JJ, I don’t think there is a specific definition of long or short chainstay
bikes. Just relative to what the mainstream bike are at that point in time.
But generally speaking, I’d consider anything under 17” (~430mm) to be
short. I had a custom built about 10 years ago and spec’ed it with 16.5”
chainstays for a 29er with 2.3” clearance. After a while, I felt it was too
short and settled on 430mm (which is my current bike) for my usage and
terrain.
I remember when Gary Fisher introduced the Genesis geo with the
“revolutionary” short chainstays, long cockpit with short stems back in the
90’s. Ahead of its time, really. That’s essentially where all the mountain
bikes are now.
As I said, long chainstay bikes have their place and if I had unlimited
garage space, I’d still have the Clem. It rides nice on pavement and smooth
dirt roads.
And I definitely say there is a point of diminishing returns on the length.
I had a Surly Big Dummy for a while when my kids were young. Talk about a
looong bike. Very useful and rode nice. But it was also cumbersome and if
the dirt road had any significant climb, forget about getting your weight
back far enough to bite down on the dirt.
Riv’s current offering works for a large number of people. Especially ones
that ride Riv’s. Perhaps Grant is done with short stay trail bikes. But I’d
say there are still a good number of Riv fans hoping for an alternative.
Look at Crust bikes. Somewhat Riv-esque and relatively shorter stays than
Riv’s. Seems to be plenty of demand for them.
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7 J J wrote:
> A few semantic questions: what defines short chain stay (or wheelbase) vs.
> long chainstay? Even granting that they are not absolutes, or "you know it
> when you see it," what are the relative metrics? And why do we rarely hear
> about "medium chain stay"? We seem to jump from short to long.
>
> As has been pointed out here, Grant/Rivendell has been touting long chain
> stays since the very early days, as I discovered when I looked at old
> Readers. But definitions shift over time. The long chain stays of Riv of
> the late 1990s and early 2000s are today's "classics" with relatively short
> chain stays — short in retrospect, and relative to the gargantuan lengths
> we see in some models today. So the Atlantis (61) here that I outfitted
> with 55mm tires was yesteryear's "long chain stay". If you think this is
> outlandish, check out this Atlantis brochure excerpt from when Toyo Japan
> was still producing them.
>
> Would you say that the Bombadils and Hunqapillars were "transitional"
> ("medium?" between the older [long then, short now] ones and the newer ones
> [super duper long])?
>
> FINALLY: how long is long enough for all the beneficial characteristics
> that long bikes give? Does anyone think Riv will come out with an even
> longer frame than the longest we see now?
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> I should have clarified. I have never ridden a Jone LWB. I owned the
>> original Jones 29 spaceframe for a number of years. That was a fun bike.
>>
>> I was referring to the Clem. I understand it’s a “Hillibike,” not a
>> mountain bike, in the modern world term of that word. Still, Riv markets it
>> to be used on “trails.” Which is a fairly loose term. The trails in the Bay
>> Area, which I’ve never ridden, seem to be well-manicured. Mostly smooth
>> dirt single track, from what I’ve seen.
>> We have some of that here in Utah but most, if not all trails require
>> some tight turns, riding through rock gardens, and technical sections.
>> Whooptie doos are common as well. All of these sections proved to be a
>> problem for the Clem. Yes, I could take on more of the ATB mentality and
>> get off and walk those sections. Which I’ve done plenty of times on my
>> modern mountain bike (which is a Vassago! Single speed, rigid fork). But
>> why walk when you can ride? I easily ride through those sections on shorter
>> wheelbase bikes. Not fun. For me.
>> All this to say, it depends where you live which may dictate what type of
>> trails you ride. Smooth dirt roads and MUP’s, it’s a nice bike for that.
>> Not so much for what I’m after. This isn’t a knock against the LWB. I’m
>> glad some companies are looking at the design from different angles.
>> Hopefully they’ll continue to innovate.
