[RBW] Re: ISO WTB: Choco-Norm Bars

[Chris Halasz]

Thanks all - someone responded with a set! 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 3:56:08 PM UTC-7 Chris Halasz wrote:

> Curious if anyone has a Choco-norm bar available. 
>
> I'm pretty happy with my Albastache bars, but am curious to try the Choco. 
> They just look right! 
>
> Thanks, 
>
> Chris
> SB, CA
>

-- 
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/7e964506-a299-471f-b971-174159725d73n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Canti-Rom - 63 cm - CA Delivery

[Philip Williamson]

What a great color! Rare bike, fat road tires, Golden Age fit and finish. 
I’d get this in a heartbeat, if I didn’t already have a shiny green “French 
Fit” custom. 

Philip
Sonoma County, Calif

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 12:15:48 PM UTC-7 Jimmy Warren wrote:

>
> Bump: price listed includes delivery from me to California buyer in 
> August, with no unboxing. I’d just hand over the bike. Or make offer.
>
> I have additional photos sendable to anyone interested.
>
> - Jimmy Warren
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 11:51 AM, James Warren  wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
> Standover is just under 88 cm with the Panaracer 700x37s on the bike.
>
> - Jimmy
>
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 11:39 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
> What is the standover height on this beautiful bike?  
> Mike SLO CA
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:05:43 PM UTC-7 Jimmy Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi RBW Forum Friends, 
>>
>> Photos show a bike that’s been in my large hoard that has always gotten 
>> way too few miles. (I have a Ram and a Hunq and a Hillborne and an Atlantis 
>> and about 12 other bikes, so the Rom has often sat in my collection as 
>> “cool to own,” but it’s a great, versatile road bike that needs to get out 
>> there. I’ve taken great care of it since 2006 (when I got it via trade for 
>> a Heron touring on this forum), and the frame has very few scratches and is 
>> in outstanding condition. 
>>
>> I have a 93 cm PBH, so this frame is about 1 cm too small for me. The 
>> long and high Nitto stem in the photos shows how I addressed it and made 
>> the frame size work for me.. I have many other stems if the buyer wants a 
>> different dimension stem swapped in (but that would mess up the cork bar 
>> tape.) The saddle height in the photos is probably a bit lower than my 
>> usual 81 cm. 
>>
>> Asking $1500 which includes delivery to the buyer in California. Avoiding 
>> shipping is my desire, and I enjoy CA road trips in the month of August. 
>> Before August 11 or 12 would be ideal. PayPal or Venmo 
>>
>> Components: 
>> Dia Compe canti brakes 
>> Tiagra drop bar brake levers 
>> Nitto stem 
>> Nitto Noodle handlebar - 44 cm 
>> Riv Silver bar-end shifters 
>> Shimano Ultegra headset 
>> Suntour XC-Pro crank triple: 46-36-24 
>> 12-34 SRAM 9-speed cassette 
>> Dura Ace front derailleur 
>> Deore rear derailleur 
>> MKS sneaker pedals 
>> Thomson seatpost 
>> Seller San Marcos saddle 
>> Panaracer Pasela 700x37 tires 
>> Rear wheel is Lesnik-built: Alex DM18 with LX hub, 36 spokes 
>> Front wheel is not a Lesnik: Sun CR-18 rim and a hub labeled “Shimano”, 
>> 36 spokes 
>>
>> If interested, email me at: 
>> jimmac...@gmail.com 
>>
>> Thank you, 
>> Jim Warren, long-time Forum member 
>>
>> Photos, and I have more: 
>>
>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/34e8a51b-7eb5-443b-af8d-6fecde29de25n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/07718fd8-4735-4a24-9bbc-c483c480c5edn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[Ryan Frahm]

Good luck with the sale Paul! Can’t wait to see the Rosco builds to come. 
Another cool looking bike!

