Hey so, I have an 89cm pbh. i am six feet tall. i have a 63 cm homer, a 61 atlantis and a 60 cm bombadil. if i were to choose a hunquapillar i would get a 58, to account for the larger tires and such ( the same reason i have a 61 atlantis. I can lift all of my bikes about 1-1.5 inches off the ground, but i seldom do this cause in the real world i rarely if ever need to do this. anyhow i was just at RIV last week and test rode some bikes, and did in fact ride the 62 cm hunq. i didn't lift it up, and the top tube was up there but i was able to straddle it with flat feet, and the ride was fantastic, it felt great. the have that whole crotch worrier scenario on there site if it doesn't worry you then go for the 62. i live in nyc and love having the bomba with the huge tires, it may not seem necessary , but the ride is awesome, and i find myself choosing the fat tires for city riding most of the time.
On May 26, 4:09 pm, erik jensen <bicyclen...@gmail.com> wrote: > i'm 93cm pbh, btw > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CUS-TOM! > > CUS-TOM! > > CUS-TOM! > > > On May 25, 3:55 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > Well if that's true then I'll probably go for the second Hillborne. > > > But at least one place on the RBW web-site puts him at a 89 PBH and > > > says he got the Hunqapillar as a "mountain bike". I don't need (or > > > want) the "extra" standover that "mountain biking" would suggest. > > > > But all of the numbers are close enogh that only actually straddling > > > one would tell. The idea of a second Hillborne appeals to me enough > > > that it makes unusually precise demands on the Hunqapillar > > > alternative. > > > > Yours, > > > Thomas Lynn Skean > > > > On May 25, 5:03 pm, Zack <zack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Also, I think that Keven has a 91 cm pbh (lol that I know that) and he > > > > has the 58. Food for thought. It seems like the writeup strongly > > > > suggests that the correct size for you would be 58 cm. > > > > > On May 25, 6:15 am, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh, and I forgot to mention... RBW's geometry PDF says the 62cm > > > > > Hunqapillar has a standover of 90.6cm. > > > > > > That's close enough to warrant a real world test before deciding. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Thomas Lynn Skean > > > > > > On May 24, 1:53 pm, dweendaddy <dweenda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am around the same size as you and have been looking longingly at > > > > > > Hunqas. According to the Riv site: > > > > > > 5-9" to 5-11: 54cm > > > > > > Long-legged 5-10" to 6-1: 58cm > > > > > > Long legged 6ft to 6-4.4: 62cm > > > > > > > Just wondering - why are you thinking 62 vs 58? If you want it do > > be > > > > > > maximally different than the Sam, you might want to put big tires > > on > > > > > > it and then, according to the site: > > > > > > 62cm Hunqa: 91.5-100cm PBH (Saddle hight 82-90cm, standover on > > biggest > > > > > > tire is 91.5cm) > > > > > > > Now I like big bikes, but having a standover taller than my PBH is > > > > > > stretching it, so to speak! > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- > oakland, ca > bikenoir.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
