Here's the answer to everything- search the world for one of these (the precious, the Rosco Bubbe) and be forever happy- https://photos.app.goo.gl/5UqTJPoisD1FiHJc9 Doesn't look as steppy throughy as the Clem L, but still gives some room, and (risking offense to my fellow Clem 65 owners, sorry folks) rides better than the Clems. -Kai
On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-4 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote: > I am another 65cm H owner... with approx 97-ish pbh, 6'5" height. My > seatpost and bar height are extended nearly the same as in Julian's pic > except I'm using a vintage B72 saddle which is not as tall has his sprung > saddle (flyer/conquest?) which likely accounts for some overall saddle > height difference I expect we'd have. > > Sounds like you certainly fall between sizes of 59 and 65H... I forget the > specific min/max but recall I was right near the minimum recommended pbh > for the 65H. I almost went with a 59 with the initial Clem release (and > was really tempted when the first 59 prototype became a webspecial) but > hesitated having always been stuck with too small off the shelf bikes and > knew I wanted a more upright and comfortable sized bike for my casual local > riding (mixed pavement/gravel/multiuse trails.) I have very little > standover clearance with the 65 but once I'm in the saddle I'm perfectly > content and couldn't imagine wanting to go smaller. I've swapped from 55cm > Bosco to Jones Loop(660mm 2.5 Riser) to ChocoMoose like Julian shows and > now have a regular Bullmoose installed. However, if I did a little more > rough stuff or off-road riding I think I'd actually prefer a 59cm for > slightly easier mounting/dismounting and a more aggressive bar position > using my Jones or Bullmoose bars. > > I also thought it was mentioned they'd at least never do the 65cm H again > but don't recall where/when specifically. > > Best, > Brian Cole > Lawrence NJ > > > > On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-4 weste...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I have a 101 pbh and ride a 65 Clem (pic attached). I really like it, >> but if my pbh were 5-6 cm smaller I think it would be an issue -- esp. if I >> was not using it primarily as a town bike as you see it set up here. >> >> I think the 65 is history. >> >> I'm with Kai -- get the L. I've been seriously tempted to do so myself. >> It is also a unicorn of sorts.... >> >> >> Julian Westerhout >> Bloomington, IL >> >> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 2:28:41 PM UTC-5 Kevin wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I am semi in the market for a Clem H and am looking for some first >>> person thoughts on fit. I worry I am in between the 59 and the massive 65. >>> Can anybody who has ridden either or both of those chime in with their >>> measurements and how the bikes felt? I think the proper solution to this >>> problem is to just get the 64 L but I am just not sympatico with the >>> aesthetics there. >>> >>> I'm about a 95-96 PBH and ride a 62 Sam pretty comfortably with drops, >>> would prefer more reach every time I've set it up with flats. >>> >>> Also, the bike seems to have been excised from the models section of >>> Riv's site. Anyone know if they are planning on only offering the step >>> through model moving forward? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> -- 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/696f7c76-24ab-47b9-9f51-451c964348e6n%40googlegroups.com.