>> Having said that, for me, and I’m sure a sizable number of Riv
>> enthusiasts, I wish they’d give us an option of a SWB hillibike. Clem and
>> Wolbis are almost identical. And a lot of overlap with the Atlantis,
>> really. Will said the front ends are pretty much the same. Give us a SWB
>> with 2.4” tire clearance.That would be a fun bike. And look better, too :)
>> 😁
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Hoch, when you say you "got hung up," did you mean when riding a Jones
>>> LWB, or a Clem or other Rivendell model? Your post brings up some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Like Tim, I got an early Clem, thinking it would be an updated,
>>> proper-fitting version of an analog 80s or 90s mountain bike - because
>>> that's how it was initially concieved and described by Grant. But I
>>> admittedly struggled on trails, just as you describe. So it kind of
>>> morphed into something else, for other kinds of riding. Then I got rid of
>>> it to get a Susie. It wasn't until then that I realized how much I loved
>>> that Clem and NEEDED a bike like that. I was lucky to get it back.
>>>
>>> Different tools for different tasks. But along the lines of Bill's
>>> comments, Riv likely does not care about the kind of riding or task you're
>>> talking about: Conquering slickrock trails, big "drops," riding through
>>> scree fields (rock gardens) rather than carrying your bike over them,. I
>>> think Riv makes it pretty clear that tgey don't subscribe to the mainstream
>>> sports marketing view that wild places are our playground, so they don't
>>> feel the need to produce that particular tool.
>>>
>>> If you were talking about the LWB, the interesting thing about Jones'
>>> bikes was that, originally, he was the first to really figure out how to
>>> make a 29er ride like a 26er (because, in the early days of 29ers, that's
>>> what people thought bikes should ride like, but not like we remember.
>>> Every bike on the market prior to time was basically a geometric clone of
>>> every other bike. Jones basically simulated that by cramming the big
>>> wheels into as SHORT AS POSSIBLE of a wheelbase, by bending the seat tube
>>> and re-shaping thr stays, and then changing the steering geometry to work
>>> with the bigger wheel diameter and a rigid fork. All features that are now
>>> commonplace.
>>>
>>> The Jones LWB bikes were the result of a much later epiphany, that
>>> closely mirrored Grant's from a timing standpoint, considering things like
>>> balance and better rider body position, comfort, and fore-aft weighting.
>>> The "riding IN the bike, not ON it" metaphor. Again, the result might not
>>> be perfect for everything, but I think it is revolutionary. (Disclaimer:
>>> I have the original, short Jones 29er and still enjoy it.)
>>>
>>> The real revolution to me though, is that these two companies (and,
>>> arguably some innovations by Surly), created a permission structure for
>>> others not to be afraid to try new ideas and geometries, and to break away
>>> from the copy-cat mindset. That's why mountain bike design is still now
>>> evolving rapidly, while road bike design just adopts new gimicks and
>>> buzzwords to sell you something that, functionally, hasn't advanced for 40
>>> years. (Unless, like me, you do enjoy longer chainstays and longer,
>>> slacker front ends.) You might remember how, before Jones, mountain bike
>>> industry "experts" used to lambast anything that wasn't familiar. Whereas,
>>> now, journals like Radavist seek out and celebrate new ideas.
>>>
>>> I don't know who else dabbles with long chainstays though. Vassago -
>>> also from the early days of 29ers - comes to mind as a company that
>>> approached the problem differently than Jones, and were skewered and
>>> criticized to no end for having the audacity to lengthen chainstays and
>>> wheelbases - to the point that they eventually threw in the towel and sold
>>> the company. They were probably on the right track years early, but
>>> closed-minded critics and a sheepish marketplace delayed adoption and
>>> progress for a decade and a half or more. I had to go to the wayback
>>> machine to find this, but here they talk about that battle. It's
>>> interesting to read in retrospect. (This was the real point of my now
>>> long-winded post.)(The other interesting thing to look at would be the
>>> relentless vassago hate threads from contemporary mtbr forums.):
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20090704045348/https://www.vassagocycles.com/wetcat.html
>>>
>>> I think it's funny the way Grant is often called a "retrogrouch" when,
>>> in reality, he and Rivendell are one of the few companies doing NEW things,
>>> opinions of others be damned. And Jones, on a whole other track.
>>>
>>> Last thought: I have several older more-traditional rivendell models,
>>> with short stays and near-level top tubes. I'm so accustomed to them after
>>> years of adjustments that they are good enough and I have no reason to ever
>>> upgrade. But they look dated to my eye - not "classic." Longer stays,
>>> sloped top tubes, more reach - just looks "right" to me. It's a bit
>>> form-follows-function. Different strokes, I guess.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 9:37:33 PM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who’s doing long chainstays other than Jones?
