Decision Potential

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Hi!

I've an important decision to make: 62cm Hunqapillar or a (second) 60cm Hillborne?

At least, I *may* have that decision to make. No amount of measuring will actually let me *know* if I can actually straddle the Hunqapillar. I have a nominal 90cm PBH. All the other numbers seem reasonable to me. So it is *possible* that I *might* be comfortable on one. I don't know.

So... if there's a 62cm Hunqapillar owner in the Chicago area (generously defined) who'd be willing to let me throw a leg over their Hunqapillar, I would greatly appreciate it. I wouldn't need the wheels to roll, let alone to actually ride it. Just to straddle it to see where the top tube lives.

It'd be fantastic if it proved appropriate. But it'd still be great to *know* if it didn't. It would eliminate any down-the-road missed-opportunity regrets.

Much as I love love love my Hillborne, I do feel slightly odd about buying two identical bikes. And I don't dismiss the allure of the Fatter Tire and Rougher Trail and Even Heavier Load.

Please e-mail me offline if you're willing to let me check it out. I'll come directly to you or meet you anywhere neutral and convenient for you. We could arrange it with all the notice you need. Obviously, weekends or evenings would be great but I'm willing to consider pretty much any time. I'm hoping (but not committed to) make my choice (if I actually have one) in July. But I'm flexible.

Thanks for reading, let alone considering, my request!

And feel free to fill this thread "online" with opinions/insights/experiences of having two identical bikes or multiple RBW bikes or comparisons/contrasts between Hillborne-like and Hunqapillar-like bikes. I'm interested.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
P. S. Would t'were we all had such problems!

[newenglandbike]

How 'bout a 60cm Bombadil? If not, and you can't find a local
Hunqapillar to try, consider that 2cm is not much difference at
all. But, one test would be to straddle your SH, grab the bars in
one hand and the seat in the other, and lift; then have someone take
a look at how high the wheels come off the ground. If you have an
inch or two of clearance, the HP should work.

Anyway good luck with the choices.

-Matt




On May 23, 7:28 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Philip Williamson]

My vote would be two non-identical Hillbornes. It would be interesting
(for me) to (have you) set up the same frame for different purposes.
One smooth road, one roughstuff.

Philip

Philip Williamson
www.biketinker.com

On May 23, 4:28 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[charlie]

IMHO....no one bike doesn't it all as well as something made
specifically for the task at hand. If a guy has a limited budget or
wants a "one bike does it all" an all rounder that can handle the
rough stuff is the best. Of course this depends on your weight. I
think that since you have a Hillborne I would get a heavier frame
"Hunkqa" and set it up as a rough stuff/camping bike.

On May 23, 4:28 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Leslie]

Another vote for a Bomba.....

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Oh, you can bet they'll be set up with various arrangements at various
times, probably rarely the same. I've got four ready-to-go cockpits
now (Alba, Moustache, Noodle, tall Bullmoose 150), one not-so-ready-to-
go (normal Bullmoose 150). And I have two more in mind (bar-end
Silvers Alba; current one is Thumbie/Shimano) and another Bullmoose
(200mm, to become tall Bullmoose while 150 becomes normal Bullmoose).

One area which I won't vary is to fender or not; both bikes will wear
fenders at all times. Which kind of matters, because that means that
if I choose to go with 2 Hillbornes, I'll be limited to 700x40 tires
(I'm not comfortable with less fender clearance than that). That's
fine but not ideal. The kind of riding I do does not *require* fatter
tires. But having one fatter-tired bike would be another level of
variety without compromise.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

On May 23, 11:34 pm, Philip Williamson <philip.william...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Brett Lindenbach]

thomas, you only need to answer one question: what is it you want your new bike to do?

if the answer is to duplicate what you already have, then go for it.  i should add that having an identical bike would allow you to go for rides with your doppelgänger when he visits.  or you could set up one hillborne as your commuter, and the other more for distance/light touring.

personally, i'd get something that increases my capabilities.  i travel a lot, and often wish i had my bike with me.  i might consider getting a lightweight riv set up to break apart for travel.  or maybe a fun little brommie.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

At this point the Bombadil just feels too pricey.

I can't claim that I'm too "fiscally responsible" to go with a
Bombadil. But I am that fiscally wimpy. That's $700-$1,100 worth of
bags or racks or dynamo wheels/lights or dreamy tires or bags (I do
love bags) or rugged 40-hole-Phil/Dyad/FW rear wheels or leather
tape... ...you get the idea.