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:19:24 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:

> Correctumundo, the shortest Clems in both styles have the bendy seatstays 
> on the smaller sizes, the H went through at least (I think only) two 
> incarnations. The big difference now when looking at used H and L bikes is 
> the newer Ls are markedly stretched in comparison to any H you will find. 
>
> Joe Bernard 
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I’m not at all sure, but I think the H had at least one run with the new 
>> longer geo in 2019. It has more cream accents than the older ones is the 
>> only other thing I have noticed. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:48:41 AM UTC-7 Paul Choi wrote:
>>
>>> This might be premature but I have a FFHS 52 Clem H in Grilver that I 
>>> will be selling once my Roscoe comes in. I bought the bike last year from 
>>> the original owner. It has some damage to the drive side chainstay and 
>>> outside of the bottom bracket. The touch up job was very low quality. I 
>>> didn't care about the cosmetic issues. I think the damage was due to the 
>>> chain falling off and then some pedaling. I can provide photos if someone 
>>> is interested and will post an official FS later if there is no interest 
>>> now. I think this bike was purchased from RBW back in 2019. 
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
 ... but i I guess I still don't know that short Hs were ever produced 
 again, after the Ls got longer.  This chart may have just included the 
 then-defunct H for reference or aspirational purposes.

 On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:21:18 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
> DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
>> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold 
>> the 
>> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just 
>> do 
>> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
>> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
>> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn 
>> that 
>> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public 
>> way 
>> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard 
>>> color and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but 
>>> don’t know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>>>
>>> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and 
>>> head tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 
>>> 2 
>>> degrees on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very 
>>> similar though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the 
>>> same 
>>> paths and trails to decide!
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 John,

 Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, 
 but I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model 
 years. 

 Eric 


 On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
 wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed 
> right away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, 
> longer front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube 
> length means bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be 
> adapted, 
> etc. This is not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
> ,
>
> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L 
> so I sold the H and bought an L.
>
> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being 
> a bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what 
> you're 
> looking for.
>
> cheers,
>
> John
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the 

[RBW] WTB/ISO Nitto MT-10

[Kevin]

Hi all,

I'm making a final go of getting comfortable on my old Bridgestone. Anybody 
have an old, tall stem they'd be willing to let go of?

Looking for the 100 mm extension, 26.0 clamp.

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/e3185ee0-1653-4eee-9b82-288602935661n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] ISO WTB: Choco-Norm Bars

[Chris Halasz]

Curious if anyone has a Choco-norm bar available. 

I'm pretty happy with my Albastache bars, but am curious to try the Choco. 
They just look right! 

Thanks, 

Chris
SB, CA

-- 
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/7191b704-7e3d-44ae-b5f0-918709886f51n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Your Road or Road-ish Riv Rubber Radius (tire width)

[Chris Halasz]

Recently placed some 35mm (33mm measured width) Schwalbe Marathon Supremes 
on my Sam, and am surprised at how nicely they ride at 35-40 PSI. 

Was riding 43mm GravelKing SS (not SS+, and not SKs), which were also nice. 
But I didn’t need the side mini-knobs, as I do not ride off-road, and the 
road I most often ride is recently very nicely re-paved. 

I am on the lookout for 36-40mm lightweight smooth and lightweight tires, 
and may move to 36-40mm Challenge Strada Biancas or GravelKing slicks, or 
maybe Shikoro 38s. All are pricey. Maybe I'll just look for some 37mm 
Paselas. 

Recently tried 55mm Antelope Hill tires on a bike, they felt heavy and 
bouncy and sluggish on the uphills, and unsure on twisty descents. The 
first part of my typical ride is a half hour of climbing, gradually 
increasing, and any relief is welcome! 

Like others here, found 32mm Paselas very nice for ride and handling on the 
Rambouillet, and 38-42mm on our Bleriots, and 30mm Avocet slicks on my Riv 
Road Standard.

Anyone else surprised at how (relatively, I know) thin are the tires 
mentioned by everyone here? I expected everything to be in the 42-48mm 
range, but it's more like 10mm less! 

