On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:24:21 AM UTC-7, Garth wrote: > > I ride a 60 Bombadil and I am about 6 2or3 and find it to be "just" large > enough frontwise so there was no way the 59 Clem would be "big" in any > sense of he word ! >
*Sigh...* I don't know, Garth. Perhaps the 59 Clem I have sitting in my living room was a fluke, and was accidentally built bigger than the other 59s. Or perhaps the one you're riding was built smaller. That would certainly explain why your posts always seem argumentative. I get the whole zentastic, *"if you search deep within yourself grasshopper, you will discover that you already have all that you need - your bike can be anything you want it to be"* thing. But I also think it's ok if someone wants to own multiple bikes set up for different purposes, and wants them to fit appropriately for *those* uses, in the way that the designer intended. Nobody on this Rivendell-centric forum is a rampant consumer who is swayed by the latest bike trends. We like threaded headsets and square-taper cranks, for crying out loud. But it's still a *bike forum* and, for some of us, the passion still lies in the exploration of different geometries and setups, and in discovering the effects and nuances of subtle changes, and in having a small "quiver" of bikes to compare - even (or especially) if its all part of the journey toward figuring out what our ideal "only" bike might some day be. The Clem was intended and described as "a townish bike with mountainish capabilities," to be used with a lot of saddle setback and a very upright riding position. So it would necessarily require a substantial amount of standover clearance, to work as intended. If someone was bent on using it as something else - like a road bike with a stretched-out, aero riding position - then *of course* they could make a larger frame work. If you're personally riding a 60 bombadil at 6'-2 1/2", then I suspect that this is what you're doing. That's perfectly ok because, in your own words, "it's your damned bike." I'm pretty sure Rivendell would have put you on a 56 though, if they made typical assumptions about how you'd use it. The point of my original post was to let semi-tallish people - who might now be or who might have been reluctant to buy a Clem, or who are holding out in hopes of a 64 - know that they should at least take a look at the 59, because it might actually work really well. It will work at least as well as, if not better than, it does for me at 6'-1 1/2", with *negative* standover clearance. That was all. But you have a valid point that, depending on how you want to set up and use the bike, your mileage may vary. Keith, who is jacked up on pain meds from New Year's Eve foot surgery, and who will probably regret writing this. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
