Thank you for the exhaustive answer! I chickened out on the Clem L in the lottery... which of course now is a semi-regret. Ah, a resale awaits and will find me at the right time.
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:48:34 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote: > I had a 59 Clem H from the first run, and now have a 56 Suzie. In both > cases, I'm pretty sure mine were the first frames pre-ordered from Riv. - I > had followed the development closely and both spoke to me as being the > perfect bike for what I wanted at the time, and I pulled the trigger the > second they went live. Here are some random, rambling thoughts and > impressions. Keep in mind as you read this that, although we'd ride the > same size frame, we'd have entirely different experiences. I'm about 4" > taller than you (6'-2"), but have a shorter PBH (87). > > First things first: They are very different bikes! When I ordered the > Susie, I thought it was going to mostly be a "perfected" version of the > Clem, and that it would solve a couple of the minor but nagging complaints > I had about the Clem (slightly too long of chainstays and too little > standover clearance for trail/mountain use; too short of a top tube for a > good fit; too flexy of a frame). The Susie did rectify all of those > things, but I was otherwise completely wrong about one being a direct > replacement for the other - there are very few similarites. I kick myself > daily for getting rid of the Clem. Not not because I liked it "more" than > the Susie, but because I could have found a place for both in the quiver > had I known how different they are, and had I known that almost none of the > parts were transferable from one to the other - which meant that I had to > re-purchase a lot of pieces that I hadn't intended to. > > In terms of ride/stability: The Clem feels like a true Rivendell, with a > low center of gravity, stable and instantly comfortable. The steering is > pretty quick - like a relaxed rivish road bike more than a mountain bike as > I was expecting when I got it. As a result, it was quite (most) enjoyable > on pavement and at speed. With the long wheelbase, it differed from a > "regular" road bike in that I felt like every bit of effort translated to > forward motion. Kind of like a speed skate versus a hockey skate. The > Susie, on the other hand, has a very-noticably higher bottom bracket and, > therefore, center of gravity. It also has a more relaxed steering > geometry. So it feels like a lot of mountain bikes or off-road touring > bikes, but without that distictive "rivendell" quality. Less effort for > slow-speed cruising around. Even though the Susie is lighter gauge tubing > (and lighter overall), it is less flexy than the Clem. On rough trails or > standing out of the pedals, I'd got shimmy on the Clem, as I felt the whole > frame flex torsionally. This is a guess, but I attribute part of the > Susie's relative rigidity to the shaped chainstays that add better > triangulation. The clem's are arrow-straight. > > In terms of "wieldy-ness," the Clem was definitely a chore to bring > along. I had to take the wheel off to fit it in the back of my pickup. I > don't need to do that with the Susie. I don't live in an apartment or > have to deal with stairs but, even if I did, I'd nonetheless gladly > sacrifice a little convenience to own either bike. Both are big but, > having gotten used to them, I can't imagine ever buying a short bike again > - at least for trails and town and day-to-day use. I have a ton of bikes, > but these are the ones I almost always grab. (This is when I kick myself > the most for getting rid of the Clem - it felt more like an extension of me > than the Susie does.) Unless your frame of reference is carbon fiber road > race bikes, neither are heavy bikes by any stretch. Even with full racks > and fenders, I never think about the weight like i do with some of my bikes. > > In terms of suitability for electrifying: You're on you own... but Joe > could probably help. I see the Susie as my heirloom forever bike, and I > can't imagine bolting a motor to it or adding stresses that might damage it > - but that's me. Personally, I'd get one of the cheap, heavy-duty Jones > LWBs if I wanted to do this, or just get an off-the-shelf electric bike for > less money. > > Fit-wise, the Susie has too much stack height for me, with the bars I > stubbornly want to use (bullmoose bosco) and, though longer, is STILL not > long enough in the top tube. The Clem was marginal (almost too high) for > stack height, but it worked. If you're flexible with cockpit choice, this > can of course be fixed, but I basically find the Susie to be more > restrictive. It even makes the steering a little too light for me, as I'm > forced to be too upright and can't lean my weight forward enough. In your > case, with a shorter torso and longer legs, I'd suspect that you'll find > the top tube lengths adequate, but the susie's stack height will be > shockingly tall. > > I mentioned that my Clem H had a lot of flex - and mine even had the high > top tube! I can't imagine the L being stiff enough, for the way I like to > throw a bike around. And I understand the new ones are longer, wich should > theoretically exacerbate the problem (remember the trouble they had getting > the rosco bebe bike to work?). Yet I never hear anybody complain about > this, so it's probably me guessing too hard. For probably the same, > unexplainable-by-me reason, the Susie is adequately rigid. And, to > politely disagree with Leah, I think it is one of the most attractive frame > designs I've ever seen!!! The Clem L doesn't do it for me aesthetically. > I do appreciate the low tube for crotch clearance when riding on trails, > when I might suddenly get bumped out of the saddle or have to dab. But I > mount a bike by leaning it toward me and swinging my leg over from behind > the saddle, so the "step-through" concept means nothing to me. > > On a related note, I mostly chose the Susie over the Gus because the early > gus prototypes had kind of ugly proportiones with the 1 1/8" headtube. But > the final ones, with a thicker downtube, actually ended up looking quite > nice. If I did it again, I'd probably get the Gus for even MORE > stiffness. Especially if I was going to electrify it. > > On the clem, you can fit 2.4 or 2.5 tires WITH fenders. On the Susie, I > have 2.8 tires, but there's absolutely zero room for fenders... even if > there were some available in that size that didn't cost a fortune. As > with all rivs, the crown/length of fork blades seems to be the limiting > factor but, on the Susie, it seems exageratedly so. That said, I rarely > ever wanted bigger tires on the Clem, and I think I do want smaller tires > on the Susie. > > FWIW > > > > On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:08:51 PM UTC-7 Kiley Demond wrote: > >> This has probably been hashed over numerous times so at the risk of >> making some of you go "arghhhh!"... >> >> What are the differences of note between Clem L. and Susie W.? >> >> - Handling (stability, nimbleness) >> - Wieldy-ness (overall size, weight, etc.) >> - Suitability for electrifying at a future date >> - Any other thoughts, whether experiential or theoretical >> >> The person asking is 5'10" 140lbs with a pbh of 91. I had a 60cm Cheviot >> which I loved but sold several years ago when financial issues overrode >> having such a fancy ride. I would prefer to buy a frame only and do the >> build myself. I was gutted when I saw that an orange Susie W. frame was >> listed (and sold); I wasn't paying sufficient attention. I "won" the >> right-to-purchase lottery for a Clem but couldn't do it because they were >> sold as complete and I hadn't done my due diligence on Susie Ws. >> >> Thank you for your collective insights and wisdom! >> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6e4e67fd-64dd-4391-a376-5ed724befa78n%40googlegroups.com.
