I assume someone pregnant prefers a more upright position, irrespective of its declared benefits to the health of one's pelvic floor (important to me, anyway), and overall spinal and wrist comfort (subjective, I suppose). It makes sense then to extend the chainstay, and so proportionately the overall triangle from the center of mass of the more upright cyclist and the bicycle wheelbase.
Likewise, it makes more sense for the cyclist who rides low and in the drops to ride a shorter chainstay and so a shorter wheelbase than the Clem.
At barely 6'1", with an 89cm PBH, my 64cm Clem L has a more accessible 'step-through' than my 60cm Platypus, and, to me, the Platypus appears to have much more step-through access than the Lowkicker. I don't see how one could really step through the Lowkicker without considerably tilting the bike.
- Chris
On Monday, August 19, 2024 at 7:13:54 AM UTC-7 DJC wrote:
Paul,
I own both the Polyvalent and the Clem Smith H; I've also built up for others the Polyvalent low-kicker and the Clem L. The Clem has a laid back, swoopy feel; it's equally comfortable on the road or in the dirt, whereas the Polyvalent feels snappier and more nimble. That's doesn't mean the Clem is sluggish, but rather it's not as "fast" handling as the Poly. I'm selling my Polyvalent because it's too close to other bikes in my stable; the Clem is a forever bike for me. Another consideration will be the fit; the Clem has a very generous headtube / stack compared to the Polyvalent, plus with the Clem you get the advantage of the quill stem for setting the front-end height
Both are lovely bikes, but very different in design and riding characteristics. Remember that the Polyvalent is a "low-trail" bike, but to the higher end of the range, which makes it more neutral in handling compared to low low-trail bikes. It handles a front load better than a rear load, but still manages a light rear load well. The Clem is a rear loader primarily, and capable of a light front load. I've chosen the Clem because it's become a groovy analog trail bike that compliments my Gus Boots nicely. However, I did have the Clem build as a city commuter for a couple of years and it was very capable.
Best,
Dave
![Screenshot 2024-08-18 at 5.41.07 PM.png]()
Hello-
I'm considering getting a step-thru bike for my partner. She's pregnant and her normal touring bike is feeling less and less comfortable. We're looking at the size 64 Clem Smith Jr or the XL Velo Orange Polyvalent Lowkicker. She's 6'3 with 97 PBH.
I was wondering if anyone here might be able to say how the ride quality might be different on the two bikes? Or if there are reasons I should consider one over the other?
We mostly ride on pavement on country roads and the occasional dirt/gravel road. The Clem looks longer which I imagine would make it more stable? I imagine this might be nice if we eventually put a baby seat on the back.
The Polyvalent Lowkicker uses 650b wheels and I'm a little concerned with toe overlap as it looks like a shorter wheelbase. I know the Polyvalent uses more modern standards like thru axles and disc brakes for better or worse. I like that the Polyvalent is a bit more affordable but the Rivendell seems like more of a classic. I'd be grateful for any suggestions.
Thanks!
Paul
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/11a9aa80-0773-4d8f-8e04-3cd26294f38cn%40googlegroups.com.
