies

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Interesting comments regarding the disk brakes and fork,too, Alex. About what I'd expect. People have cited this bike as the closest manifestation of what rawland first tried to do with the ravn, but this observation says otherwise. Still, really cool bikes at a reasonable price. I dig it! -

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Sorry to veer off topic, but Alex, can you tell us what size fram you have, and what your saddle height is? Looks like a medium perhaps? Did you consider the next size up and are you happy with the size you got? Nice build, btw. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Downtube lever in a bar end shifter pod? On 01/19/2017 04:14 AM, Alex Wirth- Owner, Yellow Haus Bicycles wrote: Zach, here's a couple of pics of how I set mine up. I think we have/had a similar vision

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Zach, here's a couple of pics of how I set mine up. I think we have/had a similar vision

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

I recently installed TRP Sykes on an old MTB rebuild. I had tried the Spyres on a couple of test rides of other bikes (Novara Mazama gravel bike and some no-name urban bike) and was impressed with the modulation. Felt better to me than cheap hydro brakes or BB7s. Local shop owner told me to use

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

Which is to say, my idea of a MTB probably isn't as rippy as yours... -- 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...@googlegrou

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

I waffled a bit between the two, honestly, but chose the Romanceur for its road to trail capability. I'm building it up first as a MTB (inspired by Benedict's proto), mostly because I've long been curious to try the Bullmooses for trail riding, but it'll likely evolve into more of a roadish trai

[RBW] Re: Hunq-ish Romanceur build with Riv Bullmoose bars

why not get an Evasion or better yet, wait for the Shred Eagle from Crust? Romanceur kinda works as a MTB but I can't see feeling really confident on it considering the geometry, high top tube, and overall design philosophy. I think the Rom is happiest as a mixed terrain long distance crusher /

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

If you decide to sell lmk. -- 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 t

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Thanks, yes, a plumbing tube bender is helpful for getting the tubes bent symmetrically around the braze-on centerpulls. Not sure exactly how it would line up w/ cantis, but that seems likely. BTW, the Surly tubes are stiffer than the Nitto. I don't think you'd need a bender for the Nittos (ot

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

I have a Pass & Stow and it's great. Though I'm tempted to sell it for something more low profile. With a large Wald it can carry anything. The guy who runs it (& makes everything) is extraordinarily helpful, and gets very involved with questions of fit. On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 12:24:46 PM

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

That's clever. I assume you bent the stays in order to clear the centerpull brakes? Presumably with cantis you could just keep the stays straight and cut them to length. Thanks for the idea! Jay Lonner Bellingham, WA On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas Bielavitz wrote: > > I u

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Thanks, Garth. The Surly tubes are slightly larger, but the clamps were still capable of securely engaging the narrower Nitto diameter. Also, for the application as pictured a plumbing tube bender is helpful for getting the tubes bent symmetrically around the braze-on centerpulls. I happened t

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

When I was going to use the P&S on my Bomba the plan was to use Tubus hardware. The mounts fit in the slots meant for the bracket and a custom bend for the stays to the fork crown. Hardware something like this: http://bit.ly/29Q1YNU Ended up with the rack on the Cheviot instead but the concept

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Thomas, nice and great idea ! Those Surly kits seem very very versatile for any rack with round tubes. I have always wondered, is the diameter of the Surly rods the same as the Nitto ? . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. T

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

I'm not sure if that would be an option for the P&S. The included bracket to fork crown works significantly better than any other fork crown bracket I've ever used. That being said, it should be pretty easy to use Nitto rack attachments to attach to the top of crown mounts - I'm intending on try

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Pudge, does he offer to make the rack to attach to the two on top fork crown mounts instead of the single middle brake mount ? -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

I have the Pass & Stow on my Bombadil. It is a great rack, and Matt was willing to make mods to suit me (internal wire routing and light mounts on both sides). I love it. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Surlyprof mailto:jmcclu...@gmail.com>> wrote: I've been considering a por

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

IIRC, Clem uses the Hunqapillar fork. Also, the Hunqapillar (at least my first gen version) has mounting points on top of the fork crown. You can sorta see it in this pic: https://flic.kr/p/mtcPxp Rob of Ocean Air Cycles has some good mods on his blog on using those mounting points (which the R

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

I've been considering a porteur rack as well for my Hillborne. I was eyeing the Soma Porteur (http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/porteur-rack-stainless-steel) because it had the lower crossbars for panniers. After meeting the nice guy who runs Pass and Stow (Matt?) at NAHBS, I would prob

