The Polyvalent being low trail with a 60mm fork rake has NO toe overlap. My own Large Polyvalent has no toe overlap; not even close unless I was wearing clown shoes. Since the Polyvalent is an "all-rounder" the top tube length is not extra long (like the Clem) so swept back handlebars with a 90 degree upright sitting position (using a generous lay-back seatpost) can still feel cramped. You could get more room with an extra long stem (i.e.150mm) but that just changes the steering feel too much in a negative way. If you don't mind a 60 degree or lower riding position, the Polyvalent is a very good and flexible production bike. For example, the frames disc brake tabs allows the choice of 26", 650b or 700c wheels. Since the frames tubeset is on the stiff side, comfort can be increased by having wheels built and parts selected using a knowledgeable wheel builder. On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 5:52:13 PM UTC-4 Garth wrote:
> Being that tall myself there's no way I'd ride the Polyvalent as the toe > overlap alone disqualifies it was practical. > > This one would be more suitable. It's also for discs and 650b or 700c > wheels. The front-center should be alright with either wheel size. > > https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/soma-frameset-buena-vista-disc-teal-metallic-5615?category=990&search=buena+disc#attr=4583 > > On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 4:51:25 PM UTC-4 Chris Halasz wrote: > >> Paul >> >> Let us know or PM me (but others may be interested) if you need any >> particular 64cm Clem measurements. >> >> - Chris >> >> On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 10:39:12 AM UTC-7 paulje...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Wow - thank you all for sharing your excellent tips and suggestions! I >>> think we'll likely go with the Clem considering the lower step-thru, less >>> chance of toe overlap, quill stem for dialing in handle bar height and the >>> more stable / magic carpet ride quality of the Clem. I do need to measure >>> the garage and make sure it will fit without too much trouble as it does >>> seem quite long. >>> >>> On Monday, August 19, 2024 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-4 Paul M wrote: >>> >>>> Another thing to consider is that the 64cm Clem L has the longest >>>> effective top tube of any Rivendells. I had a 64cm current model Clem and >>>> it was a challenge to get the right fit for me. With woman generally have >>>> shorter torsos than men, that definitely needs to be considered. I also >>>> experienced a front-end shimmy if I took both hands off the handlebars >>>> with >>>> a loaded rear rack trunk mounted on the top of the rack. >>>> >>>> On Monday 19 August 2024 at 12:35:46 UTC-7 Mackenzy Albright wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm on team Clem jr and will never part with mine. I think the low >>>>> kicker is a beautiful bike and would not be a bad choice either. >>>>> >>>>> I find a big deal breaker for some is often access to bike racks on >>>>> cars and transit and storage due to wheelbase. If these are not a concern >>>>> I'd go with a Clem purely on my personal preferences. I really enjoy the >>>>> extra top tube which gives adjustment vs putting the longest possible >>>>> stem >>>>> on a bike. >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, August 19, 2024 at 10:24:58 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I’ve used a Wald basket mounted to a Tumbleweed “T” rack on the front >>>>>> of my Clem L & the rear of my Gus. In both cases I also utilized the >>>>>> triple >>>>>> mounts of the rack to support King “many things” cages to hold my fork >>>>>> mounted bags. The front wheel flop on the Clem was far more noticeable >>>>>> than >>>>>> any tail wag on the Gus. Having said that, neither bothered me much. >>>>>> Both >>>>>> bikes handled the load well. >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 19, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Chris Halasz <cha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 18, 2024 at 9:25:38 PM UTC-4 paulje...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [image: 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-bun...@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 >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/11a9aa80-0773-4d8f-8e04-3cd26294f38cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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/af42feaf-5e99-41bf-be3d-8aa8a33aa50bn%40googlegroups.com.
