[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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,

[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

[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

[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,

[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] 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

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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,

[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. > >

[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

[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] 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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[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