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

+1 P&S - mine did great traveling with a demontable in an S&S case from Portland to dirt adventures on Mt. Tam: https://instagram.com/p/BHD07ddByd-/ You can get the longer-legged version to fit over your 29er tire on the Hunqua Esteban San Diego, Calif -- You received this message because you

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Check out the Pass & Stow racks, both the porteur and the new 3 rail rack. I own both. You can find photos of the new 3 rail rack the P&S Flickr gallery. Matt Feeney does excellent work and his racks come in different sizes to fit your Hunq. http://passstow.com/home John On Sunday, July 3,

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

As far as height above tire, check out the product shot they sent to Bicycle Retailer:

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Not sure how a Clem compares with a Hunq in terms of fork braze-ons for racks, but I have a Surly 8 pack running fine, though no doubt a bit higher than ideal. Also lots of bolts to check. And a bit fiddly to install, but that's not that unusual in rackworld, is it?...

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

How about this: http://passstow.com/ On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:43:42 PM UTC-6, Jay Lonner wrote: > I routinely load my Nitto mini front rack to the limits of my comfort, and > I'm in the market for something that safely can accommodate heavier loads. > I'm soliciting input on porteur rack

[RBW] Re: Hunq porteur options?

Have you read the Surly install pdf for it ? http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/24_8_Pack_Rack_Instructions_vf.pdf It specifically states : *This rack is not recommended for use with a fork that has a single mounting point in the fork crown.*I'm not sure what they mean by this as this

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

I find it interesting that the Hunq is "being 650b'd", which really puts it into the Bombadil slot On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 3:52:54 AM UTC-5, Garth wrote: > > Yes it is to be redesigned, but this chart is for the current/original > one. I hope they post such blueprints for all thè

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Yes it is to be redesigned, but this chart is for the current/original one. I hope they post such blueprints for all thèir frames. -- 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 fro

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Here's a 54cm Hunqapillar with 50mm tires. It's pretty darn accurate except for tube diameters and the amount of seat-tube and head-tube protruding above the top-tube. On Wednesday,

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Is the Hunqapillar one that's getting re-designed? If so, I wonder if these are the old Hunq's or the new ones? I just rushed to input these good numbers into BikeCad and I really like what I see, as far as BB height, trail, toe overlap and reach. On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 11:00:51

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Now that's how to do a geometry chart ! -- 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 grou

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Fascinating. I can only assume my phone call prompted the revision. These new drawings do not jive with the previously posted (as of yesterday) geometry tables, nor do they jive with Kevin's answer to my question. He said ETT of the 58 was 60. These drawings say it's 2 cm longer. Now, who know

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

FYI, the effective top tube on the 52 Bomba was listed correctly on the old geo chart. Mine had a 56.5-57 actual TT and a 58-58.5 effective TT. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivi

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Dang, I really wish they would have posted that info earlier. I sold my 52 Bomba because they said it had the same effective TT as the 54 Hunqa and was really too big for me, even though I thought the TT length felt fine and standover was really not an issue. I was going to order a 48 Hunq, bu

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Excellent. Thank you, Jeff. I measured my 62 incorrectly. I went level from the center of the headtube/top tube intersection back to the seat post, which easily adds 2cm. With abandon, Patrick On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:53:50 PM UTC-7, Jeff Bogdanovich wrote: > > Riv posted detailed Hu

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Riv posted detailed Hunq geometry here: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/f-hunqapillar.htm -- 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+

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

I presume goodness from Rivendell. I rode my 58cm Atlantis today and brought my tape measure just for fun. I double checked the (level) top tube length, and it's 585mm, just like the chart says. Daniel said: "I'm hoping to use my Hunq as one of a few data points for an upcoming custom, but

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

I used the Hunqapillar and Quickbeam charts to compare my 62 Hunqapillar (original frame geometry) to the 66 Quickbeam. Riv's charts show them as being identical in terms of how they will fit, and they are. Granted, that's Riv chart to Riv chart, and anyone measuring a different way than went i

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Agreed...still unsure despite the word from Riv that the chart on the web is what waterford uses. I'm hoping to use my Hunq as one of a few data points for an upcoming custom, but maybe I should just leave it out... On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: > > > Lol . . .