>>>> For MTB, it doesn’t work for me. I was getting hung up like crazy.
>>>> Switchbacks and tight turns were a chore. Up and down techy Boulder
>>>> sections, the bash guard was getting a workout. Stopped me dead in my
>>>> tracks a few times.
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do they make you turn in your Riv card for such a question? Heresy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't ridden a new Riv but I'll confess being put off visually by
>>>>> the design. My 46cm-stay Schwinn passage gets close-ish and I only ride
>>>>> that for dirt touring. It is interesting to see some small mtb makers
>>>>> with
>>>>> long-chainstay models; obviously there's something there. Just not a
>>>>> thing
>>>>> I need. Yet. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Will
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5 pi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My Roadini has a 45cm chainstay. My custom touring bike has a 43cm
>>>>>> chainstay. When riding it doesn't make a big difference --- I'm far more
>>>>>> sensitive to the 5mm higher BB on the Roadini. When packing it to tour
>>>>>> 2cm
>>>>>> is not a huge difference either. The A Homer Hilsen has a whopping 50cm
>>>>>> chainstay. At that point it'll be difficult to pack it into a box for
>>>>>> flying, which was why I decided against the Hilsen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Garth got off the point with: "People do lament about modern
>>>>>>> frame/parts design Bil"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am aware that there are forums for all kinds of bellyachers. The
>>>>>>> distinction I was making is that I know of no other brand that has a
>>>>>>> forum
>>>>>>> of users like Rivendell. In this Riv Group, the participants
>>>>>>> self-assemble, and include those who like Rivendell in 2024, those who
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> always liked Rivendell, and those who USED to like Rivendell but now
>>>>>>> vigorously disapprove of Rivendell. There's no other brand that gets
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> kind of devotion. There's no grumpy cyclist, riding a 1984 Trek 720,
>>>>>>> chiming in on a current forum of Trek users, wailing "to hell with your
>>>>>>> Emonda! Trek should re-introduce investment cast lugs!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was point #1. Point #2 is that even if Trek in 2024 is aware
>>>>>>> of that pissed-of grouch on a 720, they don't give a crap about that
>>>>>>> person. Rivendell knows that lots of their former fans now hate them.
>>>>>>> Rivendell is flattered that you, Garth, are so devoted to your
>>>>>>> Bombadil,
>>>>>>> and so aggrieved and offended by their evolution that you boycott them
>>>>>>> -AND- continuously participate on the forum to repeat how disapproving
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> are. That kind of devotion is rare, and Rivendell respects and
>>>>>>> appreciates
>>>>>>> the energy. They sometimes get weary of it when the bellyachers want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> yell at them on the phone, because they've got work to do, but on the
>>>>>>> forum, they love it. When they built the Bombadil, they HOPED and
>>>>>>> PRAYED
>>>>>>> that it would be loved and ridden for a century. You are well on your
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> to making their dream happen. Keep it up!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Lindsay
>>>>>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 4:40:42 PM UTC-8 Garth wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People do lament about modern frame/parts design Bill, and they do
>>>>>>>> it @Bikeforums.net in mostly the classic & vintage section :) All
>>>>>>>> vintage
>>>>>>>> makes and models are talked about and bought and sold and very much
>>>>>>>> prized/appreciated. It is by far the most active section of BF.
>>>>>>>> There's a
>>>>>>>> couple of members who regularly post .pdf scans of old cycling
>>>>>>>> publications
>>>>>>>> like Bicycling! magazine of most any bike that was reviewed at the
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>> Not just bikes of course but all the vintage parts too from how they
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> to how to tear down and repair them. It's a very diverse community
>>>>>>>> that has
>>>>>>>> the same polarizing topics as any other places, but it's broken down
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> vary sections to make it easier to post and find posts. Lots of riders
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> love anything "new" and lots that don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The demand and use for all kinds of bikes and parts Worlwide is far
>>>>>>>> beyond anyone's means or abilities to count. Andel, likely the largest
>>>>>>>> crank manufacturer in the World, has lots of traditional doubles and
>>>>>>>> triples and they manufacture Riv's cranks for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the megastays, it is what it is. There's a whole lotta
>>>>>>>> frames and makers to choose from. Thankfully there are other
>>>>>>>> people/businesses interested in having steel frames(stock and custom),
>>>>>>>> friction shifters and non-disc hubs made so there's very little if
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> I shop @Riv for.