I read the referenced online article. Anyone else wonder if there was a mea 
culpa on the “Rather than worry about ‘too much tire’ for an event, maybe 
we should think about ‘too much handlebar’” statement to Lennard Zinn’s 
recent posting? I wondered how the writer arrived at the conclusion, “…the 
wide tires felt a little bouncy at first. This didn’t slow me down…” I’d 
think there’d be skepticism if a cyclist wrote the same about a full 
suspension bike. I sometimes miss Jobst and the days of wreck.bikes.tech. 

Cheers, 

Chris

SB, CA

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-7 ttoshi wrote:

> My custom Riv--designed for long rando rides uses a 650b x 42 mm tire 
> (currently Grand Bois Hetre EL).  I love them.  My Roadeo uses 700c x ~31mm 
> Grand Bois Cypres EL. It is not as smooth riding as the 42 mm tires, but I 
> am still very comfortable and don't feel like I "need" wider tires.  I've 
> done up to 300 km brevets and double centuries with the Roadeo. 
>
> On my custom I do not see a need for wider tires on asphalt, but could see 
> a use for gravel/mixed terrain riding...
>
> On my 700c Ram, I did feel like there was degradation of handling if the 
> tire size was too high because of the increased BB height, but that was my 
> own personal anecdotal experience.  If you are loving the ride with the 
> wide tires, then you can definitely go with that and ride great long rides.
>
> Toshi in Oakland.
>
>

-- 
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/327bbe18-4fa2-4bf4-b873-2eb1fa39d229n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: WTB:48cm Nitto Noodles

[MoVelo]

Thanks to everyone that responded to my query. I have found what I was 
looking for.

James

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 1:24:29 PM UTC-5 MoVelo wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone on this list might be holding the above referenced 
> item they would like to rid themselves of. Straight and true preferred, but 
> scratches, glue, tape residue, bugs and boogers are fine with me.
>
> Please pm me.
>
> James Poulson
> Centralish NE
>

-- 
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/f4df1d00-3ddc-4111-b065-1545ea00a0f2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Your Road or Road-ish Riv Rubber Radius (tire width)

[Toshi Takeuchi]

My custom Riv--designed for long rando rides uses a 650b x 42 mm tire
(currently Grand Bois Hetre EL).  I love them.  My Roadeo uses 700c x ~31mm
Grand Bois Cypres EL. It is not as smooth riding as the 42 mm tires, but I
am still very comfortable and don't feel like I "need" wider tires.  I've
done up to 300 km brevets and double centuries with the Roadeo.

On my custom I do not see a need for wider tires on asphalt, but could see
a use for gravel/mixed terrain riding...

On my 700c Ram, I did feel like there was degradation of handling if the
tire size was too high because of the increased BB height, but that was my
own personal anecdotal experience.  If you are loving the ride with the
wide tires, then you can definitely go with that and ride great long rides.

Toshi in Oakland.

-- 
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/CAGB59xxeSSOiJL1BbBggiQYjB_N8zBE7QKce8vWJ40Es76%3Do%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[Joe Bernard]

Correctumundo, the shortest Clems in both styles have the bendy seatstays 
on the smaller sizes, the H went through at least (I think only) two 
incarnations. The big difference now when looking at used H and L bikes is 
the newer Ls are markedly stretched in comparison to any H you will find. 

Joe Bernard 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’m not at all sure, but I think the H had at least one run with the new 
> longer geo in 2019. It has more cream accents than the older ones is the 
> only other thing I have noticed. 
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:48:41 AM UTC-7 Paul Choi wrote:
>
>> This might be premature but I have a FFHS 52 Clem H in Grilver that I 
>> will be selling once my Roscoe comes in. I bought the bike last year from 
>> the original owner. It has some damage to the drive side chainstay and 
>> outside of the bottom bracket. The touch up job was very low quality. I 
>> didn't care about the cosmetic issues. I think the damage was due to the 
>> chain falling off and then some pedaling. I can provide photos if someone 
>> is interested and will post an official FS later if there is no interest 
>> now. I think this bike was purchased from RBW back in 2019. 
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> ... but i I guess I still don't know that short Hs were ever produced 
>>> again, after the Ls got longer.  This chart may have just included the 
>>> then-defunct H for reference or aspirational purposes.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:21:18 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
 Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
 DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  


 https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry

 On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold 
> the 
> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn 
> that 
> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public 
> way 
> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color 
>> and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t 
>> know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>>
>> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
>> tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 
>> degrees 
>> on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
>> though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
>> and trails to decide!
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, 
>>> but I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model 
>>> years. 
>>>
>>> Eric 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi!

