I can +1 on David's sentiment. I rode the 52 Clem later that day and I was
also pleasantly surprised at how wonderfully it rode. Smooth and nimble. A
real joy. I particularly liked the 650b wheelset. I rode the 54 Hunqapillar
right after and it felt less nimble on the 700s... and I always
I did a parking lot test of the 45cm clem on my way to take my 48cm
hunqapillar out in shell ridge. If the clem was out a year ago when i
bought the hunq it would have been a very tough call, especially given the
price difference. i can't imagine that for an all rounder trail / city /
commuter
51cm makes sense, the seat tube in the overlay is slightly shorter on the Hunq
so I was suspecting that. The wheel discrepancy is there, you can see the
Hunq's wheels are complete while the Clem's are cut off at the bottom of the
shot. If my maths aren't failing me, a 26 wheel tuning 2.3 max
FWIW, my 51cm Hillborne and 52cm Bombadil have the same length head tubes at
about 17cm. I would guess the 51 Hunqapillar and 52 Clem would be similiar.
Looks like the head tubes match up in your overlay.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Jim, regarding your thoughts, I'm with you to that extent. Certainly the
wheelbase, bb drop, tire size, fork rake, head tube angle, seat tube angle
and all that go together to form how the thing rides. But I guess what I
was going for is how you choose to build it up to fit it mostly matters in
I enjoyed the comparison of the Clem and Hunq. Nice layover. Just out of
curiosity, what size Hunq was compared to the Clem 52? I ask because I
have been communicate with Riv and 2 of the choices that I have been given
is a 52 Clem and a 54 Hunq. They say that the Clem 52 would give me a
The standover height of my Hunqapillar and Quickbeam in 90cm and my PBH is
90 cm, and I do just fine, including bikepacking on very rough terrain with
the fattest tires I can get on there with the Hunqa. I think you'd be
delighted with either and you should go with the one that you want. The
When I first saw your (very cool) overlay, I thought about wheel size
discrepancies. I have a folder full of Hunq pics and I'm going to say the
Hunqapillar is a 51, which has 26 wheels. The 54cm Hunq's have a much
smaller gap at the top tube-head tube-down tube junction, due to the longer
IME, relying upon one (or two, or three...) aspect(s) of the geometry never
really translates to real-world behavior. Patrick and others touch on this
above.
Back when low-trail was in fact the New Low Trail™ I was lucky enough to
have a few longer conversations with Grant about the urge to
I don't know, it's the smaller Hunq frame pictured on the product page, and
so either a 51 or 54 at that size. Since I didn't know for sure, I sized
things more off the pedal and crankset instead of the seat tubes, there's
definitely some margin for error involved. If anyone know what size the
Very cool overlay, well done. Your comparison of the frame geometries
seems spot on.
On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 2:27:15 AM UTC-4, Zed Martinez wrote:
The poor man's Hunq.
I did the best I could to compare the Hunq and Clems at similar sizes. If
both of them are running the same size
That's an awesome overlay!
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Zed Martinez iamzedmarti...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Clem is a much more laid back, cruiserish, town bike. Upright is way
upright. Stays are extra long. I think it could handle anything, but it
wont be quick doing those things.
The Clem is a much more laid back, cruiserish, town bike. Upright is way
upright. Stays are extra long. I think it could handle anything, but it
wont be quick doing those things.
Clearances- easier on the Clem, but similar
I haven't touched either in person, so, I can't say with
The Hunqapillar is an off-road tourer meets mountain bike. To me the Clem
seems like the perfect budget/production version of the same concept. Long
chainstays/wheelbases have been popular on off road bikes since their
inception and are good for stability on descents and, depending on who you
Patrick, you are the man!
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:01:35 PM UTC-4, Deacon Patrick wrote:
I do love going into an aero tuck on a long winding mountain descent on
road that is packed or paved on my Hunqapillar just as much as my
Quickbeam. Sheer wonder and a surprisingly similar
There used to be a write-up on RBW's site that was a comparison between the
Sam Hillborne and the A Homer Hilsen.Something to the effect that, the
Hillborne is 80, maybe 90% of the bike that the Hilsen is, at half the
cost. Gave a lot of details on what that extra was getting you.
I am trying to decide if the Clem is the right bike for me, so I'm really
interested in this discussion. From what I've read on this board, there is
a developing consensus that the Clem is going to be slow. Might I ask,
in the spirit of really wanting to know, how those of you who have come
If I buy a Clem, I guarantee it will be slow. Because when I got on the
Clem, I smiled, exhaled, and relaxed. Then I smiled some more, and pedaled
slow. I suppose a rider incapable of relaxing might ride a Clem fast. I
suppose a rider determined to be fast may be able to resist the soothing
Waynee: IMO, your question is perfectly reasonable, and I for one will be
very interested to hear responses. For me, a slow, heavy bike would be an
instant non-seller.
One aside that might be pertinent: as Jan Heine has shown over the last few
years in his publication, Bicycle Quarterly, the most
Well said, Drew. Though the engine and skill of the rider can make up a lot
of what modern bikes have (the generally the riders lack the skill because
of it). For example, I've ridden down wash boarded roads on my Hunqapillar
a lot faster than my ride partner, who had front shocks. His shocks
I forgot to add -- of course -- that in my own experience, such as it is,
the length of the stays should not affect the bikes sprightliness. My Riv
road customs, including the gofast, have stays that measure 45 cm to the
end of the horizontal dropouts, and these two define for me sprightly
feeling
I'm not sure where you're getting slow from or what it means. I have no
idea what kind of riding our daughters will do on theirs over the years,
but I know whatever it is the Clementine will handle it very well and be an
excellent one bike does it all. Will it be race fast? No. They don't race
well, i think there should be a noted difference between slow and
fun/lively/nimble/comfortable. i consider my hunqapillar to be
fun/lively/comfortable, but it is also slower than most modern
road/mountain bikes. knew it going in, love the bike for it. a lot of it
is the way i have it set up,
Thank you all for your very helpful thoughts on the Clem. It really is
great to read that the Clem is a fun/lively/nimble ride. That is, really,
the best I could hope for. There is, after all, a difference between a
slow bike and a bike being ridden slowly. Clearly, I am not mistaking the
I do love going into an aero tuck on a long winding mountain descent on
road that is packed or paved on my Hunqapillar just as much as my
Quickbeam. Sheer wonder and a surprisingly similar experience on both
bikes. Granted, they are set up with the same handlebars and saddle,
heights, and top
25 matches
Mail list logo
