Standover. That's another great feature of the Clementine. I had an Ibis Scorcher for many years, was surprised to find out what an iconic bike it had become. The first problem with that bike was the cheap fixie wheel they spec'd it with--the cog just kept stripping off the hub. I finally put on a regular track wheel. Despite this replacement rim being skinny, I never had a problem with it holding the stock 41mm Nimbus tires--which were about the biggest 700C road tires I had ever seen at that point (1992?). The stock, QBP (heavy, cheapish) chromed fork had barely enough clearance. I also changed out the cheap cranks. Kept the cheap sidepull front brake. (No back brake.)
I found the stock "moon" handlebars, which were made down the street from Ibis, to be way too flexy for me, so I took those off. Had them with a bunch of other bike goodies that I foolishly gave away around 1999 when I moved in a hurry, which, unbeknownst to me at the time, probably effectively killed half the resale value. Also unfortunately, I was so eager to assemble the bike, which was shipped to my office as barter for an Ibis Scorcher ad in my magazine, that I put the seat post in with no grease, making a mental note to do it when I got home... Many years later, when I wanted to move it...frozen like Excalibur. I tried every trick in Sheldon's book from the mild to the extreme before giving it to another metalworking friend, who tore the seat tube trying to get it out. Which effectively killed the rest of the value. I sold the frame on IBob a few years ago, not sure what ever happened to it. It was probably one of the first 10 frames (of 100). It did have a lovely, quick ride, and rolled over everything NYC had to offer with that hunky for the day Specialized rubber. Ahead of its time in its retro way, nicely tig welded, light tubing (though almost always had to carry a 5pd Quadralock in my messenger bag to keep it mine.) It served me well as my daily rider for 4-5 years. But the parts specs were not great. My fixie today, a 1960s 531 Louison Bobet with Nervex lugs, only goes up to 32, but fits me a bit better and rides/looks at least as good, probably better, though it's been a while and many bikes in between. Has the same crankset and rear wheel I replaced on the Scorcher, as well as that bike's original front wheel. So a tiny Scorcher flame flickers on. On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:30:49 PM UTC-4, iamkeith wrote: > > First of all, your Team Stumpy is hot! That and an Ibis Scorcher are > pretty much the only bikes on my wish-list of vintage bikes I'd still like > to own some day. > > I probably didn't say it well enough, but I *am* looking at the standover > figures in terms of how they would translate to the clearance needed for my > given pbh - not trying to *match* my pbh. I'm just a bit shorter > than 6'-2", and have a barefoot pbh of 87cm (34.25"). I'm not a > crotch-worrier, but I'd also hoped to use the Clem for a lot of > trail/off-road duty. I think an inch or inch-and-a-half of clearance, > with shoes on, will be the minimum reasonable fit - so perfect > standover might be something around 84 -86cm max? > > Interestingly, the Rat Trap Pass tires, that I just put on my 60cm All > Rounder, raised the top tube of that bike to EXACTLY my 87cm pbh (I now > hit bone in stocking feet), which also happens to be pretty close to the > number cited on the 59 Clem. I'll be comfortable using the AR as a road > bike at that height, but will now be much less likely to take it on single > track, which is something I often did previously. It has a pretty level > top tube, though. The wildcard with the Clem will be the sloping top tube, > and figuring out exactly where they measured the cited standover height. > If it becomes significantly less toward the saddle, then I can probably > make it work, and that's why I decided to take the chance of buying it. > (That, and the good pre-sale price and the thinking that I was helping with > Riv's Cash flow when I had the means. Pretty amazing to have watched how > successful such and odd bike became, in retrospect.) > > The 59 was the only reasonable choice for me to order, for several > reasons, so it will either work or it won't. But like I said above, it's > just uncanny how often I find myself in this situation with Rivendell/Grant > Petersen bikes - with my size being inexplicably and randomly deleted (in > the case of the XO-1 and Atlantis), or falling exactly in the middle of > sizes offered (in the case of the Hunqapillar and Clem). Meanwhile, I > *know* the 52 clem would be too small, because I have a too-small 52cm > MB-1 - which should actually fit bigger than the 52 clem due to a higher > bottom bracket and steeper seat tube. (Never mind the fact that I rode this > size for decades. That was before I knew better.) > > Plus, there was the original description of the bike sizing, from when I > pre-ordered and before the brochure, which also suggests that the 59 should > be perfect for someone my height: > > *Three Clem & Clementine sizes:* > > *• LARGE—59cm.* Wheel size: 29-in. (fat 700c) > > Typical rider height: 5-11 to 6-4. Min. PBH: 88.2cm > > Maximum standover with fatties: 34.75 in. > > *• MEDIUM—52cm.* Wheel size: 27.5-in (650B) > > Typical rider height: 5-8 to 6-0. Min. PBH: 80.6cm > > Maximum standover with fatties: 31.8 in. > > *• SMALL—45cm.* Wheel size: 26-in > > Typical rider height: 5-0 to 5-7. Min. PBH: 74.3cm > > Maximum standover with fatties: 29.5in. > > > > > 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.