 I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed 
 right away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, 
 longer front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube 
 length means bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be 
 adapted, 
 etc. This is not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
 https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
 ,

 In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so 
 I sold the H and bought an L.

 I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a 
 bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're 
 looking for.

 cheers,

 John

 On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like 
> the idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up 
> while 
> pulling my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting 
> a leg 
> over but sometimes it could be a benefit.
>
> On Thursday, 

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[Ryan Frahm]

I’m not at all sure, but I think the H had at least one run with the new 
longer geo in 2019. It has more cream accents than the older ones is the 
only other thing I have noticed. 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:48:41 AM UTC-7 Paul Choi wrote:

> This might be premature but I have a FFHS 52 Clem H in Grilver that I will 
> be selling once my Roscoe comes in. I bought the bike last year from the 
> original owner. It has some damage to the drive side chainstay and outside 
> of the bottom bracket. The touch up job was very low quality. I didn't care 
> about the cosmetic issues. I think the damage was due to the chain falling 
> off and then some pedaling. I can provide photos if someone is interested 
> and will post an official FS later if there is no interest now. I think 
> this bike was purchased from RBW back in 2019. 
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> ... but i I guess I still don't know that short Hs were ever produced 
>> again, after the Ls got longer.  This chart may have just included the 
>> then-defunct H for reference or aspirational purposes.
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:21:18 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
>>> DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>>>
 That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
 insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold 
 the 
 answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
 Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
 wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
 proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn 
 that 
 they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
 that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.

 On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color 
> and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t 
> know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>
> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
> tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 
> degrees 
> on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
> though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
> and trails to decide!
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, 
>> but I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model 
>> years. 
>>
>> Eric 
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
>>> away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
>>> front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length 
>>> means 
>>> bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This 
>>> is 
>>> not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
>>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
>>> ,
>>>
>>> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so 
>>> I sold the H and bought an L.
>>>
>>> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a 
>>> bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're 
>>> looking for.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like 
 the idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while 
 pulling my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a 
 leg 
 over but sometimes it could be a benefit.

 On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only 
> standing still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex 
> disappears. Of 
> course any frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I 
> sold mine 
> & have invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it 
> though 
> as the step through is my favorite feature of 

[RBW] Re: Craigslist (and others) Bikes For Sale: 3

[Lance Terry]

I have Wavie bars on my Atlantis and those look very similar. 
Lance 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 11:46:20 AM UTC-6 brizbarn wrote:

> Anyone know what bars are on this Atlantis?  Posting is deleted on CL, so 
> can't look there. 
>
> On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 6:37:08 PM UTC-7 Matthew Williams wrote:
>
>> Atlantis
>> 59cm
>> 3600
>> Berkeley, CA
>>
>> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/d/berkeley-rivendell-atlantis-59cm/7511867606.html
>>
>>

-- 
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/c5ba0f4a-0b42-41f2-8e60-d2beba2f5106n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Craigslist (and others) Bikes For Sale: 3

[brizbarn]

Anyone know what bars are on this Atlantis?  Posting is deleted on CL, so 
can't look there. 

