That's interesting, because with t he 51, the front center stays the same, at 606. But with the next two sizes, the tt changes, but so does the front center. So in the 55cm, Old tt, 59.7, new, 61.5. Old fc, 627.4., new 645. Similar changes with the geo of the 58 size, where the tt length changes the front center. The smallest and largest frame sizes have the same numbers in both new and old charts.
My first guess would be that there was a tweak with the two middle sizes, and that the 51 number was a misprint or mismeasure in one or the other of the charts. Or it could be that the numbers got confused on the old chart, or some other possibility. (I assume the tt measurements in both charts are "virtual" as there would be little immediately useful information imparted by publishing the actual measurements on a sloping design.) Opinionated Opinion on Bicycle Geometry I know lots of people who are infected enough with the bike bug to spend time on bicycle groups care a lot about these numbers. I find them interesting for the general picture--I prefer slacker seat tube angles (partially so I can run my leather saddles comfortably) and longer stays (originally for heel clearance). But when I bought my Clementine, I just plugged my SH number into the chart and went with that. 98% of human bodies fall within a range that a good bicycle designer can accommodate. Especially with a low volume producer and a designer with a public presence, after that I assume that, given the model bicycle and what it is for, the designer will have worked out the more esoteric numbers so that it all works. I know there are RBW members who have gotten bikes they did not feel comfortable on, and a number who never pull the trigger because, despite the PBH/SH chart they are certain they are between sizes, and that may be. I'm certainly not saying the numbers should not be available, and if there are mistakes they need to be fixed. But I have seen folks worried about millimeters in tt length. The human body is even more amazing than the bicycle, and can adapt to a decent range of set measurements, which of course can be tweaked with stems, seatposts, handlebars, etc. without any big compromise in comfort or performance. Just my two cents, I realize probably not exactly a consensus view on RBW! Enjoy your ride today! On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 9:34:21 PM UTC-5, Dave Johnston wrote: > > Did the top tube length change on the 2017 Appaloosa? In the old chart > (attached) the 51cm model says Top Tube of "56.5cm", the new chart shows > the Top tube as "57.5". Or is this just a matter of effective vs actual? > > > https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry > vs > > > <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j4r7vqqY-Eo/WMNhwZ4QrZI/AAAAAAAAAeo/zT4Y2eDN714XN_E5TRjDIvOvjf8k42hMQCLcB/s1600/tumblr_nwy5tsXN3B1qe3ngpo1_1280.png> > -- 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.