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I promise you that Rivendell is flattered that nice people gather
>>>>>>>>> themselves to complain about the former-models that Riv no longer
>>>>>>>>> makes.
>>>>>>>>> It shows a love for Rivendell that most other bike brands don't get.
>>>>>>>>> There's no Specialized google group where current Specialized fans
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> griping about Rockhoppers and Sequoias. All those nostalgic cyclists
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> bailed on Specialized entirely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What Rivendell does, and has always done, is build the bikes they
>>>>>>>>> want to exist. If you like one and want to buy it, great. If you
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> like any of them and buy something else, that's also great. They
>>>>>>>>> (Riv)
>>>>>>>>> does not care about making money, except to the extent they can keep
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> lights on and pay their people a modest living wage. They do not
>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>> about growth. Actually, they probably have made up their minds that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> can't grow. They know exactly how many bikes they can afford to
>>>>>>>>> sell, and
>>>>>>>>> they plan out making that many bikes. That very limited number of
>>>>>>>>> bikes is
>>>>>>>>> always going to be "whatever they feel like making". They count on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> fact that somebody is going to buy them, and it usually works out for
>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>> The bikes they feel like making are bikes that don't exist anywhere
>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>> and/or have never been made before. When they made the Saluki circa
>>>>>>>>> 2007,
>>>>>>>>> bikes like the Saluki didn't exist. Today, bikes like the Saluki do
>>>>>>>>> exist,
>>>>>>>>> so Riv doesn't have to make them. The fact that some Riv-fans are
>>>>>>>>> nostalgic for former models is touching, but they don't make
>>>>>>>>> nostalgia
>>>>>>>>> models. If you want a short wheelbase Rivendell, buy a Crust, ride
>>>>>>>>> the heck
>>>>>>>>> out of it, and be happy. That's what Riv would tell you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Roaduno is the classic, IMO. They love the idea of a purpose
>>>>>>>>> built 3x1 road bike. Nobody...not a single person on earth is
>>>>>>>>> pounding on
>>>>>>>>> their keyboard complaining that it's hard to find a purpose built 3x1
>>>>>>>>> road
>>>>>>>>> bike. There is NO demand for it, but Riv is making it anyway,
>>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>>> feel like it. If you buy it, great. If you don't, they hope you
>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>> something else that you do want to buy. It's perfectly logical for
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> nostalgic Riv-fans to gripe "they couldve taken that Roaduno money
>>>>>>>>> and did
>>>>>>>>> a run of traditional short-wheelbase Atlantis!!!!" Yep, they could
>>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>> That's not what they felt like doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My advice to the disappointed is to just let Riv be Riv. Seek out
>>>>>>>>> the bikes you like, buy them and ride them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Lindsay
>>>>>>>>> El Cerrito, CA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:49:54 AM UTC-8 jrst...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like the bit longer chain stays of my Sam and Saluki as well
>>>>>>>>>> but that is as long as I need.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:01 PM Tim Bantham <tba...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can relate to this. For me there are pros and cons. For
>>>>>>>>>>> example, the Clem I bought a few years ago was intended to be an
>>>>>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>>>>>> mountain bike. I found the long chainstays to be a liability for
>>>>>>>>>>> east coast
>>>>>>>>>>> single track. This is especially the case with tight turns and the
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> carry the bike. If I had to do it all over for the type of MTB
>>>>>>>>>>> riding that
>>>>>>>>>>> I have available to me I would go for a bike with shorter stays and
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> lighter frame. That said, I love the longer chainstays on my Sam as
>>>>>>>>>>> compared to a regular road/gravel bike. Definitely noticeable on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> descents. I ride my Sam on dirt roads quite a bit and the long stay
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> shines in that situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic
>>>>>>>>>>> in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/P5Cfxk3lrN8/unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
>>>>>>>>>>> to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c173cbd3-3653-48fc-aee1-01d06e8fa243n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
--
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/15547ae0-7c53-4f29-9908-ec04ed492e79n%40googlegroups.com.
