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 > 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 > standover heights alone (which is the starting point in the normal process > of selecting a Rivendell bike), the sizes of these TWO MODELS COMBINED work > out very well in increments such that there is no overlap. Given all the > other similarities, its almost as if they're designed to work together: > > - *45 Clem* (74.9cm) > > 1.6cm delta > - 48 Hunq (76.5cm) > > 2.6cm > - 51 Hunq (79.1cm) > > 1.7cm > - *52 Clem* (80.8cm) > > 2.0cm > - 54 Hunq (82.8cm) > > > 3.9cm > > - 58 Hunq (86.7cm) > > 1.6cm > - 5*9 Clem* (88.3cm) > > 2.3cm > - 62 Hunq (90.6cm) > > My size, of course, falls squarely in the middle of the *BIG* gap, > between the 54 and 58 Hunqapillars. (Which is also squarely between the > 52 and 59 Clems.) Other bike models that happen to share a > mysteriously-missing size, at the exact same increment, are the XO-1 > (57cm) and a Atlantis (59.5cm). You know how, in the Clem Brochure, Grant > said that there's this weird, cosmic thing happening between Rivendell and > Shimano, whereby if they really like something it is sure to be > discontinued? Well, there's this weird cosmic thing happening between me > and Grant whereby the bikes he's designed, that I am most attracted to, > don't really come in my size. > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:29:17 PM UTC-6, Tim Wood wrote: > >> 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 >> in to ht/st angles but again I didn't know how they translated). For years >> I have been under the assumption that I needed a 57/58cm tt and that's >> that. So the thought of a 64cm tt is a lot to wrap my head around. >> >> Like you said,I'm going to trust in the process and method and hope it >> all works out (gulp). What reassures me is the comparison you make between >> a 59 Clem and a 58 hunq being close in size and fit. I'm not sure why this >> reassures me cuz I've never ridden a 58 hunq, but I feel like if I were to >> buy one I'd buy a 58. Yikes. >> >> Anyway, not gonna stress about it, just gonna open that box when it gets >> here and ride off in to the sunset with my bars high.....and hope that I >> can reach them. >> >> Tim >> >> -- 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 to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
