Tough call. I really wish Rivendell would offer two more sizes in their mixte frames - something smaller than the 50 and larger than the 60. Their mixtes are such a hit that I think it could be justified. Maybe that geometry changes the whole bike or something, I don’t know, I’m not a frame designer, I’m just a Platypus fan.
Let us know what you decide, Wesley. Leah On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 5:40:27 AM UTC-4 Garth wrote: > I wouldn't do it Wesley. It's not the seat tube height, it's the reach and > possibly the stack height. For having such a long front-center, the actual > reach isn't that long with a shallow head tube angle. I asked about these > from Riv and the 60cm has the following measurments: > HTA 69.6 > STA 72 > Effective TT 65.2 centimeters > Stack 66.6 > Reach 43 > Chainstay 54 > Rake 6.7 > Front-Center 72.6 > Drop 8 cm > > The term "upright" can mean many things to different types of riders. > Decreeing it by angles doesn't really work as every body is unique and in a > constant state of motion, invariably variable. I'm close to your height and > leg length Wesley and totally relate to maxing out too small of frames > which never really feels quite right. Stock bicycle frame design to me is > chronically too short in the front end and Rivendells have been no > different. They finally started lengthening the front in 2019 with the > Clem/Susie/Gus frames, but their road frames(the ones that take a stock > 114-116L chain length) remain too short for me. The only Riv that worked > for me prior is a 60cm Bombadil as it had the longest front-center-reach of > any production frame for the given size, and even it is "just" enough, I > could easily go longer. Seat tube height isn't a big deal anymore as > seatposts are generally quite long these days. > > What I call "upright" is not so much about the body position but the > ability to keep your head up comfortably and your body weight balanced as > only a given rider can tell what that may be. You could be a full-on pro > road racer or a causal recreational rider. No one can tell you what that > balance may be, and there's certainly no way to dumb it down into a > formula/box. That's why I even cringe at Riv's use of pee-bee-aytch. I > think everyone should have a frame custom fit, frankly. To think that a set > of 4 or 5 frames of fixed dimensions is going to work for everybody/anybody > is how you end up riders using overly short and long stems and seatposts, > trying out this-that and the other handlebar, and in between sizes and out > of sizes. It's really no different than bike shop brands have been since > I've been visiting them, the 1970's. I could say the thing about clothes, > about having them tailored to fit the wearer, rather than the wearer > wondering what's wrong when they don't fit into a prescribed box of > dimensions. > > > A 59 Gus/Susie would fit you better Wesley as the stack height is quite > tall along with the lengthened front. While the Clems are about the > dimensions, but with a lower BB, I myself wouldn't want or recommend a > bike without some sort of top tube for a tall rider. These are not road > bikes, however ..... bummer. Yes you can ride them on the road but they'll > never be the same. What anyone at Riv rides, particlarly Will as he is > tall also, it's not really applicable to anyone else. About the only thing > I really relate with anyone/anything at Riv is the love of bike riding, and > does anything else matter ? > -- 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/33c45ae5-56ed-4bb6-ad16-3cbe4bc98569n%40googlegroups.com.