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 6:37:08 PM UTC-7 Matthew Williams wrote:

> Atlantis
> 59cm
> 3600
> Berkeley, CA
>
> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/bik/d/berkeley-rivendell-atlantis-59cm/7511867606.html
>
>

-- 
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/c2ae09b5-9b51-4ccc-92ef-68c59bf9660cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: FS: Clem Smith L 59cm (Utah)

[Richard Rose]

I did hear from seller. We had a conversation. That is a beautiful Clem but I 
am sticking with my 52 for now.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 12:07 PM, River Bailey  wrote:
> 
> Anyone hear back about this post?
> 
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 2:17:56 PM UTC-4 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I sent a PM also about 30 minutes ago. No response yet.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Aug 9, 2022, at 2:16 PM, Jan O.  wrote:
 
>>> PM sent. Thanks.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> San Francisco
>>> 
>>> 
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 10:17:48 AM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
> Clem Smith Jr. in 59cm size. Rides great. 
> No crashes, dings, dents, or scratches. Almost new condition. I purchased 
> it earlier this year and it has 105 miles on it.  Bought from a guy who 
> bought it new from Riv a month prior but never rode it. 
> It’s a great bike but I have another upcoming project that I need the 
> garage space for. 
> 
> It is a stock build except:
> Nitto Bosco Bullmoose bars
> Paul Love levers
> Paul Canti brakes (Neo retro and touring) 
> Microshift shifter
> Ergon cork grips 
> Schwalbe 29x2.2 tires
> 
> Note, no saddle, bag, pedals or cages included.
> 
> I have over $2,600 into the bike. Asking $2,000 (net) plus shipping. 
> 
> 
 
>>> -- 
>>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9e33b6a1-b6bd-4148-ae71-4e399f1012d5n%40googlegroups.com.
> 
> -- 
> 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/a5170691-8d40-423c-bc99-068c7e448cc6n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/8130BA46-17A9-4694-B86A-05A0509F7F3A%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[Paul Choi]

This might be premature but I have a FFHS 52 Clem H in Grilver that I will 
be selling once my Roscoe comes in. I bought the bike last year from the 
original owner. It has some damage to the drive side chainstay and outside 
of the bottom bracket. The touch up job was very low quality. I didn't care 
about the cosmetic issues. I think the damage was due to the chain falling 
off and then some pedaling. I can provide photos if someone is interested 
and will post an official FS later if there is no interest now. I think 
this bike was purchased from RBW back in 2019. 

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> ... but i I guess I still don't know that short Hs were ever produced 
> again, after the Ls got longer.  This chart may have just included the 
> then-defunct H for reference or aspirational purposes.
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:21:18 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
>> DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  
>>
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
>>> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold the 
>>> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
>>> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
>>> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
>>> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn that 
>>> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
>>> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color 
 and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t 
 know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 

 Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
 tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 
 degrees 
 on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
 though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
 and trails to decide!

 On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:

> John,
>
> Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, but 
> I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model years. 
>
> Eric 
>
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
>> away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
>> front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length 
>> means 
>> bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This is 
>> not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
>> ,
>>
>> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so I 
>> sold the H and bought an L.
>>
>> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a 
>> bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're 
>> looking for.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like the 
>>> idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while 
>>> pulling 
>>> my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a leg over 
>>> but 
>>> sometimes it could be a benefit.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only 
 standing still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex disappears. 
 Of 
 course any frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I sold 
 mine 
 & have invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it 
 though 
 as the step through is my favorite feature of the many features I love 
 about this bike. Not saying don’t get the “H”, but the “L” is just so 
 nice.
 [image: image0.jpeg]

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:

 It's basically the same, just a little stiffer. The L has a smidge 
 of flex in the frame that shows 

Re: [RBW] Re: FS: Clem Smith L 59cm (Utah)

[River Bailey]

Anyone hear back about this post?

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 2:17:56 PM UTC-4 rmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> I sent a PM also about 30 minutes ago. No response yet.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 2:16 PM, Jan O.  wrote:
>
> PM sent. Thanks.
>
>
> Jan
> San Francisco
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 10:17:48 AM UTC-7 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>> Clem Smith Jr. in 59cm size. Rides great. 
>> No crashes, dings, dents, or scratches. Almost new condition. I purchased 
>> it earlier this year and it has 105 miles on it.  Bought from a guy who 
>> bought it new from Riv a month prior but never rode it. 
>> It’s a great bike but I have another upcoming project that I need the 
>> garage space for. 
>>
>> It is a stock build except:
>> Nitto Bosco Bullmoose bars
>> Paul Love levers
>> Paul Canti brakes (Neo retro and touring) 
>> Microshift shifter
>> Ergon cork grips 
>> Schwalbe 29x2.2 tires
>>
>> Note, no saddle, bag, pedals or cages included.
>>
>> I have over $2,600 into the bike. Asking $2,000 (net) plus shipping. 
>>
>>
>> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9e33b6a1-b6bd-4148-ae71-4e399f1012d5n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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/a5170691-8d40-423c-bc99-068c7e448cc6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[iamkeith]