I may spring for a paint job up front for the potential Hunqapillar or
Hillborne, so the actual difference wouldn't necessarily be just the
frameset price difference. I love the Hillborne orange, don't love the
Hillborne green, and thus *may* spring for a different color just to
avoid having two literally identical frames. And as for the
Hunqapillar... ...well, I'm sorry.... it's rare that I feel this way
about stuff RBW produces... but that paint job is *not* attractive to
me. At all. There. I said it. It's right there with the grid grey
bags. And the diaga-tube. That's pretty much it for RBW stuff that I
don't like the look of. And I don't proclaim them to be "bad art" or
anything. I don't know from art. They simply don't appeal to me.

I should say... the diaga-tube I trust to be an actual improvement in
the frame's strength. Which I am very happy to have, weighing 245. And
if the cost of that is (to me) a not-so-big-deal aesthetic compromise,
I'll take the strength any day. I'll look at it all day long and see
nothing but the strength.

But even with the Hunqapillar it's not a given that I'll get it re-
painted. Looks do matter to me. But they really fade in importance
when you ride a bike like the Hillborne. And eventually, though I
won't come to like the look of the Hunqapillar itself, I will
associate its unique appearance with the miles I enjoy riding it. I
mean... I drive a Honda Fit. The thing is really kind of silly
looking. But now when I look at it, I see and appreciate the things
we've used it for, and not the boxy brick-like profile. It's not that
I now like the way it looks. It's that now the way it looks is simply
part of *it*, for which I have developed my great appreciation.

But... if I do get my new bike painted... it'll almost certainly be
the color of the Hillborne wearing the silver Longboard fenders on the
RBW web-site. I'm told it's called "Mary's Blue". And I think it'd be
even more gorgeous on a Hunqapillar.

http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/sks-longboard-fenders/27-014

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Well... it's not really that simple for me. Either of these bikes will
completely and comfortably cover the functionality I need and want.
Increasing my capabilities is something of an unlikely project, since
they are limited not by the bike but its engine :) I expect to do no
riding that I wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable doing on the
Hunqapillar or the Hillborne. If I had them both, I might prefer one
over the other every now and then, with most ties I'd expect to go to
the Hillborne. I've got a prejudice; if I could end up with two of one
and one of the other, I'd choose to have two Hillbornes and a single
Hunqapillar.

To me it's more a question of: Will I appreciate the variety itself
enough to give up near-total redundancy on the known-and-loved? I
mean, there's always the possibility that I won't actually love the
Hunqapillar. But I confess I've lately developed a desire to taste the
cushy goodness and even-more-solid ride that I'd expect from a
Hunqapillar. It's even remotely possible that I'll *prefer* it to the
Hillborne (hard to imagine from my current perspective).

As a practical matter, of course, I still will have lots of redundancy
with the Hillborne/Hunqapillar combination. I expect to be able to
swap cockpits without problem. Most parts and accessories will be
swappable (perhaps with tweaking) without any compromise. Fenders and
tires probably not. And maybe the seatpost, since there's some
possibility I won't be able to get a 27.2 seat tube on the
Hunqapillar. And I don't know about bottom brackets. Small
differences, but differences nonetheless.

So it's variety versus small compromise. I'm tending towards the
Hunqapillar, I think. But I won't hesitate to get a Hillborne if the
Hunqapillar doesn't fit. I haven't decided what I'm going to do if I
can't find out about the Hunqapillar's fit.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

On May 24, 12:02 pm, Brett Lindenbach <brett.lindenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Brett Lindenbach]

i still contend that the bike you choose needs to have a purpose.  perhaps variety is that purpose.  the hunq (i would go for the bomba) would give you a very different ride.  i don't quite see the logic in getting a second hillborne just to have another hillborne.  if cockpit swapping is trivial for you, then you already have a lot of untapped variety. 
an alternative would be to simply save your money and just love your current bike all the more.  maybe buy it a nice beautiful bag.  btw, i also wasn't a fan of the grid grey but then i came around, and now i love it.

[Zack]

I think I have something to offer here.

I measured my own PBH to 91 cm. I went to Riv, used their method, and
got 94 cm (with someone helping, using the paint stick, and really
going for it lol).

I am 6'3 and 240 for reference.

I rode the 62 Hunqapillar and the 64 Hillborne.

I ended up going with the Sam. I thought that it would be more
versatile, as I do some longer rides that I would want a bike that
feels a little more lighter and spry. I thought that the Sam would be
great for that, and wouldn't buck if I decided to go camping and ride
a bit shorter distance.

If I were to get another Riv, the Hunqa would be at the top of my
list. It was really fun to ride, and seems like it would be a beast
on fire trails, with a full load. Just a super fun bike to ride.

I personally would not get another Sam.