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Lol . . . I wonder if Riv actually measured the frames or they just looked it up somewhere as Bryan's direct measurement confirms it is indeed incorrect, at least for the 62 frame. On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:44:16 PM UTC-5, Daniel Jackson wrote: > > OK folks. Geo chart copied above

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

OK folks. Geo chart copied above is correct for the Hunq. And the chart on the website is correct for the Hunq. Effective TT for size 58 is 60 cm. This will change of course when they release new Geos this summer... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

That great , thank you Bryan !! On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:59:38 PM UTC-5, comveo wrote: > > No problem Garth. As accurately as I can measure, I'm getting 67.8cm > > Hope this helps : ) > > > -Bryan > > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: >> >> >> Opps, that's Br

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

No problem Garth. As accurately as I can measure, I'm getting 67.8cm Hope this helps : ) -Bryan On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: > > > Opps, that's Bryan with a y ! lol :) > > > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: >> >> >> Hey Brian, if y

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Opps, that's Bryan with a y ! lol :) On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-5, Garth wrote: > > > Hey Brian, if you have a moment , could you measure the front-center on > your 62 ? Just a measurement from the center crank bolt center front > skewer is close enough for me. > >T

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Hey Brian, if you have a moment , could you measure the front-center on your 62 ? Just a measurement from the center crank bolt center front skewer is close enough for me. Thanks ! On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:22:38 PM UTC-5, comveo wrote: > > Hey Daniel, > > If it helps out, I jus

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Hey Daniel, If it helps out, I just measure my (green, current model) 62cm Hunqapillar's effective TT and I'm getting 64.5cm, which agrees with Garth via Keven @ Rivendell. I measure this in the same way Bill L. had detailed. Of course, Riv it up to confirm! -Bryan On Sunday, January 31, 2

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

OK. So I gather I should call Riv. I'll do that to close the case! -- 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.

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Lol. The geo chart is apparently not wholly correct, as I wrote about my correspondance with Keven @Riv. When the Hunq came out in 2010 I recall first buyers reporting their tt' s were longer than listed. This is why I emailed Keven about it. Could Keven be mistaken ? Yes, he may have bee

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Thanks folks. As usual, this list answers all. On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:20:08 PM UTC-5, Joe Bernard wrote: > > Daniel, it's stated here on the geometry chart found on the Frames & Bikes > main page. It has become an assumed measurement in the industry because so > many frames have ups

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Daniel, it's stated here on the geometry chart found on the Frames & Bikes main page. It has become an assumed measurement in the industry because so many frames have upsloping tubes now. No one cares what the actual measurement is because it doesn't answer the question being asked. We need to k

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Bill, How do you know the geo chart on the Hunq page is effective and not actual? Thanks, D. On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 11:36:05 AM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > The Geo Chart is on the Hunqapillar page. A 58cm Hunqapillar has a 60cm > effective top tube length. A 62cm Hunqapillar has

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

The Geo Chart is on the Hunqapillar page. A 58cm Hunqapillar has a 60cm effective top tube length. A 62cm Hunqapillar has a 62.5 cm effective top tube length. Effective top tube length is the horizontal distance from the point that marks the center of the headtube and top tube, extending hor

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Oops. Looks like I was posting from my phone at the same time as garth , so that was confusing. We're saying the same thing. -- 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,

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

I don't know for sure either , but my recollection is the opposite: the tables for the older models show the actual length , while the newer ones like the hunq with the 6 degree slope list the effective length. Worth a call to confirm. -- You received this message because you are subscribed

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

Okay, I recall I emailed Keven about this long ago for a 62cm. He stated the effective TT was 64.5cm . I did not follow up and ask him if the front-center was then longer than stated also or not. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch"

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

As to the correctness of them I cannot say, but Riv has in the past always stated in their charts that TT lengths listed were theoretical on the 6 degree models. On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Matt B. wrote: > > They are listed on the website but i remember hearing those n

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

They are listed on the website but i remember hearing those numbers are old and no longer correct, or that they are 'actual' and not horizontal measurements, so the effective TT's are actually longer than shown. On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:15:41 AM UTC-5, Garth wrote: > > They're liste

[RBW] Re: Hunq Effective TT

They're listed on the riv Hunq frame page . On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:11:36 AM UTC-5, Daniel Jackson wrote: > > Anybody know where to find info on the effective top tube lengths of the > 58 and 62 Hunqapillars? > > Thanks much. > D. > -- You received this message because you are sub