... but i I guess I still don't know that short Hs were ever produced 
again, after the Ls got longer.  This chart may have just included the 
then-defunct H for reference or aspirational purposes.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:21:18 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
> DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
>> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold the 
>> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
>> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
>> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
>> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn that 
>> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
>> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color 
>>> and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t 
>>> know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>>>
>>> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
>>> tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 degrees 
>>> on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
>>> though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
>>> and trails to decide!
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 John,

 Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, but 
 I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model years. 

 Eric 


 On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
 wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
> away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
> front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length 
> means 
> bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This is 
> not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
> ,
>
> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so I 
> sold the H and bought an L.
>
> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a 
> bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're 
> looking for.
>
> cheers,
>
> John
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like the 
>> idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while 
>> pulling 
>> my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a leg over 
>> but 
>> sometimes it could be a benefit.
>>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only 
>>> standing still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex disappears. 
>>> Of 
>>> course any frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I sold 
>>> mine 
>>> & have invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it 
>>> though 
>>> as the step through is my favorite feature of the many features I love 
>>> about this bike. Not saying don’t get the “H”, but the “L” is just so 
>>> nice.
>>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:
>>>
>>> It's basically the same, just a little stiffer. The L has a smidge 
>>> of flex in the frame that shows up if you load a bunch of weight on it 
>>> (some folks I've mentioned this to say they don't notice it, YRMV). 
>>> Grab 
>>> that H, it's a good frame! 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I just finished my Susie build (first Riv) and I have never ridden 
 a bike like it. It brings comfort and riding enjoyment to an all time 
 high 
 for me! I do however find it to be almost too nice! 

 I was interested in waiting for a Clem L to come back in stock to 
 use as my grocery getter/winter bike to keep fenders on and haul more 
 stuff. I found a Clem H for sale that I’m interested in 

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[Slin]

Oh cool, thanks for digging up that link to the geo chart. 

I like the note at the end, "Don't get hung up on the numbers though. Go 
ride your bike!"

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:21:18 AM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that 
> DOES simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:
>
>> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
>> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold the 
>> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
>> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
>> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
>> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn that 
>> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
>> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color 
>>> and would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t 
>>> know the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>>>
>>> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
>>> tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 degrees 
>>> on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
>>> though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
>>> and trails to decide!
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>>
 John,

 Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, but 
 I always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model years. 

 Eric 


 On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  
 wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
> away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
> front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length 
> means 
> bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This is 
> not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
> ,
>
> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so I 
> sold the H and bought an L.
>
> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a 
> bit stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're 
> looking for.
>
> cheers,
>
> John
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like the 
>> idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while 
>> pulling 
>> my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a leg over 
>> but 
>> sometimes it could be a benefit.
>>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only 
>>> standing still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex disappears. 
>>> Of 
>>> course any frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I sold 
>>> mine 
>>> & have invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it 
>>> though 
>>> as the step through is my favorite feature of the many features I love 
>>> about this bike. Not saying don’t get the “H”, but the “L” is just so 
>>> nice.
>>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:
>>>
>>> It's basically the same, just a little stiffer. The L has a smidge 
>>> of flex in the frame that shows up if you load a bunch of weight on it 
>>> (some folks I've mentioned this to say they don't notice it, YRMV). 
>>> Grab 
>>> that H, it's a good frame! 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I just finished my Susie build (first Riv) and I have never ridden 
 a bike like it. It brings comfort and riding enjoyment to an all time 
 high 
 for me! I do however find it to be almost too nice! 

