[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

The 650B Hunqapillars are now available on the drop-down menu on the Hunq page! Still no geometry or sizing information but maybe that's coming soon. At least we can see the spread of sizes now. On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 8:50:35 PM UTC-6, Jim S. wrote: > > Hi all, > > I saw on

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Once we get some financial things settled, I will be watching the used market. :) On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:05:31 PM UTC-5, iamkeith wrote: > > In that case, you might also consider a "last chance" 54? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Please, please let them include even an ever-so-slight tire clearance increase... -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I'm with Bill on ROADINI I'm stoked to hear about that. But yes, also, kinda want the 650b Hunqapillar to replace my 26", just because. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Deacon Patrick, im sure you're probably right. I like my 26" road bike for the exact reasons you mention. So as my default, hybrid, spontaneous grab-and-go, do everything bike (which is what i've wanted this for), 650b might be good. Its the smoothing of rough surfaces that really appeals to

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Sorry, my internet is down due to wildfire, so im posting from my phone. That last response was meant for chris, in case it wasnt obvious -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

In that case, you might also consider a "last chance" 54? -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Och! I meant to add my conclusion: you are right to drool over the Hunqapillar. It is a spectacular go everywhere do everything bike. I delight that I can happily ride asphalt a long way and turn off and ride dirt and technical single track and while a dual suspension downhiller or road

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

One word: ROADINI! -- 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 post to this group, send email to

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I had assumed the new 53 would be my size but there is also a 56. I really want to see those geometry charts! On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 8:50:35 PM UTC-6, Jim S. wrote: > > Hi all, > > I saw on the Blug today that AHH, Atlantis, and Hunqapillar are getting > longer in 2016. I had

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

LOL, I just got the Riv newsletter as well. A 650b 50cm Hunqa sounds like my dream bike! Might have to sell my Sam and my Roadeo... -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Hey Keith, I'm just going to address the 650b vs 29er on a Hunqapillar issue (I've no info on the new geometry). My basic thought is it doesn't matter significantly one way or the other. The plusses and minuses offset each other on varied terrain. Keep in mind I'm on a 62 Hunqa with 29er

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

So it looks like it’s official! Has anyone local to RBWHQ seen a sample frame or drawings for the new 56cm Hunq?! This has been my dream Riv for many years, but I’m having trouble visualizing it now that it has 650 wheels. I guess I’m not blindly and ignorantly opposed to the idea

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I have to agree with Keith. At 5'10" and 85 pbh, I spent some time comparing the 54 Hunq and the 52 Clem at Riv HQ. The longer stays on the Clem made the Hunq feel almost twitchy and awkward by comparison (It's not!). The Clem was just really smooth and fun and the 650b wheels felt like

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

The hunq's chainstay stays the same at 46cm across all sizes. I hope they keep the 48cm chainstay at 46cm and adjust accordingly on the larger sizes. 46cm is plenty enough for me, and will still allow me to get normal chains for replacement. On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 9:30:32 PM UTC-5,

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I wonder what the max tire width will be with the new geo. I've wanted a Hunq, but given it's 95% the same as my atlantis I can't justify. If it could clear something fatter than 2.25 I'd be aall over it On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 8:48:26 AM UTC-6, Philip Kim wrote: > > The hunq's

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

After spending some time on a long Proto Hunqapillar here are my thoughts. Apologies to surly for the blatant rip off! Long chain stays are cool...So are short...Long chain stays are not magic...but they might agree with your riding style and what you like to do on a bike...if they do you

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I dream of a hunq with 3" tires. But I'm not sure that's possible with rim brakes. Ah well. > On Dec 18, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Zach Duval wrote: > > IF increasing the chainstay length adds greater tire clearance, I'd also be > all for it, even though I'm still a naysayer

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Also, for someone's benefit: two great-looking Hunqapillar completes were just added in Web Specials. On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 4:51:05 PM UTC-7, Zach Duval wrote: > > IF increasing the chainstay length adds greater tire clearance, I'd also > be all for it, even though I'm still a

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

IF increasing the chainstay length adds greater tire clearance, I'd also be all for it, even though I'm still a naysayer when it comes to overall bike length improving MTB handling (for the reasons mentioned above). But I still dream of a Hunq that'd fit up to 2.5s... I hope Riv publishes a

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Being a smaller fellow (who'd ride a 48 Hunq), I think 2.5s would give me enough pneumatic suspension that, paired with elbows and knees) would be sufficient for mostly any trails I'd be interested in. 2.5 is definitely possible with rim brakes? -- You received this message because you are

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

They sold this one off a while back, it had been a shop bike, w/ Nitto Noodle's & canti-brakes, so pretty sure 3" & rim brakes are okay, just not sure Riv will make the needed concessions to do so...