I am, however, with you on both the diagatube and the Hunqapillar
paint job. I don't like the grey/maroon combo. I also think that
getting a custom paint job with a green or blue plus the cream would
make the bike look sweet, and would lessen the weirdness of the
diagatube somehow. I think sometimes people scoff at the aesthetics,
but, let's face it, how a bike looks (particularly a riv) is part of
the greatness. Even with all that being said, I would love to have
one of the stock hunqas. It's a really sweet bike. One of those "you
have to ride it to understand" things I think.

I would also call Riv to ask them about the fit, they would be best
suited to answer your questions I think.

On May 24, 1:58 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[cyclot...@gmail.com]

Why?

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that it's not as simple as 62cm - 60cm
= 2cm difference in exactly what's important here, my ability to
comfortably straddle the top tube. There's seat tube angle, there's
rounding of published numbers, there's different effective top tube,
there's inconsistency in the available specifications.

That test provides some info, though. I did lift my Hillborne and I
can get it maybe 2 or 3cm off the ground (more accuracy than that is
not going to happen, I'm afraid). So basically it all adds up to "too
close to call" without some additional real world information.

First-hand experience would be great. As would any comparative
information from out in the field. Say, if someone said "Hey, I own
both! My Sam is sorta tight and my Hunqapillar is even tighter, but
they both work for me.". Or if someone said "No way, dude. I've got
both those bikes. All kinds of room on the Sam. But I had to get a 58
Hunqapillar. The 62cm was Way Too Big."

Alas life is not like that so far.

We should all have such problems! :)

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Interesting, indeed.

I have not measured my PBH myself. The nice folks at The Country Bike
Shop in Celina, OH, did. (Can't say enough nice things about the
Dennings and The Country Bike Shop. Nice people and a wonderful
place.) I suspect theirs is comaprable to an RBW measurement. It felt
like it to me!

I'm 6' (probably plus a smidge) and 245. I'd say I have slightly-
longer-than-average legs. So the Country Bike Shop 90 PBH sounds right
to me. To me, your 6'4" - 94cm combination seems roughly consistent
with my 90 PBH measurement.

Did your "clearance" of the top tubes of the 64cm Hillborne and the
62cm Hunqapillar seem very similar?

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
Enjoying the problem.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Oh, I agree it does need a purpose. For me, they are

(1) basic redundancy (Hillborne slightly better than Hunqapillar)
(2) winter readiness (2-3 months out of the year, one bike will wear
studded tires all the time; doesn't matter which I choose, really)
(3) variety (Hunqapillar better than Hillborne)

Variety is definitely one of my purposes. And believe me I've tapped
the variety on the cockpits quite a bit. But even a second Hillborne
helps there; it means it's very likely an ad hoc arbitrary decision to
choose one of two cockpits. That's better than having to swap them
out, even if it does only take 5-10 minutes to do so.

So the choice depends on the (sorta kinda precise) desired mixture of
the purposes. They're in order above. The Hillborne is only slightly
more redundant that the Hunqapillar (fenders and tires would likely be
different, maybe normal gearing?), but redundancy in general is way
more important than variety.

The choice isn't one vs two bikes... it's Hillborne #2 versus
Hunqapillar. Not much beautiful bag money at stake, unfortunately.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean


On May 24, 2:11 pm, Brett Lindenbach <brett.lindenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> i still contend that the bike you choose needs to have a purpose.  perhaps

> variety* is* that purpose.  the hunq (i would go for the bomba) would give

> you a very different ride.  i don't quite see the logic in getting a second
> hillborne just to have another hillborne.  if cockpit swapping is trivial
> for you, then you already have a lot of untapped variety.  

> an alternative would be to simply save your money and just *love your
> current bike all the more.*  maybe buy it a nice beautiful bag.  btw, i also

[Rene Sterental]

FWIW, I started with a 61cm Homer and then got a 60cm Bombadil. The
Homer fit perfectly and it's fit has been improved with a 7cm Nitto
stem. It also runs 35 Supreme tires. The Bombadil with 50 Supremes
proved too long and dangerously too high for standover clearance. The
horizontal length was the killer factor and I exchanged it for a 61
Atlantis.

My center of crank to saddle distance is 78.8cm. Can't remember my exact PBH.

Rene

Sent from my iPhone 4

On May 24, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Thomas Lynn Skean
<thomasl...@comcast.net> wrote:

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

[William]

It's time for a sweet custom!

[Zack]

Tom-

I am 6'3" and would say that I have a relatively short inseam. I have
a very long torso.

I would say that the 62 Hunqa felt significantly smaller than the 64
Sam did. It didn't, however, feel tiny.