 I was interested in waiting for a Clem L to come back in stock to 
 use as my grocery getter/winter bike to keep fenders on and haul more 
 stuff. I found a Clem H for sale that I’m interested in though so I 
 was 
 hoping for 

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[iamkeith]

Well, I stand corrected.  Here's a geomety chart from the archive that DOES 
simultaneously show the shorter H and the longer L.  

https://web.archive.org/web/20200413014654/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-6 iamkeith wrote:

> That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
> insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold the 
> answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
> Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
> wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
> proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn that 
> they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
> that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color and 
>> would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t know 
>> the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>>
>> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head 
>> tube angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 degrees 
>> on the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar 
>> though. It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths 
>> and trails to decide!
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, but I 
>>> always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model years. 
>>>
>>> Eric 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  wrote:
>>>
 Hi!

 I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
 away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
 front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length 
 means 
 bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This is 
 not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
 https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
 ,

 In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so I 
 sold the H and bought an L.

 I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a bit 
 stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're looking 
 for.

 cheers,

 John

 On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like the 
> idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while 
> pulling 
> my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a leg over 
> but 
> sometimes it could be a benefit.
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only 
>> standing still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex disappears. 
>> Of 
>> course any frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I sold 
>> mine 
>> & have invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it 
>> though 
>> as the step through is my favorite feature of the many features I love 
>> about this bike. Not saying don’t get the “H”, but the “L” is just so 
>> nice.
>> [image: image0.jpeg]
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:
>>
>> It's basically the same, just a little stiffer. The L has a smidge 
>> of flex in the frame that shows up if you load a bunch of weight on it 
>> (some folks I've mentioned this to say they don't notice it, YRMV). Grab 
>> that H, it's a good frame! 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just finished my Susie build (first Riv) and I have never ridden a 
>>> bike like it. It brings comfort and riding enjoyment to an all time 
>>> high 
>>> for me! I do however find it to be almost too nice! 
>>>
>>> I was interested in waiting for a Clem L to come back in stock to 
>>> use as my grocery getter/winter bike to keep fenders on and haul more 
>>> stuff. I found a Clem H for sale that I’m interested in though so I was 
>>> hoping for some opinions about the differences here! From what I can 
>>> tell, 
>>> the H just has a sleeper head tube angle and everything else seems to 
>>> be 
>>> about the same. Do they ride similar? The H is a better deal as far as 
>>> parts go than a complete. I’m also almost certain the complete will get 
>>> a 
>>> decent price bump on 

Re: [RBW] Clem H curious

[iamkeith]

That's interesting.  I'd  put my money on Eric being right and bike 
insights being wrong.  The wayback machine internet archive should hold the 
answers.  The Hs didn't last all that long before they decided to just do 
Ls.  They may even have dropped the upper bar an H version BECAUSE they 
wanted to lengthen them, and maybe something got whacky with the 
proportions or angles.  I remember that we were all surprised to learn that 
they'd gotten longer, so it wasn't talked about in the typical, public way 
that ,say, the decision to drop the clementine name was.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-6 fra...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thank you for the messages Dustin and John! I love that mustard color and 
> would have liked to find one in it. I did pick up the one but don’t know 
> the exact year. It is supposed to be here Friday! 
>
> Eric, when I looked on bike insights it showed the fork rake and head tube 
> angle being the main difference on the two. Steeper by about 2 degrees on 
> the H I think with less rake. Trail numbers are still very similar though. 
> It would be fun to spend a weekend riding both on the same paths and trails 
> to decide!
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 AM UTC-7 Eric Daume wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Were your bikes the same gen? The Clem got longer in later models, but I 
>> always thought the L and H had the same geo for the same model years. 
>>
>> Eric 
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022, John Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I had a Clem H and my wife has the same size Clem L. I noticed right 
>>> away there were a few differences; the L has a longer top tube, longer 
>>> front center, and longer wheelbase. The difference in top tube length means 
>>> bars fit differently, stem lengths will need to be adapted, etc. This is 
>>> not insignificant. bikeinsights is as always helpful: 
>>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5e234be7c6f2c50017f1e4cc,5e234e0e5c58cd001776de16
>>> ,
>>>
>>> In the end, I was jealous of the extra reach on my wife's Clem L so I 
>>> sold the H and bought an L.
>>>
>>> I would say they do ride a bit differently (agreed on the H being a bit 
>>> stiffer). Both are great bikes, and it just depends on what you're looking 
>>> for.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+2 fra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Thank you for the thoughts Richard, nice looking bike! I do like the 
 idea of the step thru on these. Especially for loading it up while pulling 
 my daughter in the trailer. I don’t have any trouble getting a leg over 
 but 
 sometimes it could be a benefit.