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Ha ha haI like it On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 1:47:42 PM UTC-6, Richard Rios wrote: > > After spending some time on a long Proto Hunqapillar here are my > thoughts. Apologies to surly for the blatant rip off! > > Long chain stays are cool...So are short...Long chain stays are not >

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Worth waiting for ? Not unless you really wanted a longer stay version . Ask yourself if you'll travel/commute with it , as super long stays present a whole host of issues with car/bus racks and air/ground shipping containers and boxes. I'll only say that I sure am glad I have a

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Holly Molly. Just for the sake of voicing the counterpoint of a more enthusiastic reaction: This could be the best Rivendell news in years! If not EVER. - In terms of people claiming revolutionary results from longer stays, I think it HAS happened. Remember when Keven - the resident race

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Well, I can't say I'd be in the market for a longer version of the Hunq or Atlantis. They may be much better at touring with longer staysbut I'm just not in the market for a touring bike after buying an Atlantis recently. What I do want is a Rivendell mountain bike made to ride the

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

All I can say is that I'm definitely in the pro-long chainstay camp. I think it generally reflects the evolution of the comfortable riding position ethos that Grant has always espoused. Recently, this has meant Rivendell selling more and more of their bikes with upright handlebars. Longer

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I wonder if Riv will start marketing them as mid-tail/cargo bike. If there was a strong rack (Nitto or otherwise) that provided high load rating to hold a child with stoker bars... that reasoning might sway my wife on why I need another bike. I also wonder whether the top tube length will get

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

dd Well, I can't say I'd be in the market for a longer version of the Hunq or > Atlantis. They may be much better at touring with longer staysbut I'm > just not in the market for a touring bike after buying an Atlantis > recently. > > What I do want is a Rivendell mountain bike made to

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Hey Keith, If you check out those Jones Bikes, the chainstays are still relatively short...same goes for the Trek Stache, which is another 29+ in the marketplace (which has a 16.5 inch chainstay). What is the chainstay length on the Jones bike? I'm having trouble finding it. Now, the

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

You know how it goes with a new toy , all others get relegated/discarded/sold/trashed/stored/given away etc. etc It by no means makes the former "toy" obsolete in any way . Funny, all those bikes(and anything) from the 70's/80's/whatever-year-model-make and such that were

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Ha. That's funny. On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:47:07 PM UTC-6, sameness wrote: > > The Roadeo will also have clearance for 55s and three top tubes. > > Jeff Hagedorn > Los Angeles, CA USA > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

you are right about that. a 56cm hunq would be something very interesting to me...though i'd want that diagatube. anyway, i think whatever they do will be functional and pretty and all that good stuff, and ill likely drool over all of it. from my perspective, of having a hunq and having

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

It actually looks like a fun bike to rideI've never heard of this guy's bikes. Thanks for the videos. On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:22:08 PM UTC-6, iamkeith wrote: > Looks like Chainstay on the Plus is 19".Prior to that, and right after > the mystery bikes were unveiled, he

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Looks like a front shock would smooth out a lot of the chunk of that video! On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 11:22:08 AM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > > > Oh... one more video and similarity: Jeff espousing Grant's S240 concept: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mygdN85tcw > > > On Thursday,

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Jones Plus has 19" stays. http://blog.jonesbikes.com/jones-plus-this-is-it/ Dem's long. On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-8, RJM wrote: > > Hey Keith, > > If you check out those Jones Bikes, the chainstays are still relatively > short...same goes for the Trek Stache, which is

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Looks like Chainstay on the Plus is 19".Prior to that, and right after the mystery bikes were unveiled, he showed an experimental prototype that he called the Long Ranger, which was even longer by quite a bit. But he retreated somewhat for the production versions. You're right though that

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Conversely, I rather like the long stays on my Clem (though, can't speak for any singletrack stuff there). They don't really slow me down any on the hairpin at the bottom of a hill I take every day to get on a trail (though I do now need to put a knee out to do it at the same speeds as my 650b

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Interesting conversation. I don't really notice chainstay length one way or another on the road, but for me, climbing singletrack isn't as fun with longer stays. I end up spinning out the back tire with my longer-stayed bike. I have to alter my preferred position to weigh down the back, which

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I'm happy with the news. I have both a 54cm Hunq and a 59cm Hilsen. I've often thought about adding braze-on centerpulls to the Hilsen so I can de-adapt my Paul Racers to use the proper mounting format. I love the idea of a longer Hunq - more stability is better on off-road touring, hill

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I am generally in tune with the changes & long chain stays, but too long is too long. We have two Clementines, a small & a medium & in my opinion the chain stays on both are too long. The small one is only a little too long (1/4" ?) The medium on the other hand is probably almost an inch too

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

I tend to agree. The long bike idea seems fine. I'm neither for or against it. I've not yet heard anyone claim revolutionary ride results, so I don't see it as such an immense improvement that all bikes must be long now. I do think the crossover is becoming redundant. Clem, joe, hunq and

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Remember all those complaining cyclists you hear after every century? "Dang! My bike has too long a chainstay! I would have had FUN if my wheelbase was shorter" "Darn it! I could have finished faster if my bike was a little less stable and wasn't so darned comfortable!!" Remember all those

Re: [RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Post of the Day Award goes to Jeff!!! =- Joe Bunik Nut Creek CA On 12/16/15, sameness wrote: > The Roadeo will also have clearance for 55s and three top tubes. > > Jeff Hagedorn > Los Angeles, CA USA > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

The Roadeo will also have clearance for 55s and three top tubes. Jeff Hagedorn Los Angeles, CA USA -- 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] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Longer frames done right seem to have a more plush and stable ride. Good for most riding. Maybe not optimal for fast twisty stretches, Also noticed Hilsen will be available with braze on center pull option. Braze on RacerMs and the Hilsen sound like a marriage made in heaven, IMO. On

[RBW] Re: New Hunqapillar frame geometry

Which is to say, in my view, it is no longer as well suited as a MTB/tourer, and leads to greater overlap with others in the Riv line-up. I'd set a Hunq as my dream mountain tourer, and had hoped to save for one, but I don't see a longer bike as an improvement. With the changes proposed in the