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

I can +1 on David's sentiment. I rode the 52 Clem later that day and I was also pleasantly surprised at how wonderfully it rode. Smooth and nimble. A real joy. I particularly liked the 650b wheelset. I rode the 54 Hunqapillar right after and it felt less nimble on the 700s... and I always

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

I did a parking lot test of the 45cm clem on my way to take my 48cm hunqapillar out in shell ridge. If the clem was out a year ago when i bought the hunq it would have been a very tough call, especially given the price difference. i can't imagine that for an all rounder trail / city / commuter

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

Jim, regarding your thoughts, I'm with you to that extent. Certainly the wheelbase, bb drop, tire size, fork rake, head tube angle, seat tube angle and all that go together to form how the thing rides. But I guess what I was going for is how you choose to build it up to fit it mostly matters in

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

FWIW, my 51cm Hillborne and 52cm Bombadil have the same length head tubes at about 17cm. I would guess the 51 Hunqapillar and 52 Clem would be similiar. Looks like the head tubes match up in your overlay. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owner

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

51cm makes sense, the seat tube in the overlay is slightly shorter on the Hunq so I was suspecting that. The wheel discrepancy is there, you can see the Hunq's wheels are complete while the Clem's are cut off at the bottom of the shot. If my maths aren't failing me, a 26" wheel tuning 2.3" max t

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

Very cool overlay, well done. Your comparison of the frame geometries seems spot on. On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 2:27:15 AM UTC-4, Zed Martinez wrote: > > The poor man's Hunq. > > I did the best I could to compare the Hunq and Clems at similar sizes. If > both of them are running the same

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

When I first saw your (very cool) overlay, I thought about wheel size discrepancies. I have a folder full of Hunq pics and I'm going to say the Hunqapillar is a 51, which has 26" wheels. The 54cm Hunq's have a much smaller gap at the top tube-head tube-down tube junction, due to the longer fo

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

IME, relying upon one (or two, or three...) aspect(s) of the geometry never really translates to real-world behavior. Patrick and others touch on this above. Back when "low-trail" was in fact the New Low Trail™ I was lucky enough to have a few longer conversations with Grant about the urge to

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

I don't know, it's the smaller Hunq frame pictured on the product page, and so either a 51 or 54 at that size. Since I didn't know for sure, I sized things more off the pedal and crankset instead of the seat tubes, there's definitely some margin for error involved. If anyone know what size the

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

The standover height of my Hunqapillar and Quickbeam in 90cm and my PBH is 90 cm, and I do just fine, including bikepacking on very rough terrain with the fattest tires I can get on there with the Hunqa. I think you'd be delighted with either and you should go with the one that you want. The Hu

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

I enjoyed the comparison of the Clem and Hunq. Nice layover. Just out of curiosity, what size Hunq was compared to the Clem 52? I ask because I have been communicate with Riv and 2 of the choices that I have been given is a 52 Clem and a 54 Hunq. They say that the Clem 52 would give me a co

Re: [RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

That's an awesome overlay! On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Zed Martinez wrote: > > The Clem is a much more laid back, cruiserish, town bike. Upright is way >> upright. Stays are extra long. I think it could handle anything, but it >> wont be quick doing those things. >> Clearances- easier on th

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

> The Clem is a much more laid back, cruiserish, town bike. Upright is way > upright. Stays are extra long. I think it could handle anything, but it > wont be quick doing those things. > Clearances- easier on the Clem, but similar > > I haven't touched either in person, so, I can't say with c

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

The Hunqapillar is an off-road tourer meets mountain bike. To me the Clem seems like the perfect budget/production version of the same concept. Long chainstays/wheelbases have been popular on off road bikes since their inception and are good for stability on descents and, depending on who you a

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

Patrick, you are the man! On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:01:35 PM UTC-4, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > I do love going into an aero tuck on a long winding mountain descent on > road that is packed or paved on my Hunqapillar just as much as my > Quickbeam. Sheer wonder and a surprisingly similar e

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

I do love going into an aero tuck on a long winding mountain descent on road that is packed or paved on my Hunqapillar just as much as my Quickbeam. Sheer wonder and a surprisingly similar experience on both bikes. Granted, they are set up with the same handlebars and saddle, heights, and top t

[RBW] Re: Hunq vs Clem

Thank you all for your very helpful thoughts on the Clem. It really is great to read that the Clem is a fun/lively/nimble ride. That is, really, the best I could hope for. There is, after all, a difference between a slow bike and a bike being ridden slowly. Clearly, I am not mistaking the C

  1   2   >