 On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-7 rmro...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> I have an “L” and I do notice the flex when loaded - but only standing 
> still or just “pushing off”. Once moving the flex disappears. Of course 
> any 
> frame bags you might have are useless on the “L”. So I sold mine & have 
> invested in traditional racks & bags. It’s all been worth it though as 
> the 
> step through is my favorite feature of the many features I love about 
> this 
> bike. Not saying don’t get the “H”, but the “L” is just so nice.
> [image: image0.jpeg]
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 3, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Joe Bernard  wrote:
>
> It's basically the same, just a little stiffer. The L has a smidge of 
> flex in the frame that shows up if you load a bunch of weight on it (some 
> folks I've mentioned this to say they don't notice it, YRMV). Grab that 
> H, 
> it's a good frame! 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-7 fra...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I just finished my Susie build (first Riv) and I have never ridden a 
>> bike like it. It brings comfort and riding enjoyment to an all time high 
>> for me! I do however find it to be almost too nice! 
>>
>> I was interested in waiting for a Clem L to come back in stock to use 
>> as my grocery getter/winter bike to keep fenders on and haul more stuff. 
>> I 
>> found a Clem H for sale that I’m interested in though so I was hoping 
>> for 
>> some opinions about the differences here! From what I can tell, the H 
>> just 
>> has a sleeper head tube angle and everything else seems to be about the 
>> same. Do they ride similar? The H is a better deal as far as parts go 
>> than 
>> a complete. I’m also almost certain the complete will get a decent price 
>> bump on the next run. The step thru is cool but not a huge deal for me. 
>> Thoughts? Thanks in advance!
>>
> -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> To view this discussion on the 

Re: [RBW] Your Road or Road-ish Riv Rubber Radius (tire width)

[Garth]

For road riding on a compliant frame a 32-33mm feels "just right". Even a 
liitle more narrow is good. My favorite tires these days is a Schwalbe 
Marathon Racer 35mm which measures 32-33mm on a Mavic A719 @37-42 PSI. I 
don't notice them, and that's the point. This is with my Franklin road 
bike. While it can take a 38, it's actually worse with a wider tire. It's a 
matter of feel, of detail, of precision and handling. A .3mm mechanical 
pencil feels and writes a whole lot different than a .9mm. A bolder font 
doesn't make these letters any easier or better to read than they are 
presently.

In contrast, I ride my Bombadil on the road and no matter the tire, be it 
38mm or 50mm, it feels overkill to me. I think it has more to do with the 
nature of the frame and it's handling though. Ironically, even on 
primitive, broken up hole ridden roads I prefer the ride and handling of 
the Franklin road bike. It tends to glide over everything, while the much 
stiffer and wheelbarrow-like steering can be a bit jarring and ragged 
feeling on the same surfaces. 

Within the confines of this group it may appear a certain number may prefer 
wide-r tires, isn't it funny how one tends to focus on that which agrees, 
and ignore/dismiss that which does not. In reality "everyone" rides 
"everything". Take a look at bicyles/riders all around the world and you'll 
find such variety you quickly realize there is a certain silliness to any 
and all claims of this or that tire as "best" or even "required" for this 
or that surface.





-- 
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/086cd5ef-744e-48ad-8575-c1c1694d232fn%40googlegroups.com.