Re: Sam Hillborne: For the next batch in 2013 sizing is changing

[Andy Smitty Schmidt]

Interesting... A Sam was the direction I was going in when first considering buying a Riv. Test rides at RivHQ put me on a Homer 'cause I was between Sam sizes. Wonder if the new sizing would have caused a different outcome. 

--Andy

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:48:18 PM UTC-8, rex wrote:

hi all
on the description of the sam hillborne it says:
For the next batch in 2013 sizing is changing: 51cm, 55cm, 58cm, and 62cm will replace the above sizes. The idea is to fit more riders in the midsizes really. Don't worry, you'll still fit.
im not sure how long this has been up. have any of you bay area folks seen or heard anything about this news?
thanks for your time
joe kelly
columbus ohio

[Matt Beebe]

This is a good strategy imho.    I've often thought it would be cool if they alternated between 54,58,62 and 52,56,60, etc. from year to year (or two years) for the models with sparser size options.    

[Garth]

That's good news ... I think .... lol.   60cm is too short of TT for me ... 64cm is a bit too tall for standover height ... so hopefully the 62cm will have a 62-63cm TT .  Then I could buy one :)

[Dan McNamara]

If the strategy is the same as the mixte - which did change size this year - the c-t seat tube gets shorter but the tt (virtual or otherwise) stays the same. 

I went through this with my SO's Betty earlier this year. The 48 was just too small and she was bottoming out the seat post on the 52 to be comfortable. Then "voila!" The 52 becomes a 50 in the next run of frames and all is well. 

Dan

Marin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/hKelBgOwZ0cJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Peter Morgano]

So the 51 and 55 will be 650b? I like the idea of a mid-sized bike in 650b, defintely would expand the range of riders that way. Dont get me wrong the AHH is beautiful, having owned a couple but at almost half the price getting someone on a mid-sized 650b frame would be sweet.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Garth <gart...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's good news ... I think .... lol.   60cm is too short of TT for me ... 64cm is a bit too tall for standover height ... so hopefully the 62cm will have a 62-63cm TT .  Then I could buy one :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/glbh7kcXhKEJ.

[eflayer]

wonder if double top tubes will be a part of the new sizing strat?

[Mike Schiller]

A 55 Sam in 650b wheel size with a single top tube would be nice. Looks like the top tube would be around 58cm. I could go for something like that!

~mike

[Garth]

All the details will be given sometime I'm sure ... lol.
Like ... will they all be made in Taiwan or USA now ?
All sizes take caliper brakes now ?
Does the slope remain a 6 degrees or increased to allow for greater flexibility in sizing ? 
Colors .. geometry ... etc. 

but ya' know .... inquiring minds like to know when we're teased with an "oh btw... the sizing is changing" ho hum ho hum :)  

[Michael]

The online geo Riv chart for the 52 Sam is not correct. It says the TT on a 52 is 57.5, but the blueprint plan says 56.5. Mine measures about 55 in person. But I am not a measuring scientist. But did it closest I could get it c-c. So you cannot always assume the chart is without typos. You could call Riv and double check.

They haven't corrected the 52 TT size listed yet. Maybe cuz the new ones r comin out in da next batch.

 

 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjehUKAztnO8dEFRVEYxUWpxeXNPMHZMeDZINmNUMWc#gid=0

[Peter Morgano]

I believe there is a note that says for all the sloping TT bikes you have to do a "virtual" top tube, not actual.

--

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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Michael]

Well the measurement shown on the blue print is 56.5. And that is from c-c as shown on the print.

So if you wanna know how long that pipe actually is, there you have it.

 

 

[Peter Morgano]

Instead of going by some old blueprint you could just measure it, using the virtual TT method, of course.

On May 1, 2013 11:27 PM, "Michael" <john1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well the measurement shown on the blue print is 56.5. And that is from c-c as shown on the print.

So if you wanna know how long that pipe actually is, there you have it.

 

 

--

[Michael]

The best way to know would be to call Rivendell and ask them what it's gonna be on the new frames. They could say for sure.

Rivendell emailed me the blueprint in February, 2013 to help me know the "actual" length of the tube before buying - not virtual length. So I guess it is current to the 52 Sam.

Tthe geo chart may not be able to give you the exact info you are looking for - not that I could understand how all the angles influence each other.