I don't know, it's the smaller Hunq frame pictured on the product page, and so either a 51 or 54 at that size. Since I didn't know for sure, I sized things more off the pedal and crankset instead of the seat tubes, there's definitely some margin for error involved. If anyone know what size the single TT Hunq pictured on the product page is I can probably do a more accurate overlay for sizing, but as this one is let's say it's an idealized apples to apples if you had a Hunq in the same frame size as the medium Clem, just to illustrate how close the main triangle geometries really are and the versatility the Clem /should/ theoretically offer if you, like me, would rather shoot for "typical Riv touring" than "cruiser."
I'm not nearly as expert as the other dudes on here for sizing. Based on the geometry comparisons and theory, the Hunq has a shorter chainstay and will seem to be more responsive to turning because it will follow your weight quicker, the Clem has much longer ones and will want to track straighter which to me is appealing for commuting and carrying loads, and then there's the top tube being slightly shorter on the Hunq which if I'm interpreting the expanded frame theory right means the handlebars should be able to start just slightly lower on the Hunq than the Clem for the same reach, but unless your saddle is all the way forwards it's probably not a big enough amount to matter. A 6 degree rise for 2cm longer hypotenuse shouldn't add too much height to the head tube, but it will add some. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
