FWIW in regard to chainring clearance you don't have to go to super long stays in order to get this though. The original Stumpjumer is a great example of design that had the clearance for both wide tires AND any crank you wanted. In fact the original Stumpy came with TA cranks. Why no one else uses a design like this rather than insisting on the same ol' same ol' design who knows but this just works.
http://bicycle.images.budgetbicyclectr.com//media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/270x270/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/specialized_stumpjumpersilver16_1.jpg from here: http://budgetbicyclectr.com/1982-specialized-stump-jumper-mountain-bicycle-22.html On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:27:11 AM UTC-4, David Banzer wrote: > > I'll gladly take the ability to run normal cranks with low-ish q-factor > compared to other bikes that fit large tires if the exchange is that tight > turns are an issue. > For chainstay length, pannier clearance is completely dependent on the > user (foot size and pedaling position). I'd certainly take a little longer > than necessary chainstay for pannier clearance, than one that is too short. > On my large Clem, I don't have to worry about clipping a rear pannier - > that's something I've never experienced on a bike, including using smaller > panniers on a touring bike that has longer chainstays than a typical bike. > For me, the chainstays are exactly what I want them to be. > David > Chicago > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