Also, your comment about fendering both bikes pushes me even more
firmly in the direction of picking up the Hunq - either the 62 or,
gasp, the 60. Then you could still run big boy tires, even with the
fenders. Just seems like you could do so much more with the combo of
the Sam and the Hunqa.


On May 24, 6:33 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Hey, that's great. To hear the 62 Hunqapillar described as
significantly smaller than the 64cm Hillborne is encouraging indeed.
Thanks!

Trust me... If there were a 60cm Hunqapillar, it'd be the front
runner. Alas, the 58 is too small.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[dweendaddy]

I am around the same size as you and have been looking longingly at
Hunqas. According to the Riv site:
5-9" to 5-11: 54cm
Long-legged 5-10" to 6-1: 58cm
Long legged 6ft to 6-4.4: 62cm

Just wondering - why are you thinking 62 vs 58? If you want it do be
maximally different than the Sam, you might want to put big tires on
it and then, according to the site:
62cm Hunqa: 91.5-100cm PBH (Saddle hight 82-90cm, standover on biggest
tire is 91.5cm)

Now I like big bikes, but having a standover taller than my PBH is
stretching it, so to speak!

[robert zeidler]

I just put a 62 Hunqa together after receiving it in Jan-it's been
that kind of spring. I'm amazed at how much I enjoy the upright
position afforded by the Albatross bars!!! I have a color-matched
150mm stem them had laying around and that definitely adds to the
correct fit of the bike.

Suddenly I'm in 5th grade again. How can that be bad?

RGZ

[Rene Sterental]

LOL!!!

Sent from my iPhone 4

[newenglandbike]

On May 24, 2:53 pm, dweendaddy <dweenda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering - why are you thinking 62 vs 58? If you want it do be
> maximally different than the Sam, you might want to put big tires on
> it and then, according to the site:
> 62cm Hunqa: 91.5-100cm PBH (Saddle hight 82-90cm, standover on biggest
> tire is 91.5cm)

This is a good point.

Tom, if you can ride a 60cm SH, You could probably ride a 62cm or 58cm
Hunqapillar, but which you prefer depends on the kind of fit you are
looking for. I think standover clearance is not the most important
thing- it's how it feels when riding. As you point out you have to
consider ST angle and TT length, etc. On the 62cm frame the TT is
about 64cm I think (the geo chart lists 62.5, but I remember there was
mention of lengthening it for the final version), whereas on the SH
the TT is 61cm. But, these numbers really mean nothing compared to
actually riding the bike.

I think this calls for loading up your SH and heading out to Rivendell
to give the HP a try! :D

As one more data point, I ride a 64cm quickbeam and a 56cm
bombadil. They couldn't fit better to me- incidentally they have
the same TT length and ST angle, and feel very similar. I have tried
a 60cm bombadil, but the 60cm felt way too big for me and the kind of
riding I do. My saddle height is 79cm or thereabouts.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Hi!

A reasonable question...

I like my bars really high. Looking at my Hillborne the way I've set
it up, it's easy to think I should be riding the 64 Hillborne. I max
out the Dirt Drop 100 stem on my Moustache and Noodle cockpits. And I
know that, if my eff top tube length is to change at all from that of
my current Hillborne, I'd rather it were longer, not shorter.

So... the 58cm would add up to too much compromise. If it were my only
Hunqapillar choice, I'll just get the 2nd Hillborne.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Oh, and I forgot to mention... RBW's geometry PDF says the 62cm
Hunqapillar has a standover of 90.6cm.

That's close enough to warrant a real world test before deciding.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

On May 24, 1:53 pm, dweendaddy <dweenda...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Hi!

This may prove to be an important fact. If the eff top tube on the
62cm Hunqapillar is actually 3cm longer than that of my Hillborne,
then I will not get a 62cm Hunqapillar without straddling it first. I
don't think I'd have a problem with the 1.5cm difference listed in the
geometry page. But 3cm sounds longer enough to demand a test.

Thanks! I now know that, at the very least, I need to confirm the
published numbers.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[erik jensen]

You should get a 58 and set it up with a very large tire. It will work well, and you won't regret the standover when you're riding offroad.

I ride a 66cm atlantis, a 62cm hunqa. I probably would've been equally happy with a 58. It's all about stem length.

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

--
oakland, ca
bikenoir.blogspot.com

[Zack]

Also, I think that Keven has a 91 cm pbh (lol that I know that) and he
has the 58. Food for thought. It seems like the writeup strongly
suggests that the correct size for you would be 58 cm.



On May 25, 6:15 am, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Well if that's true then I'll probably go for the second Hillborne.
But at least one place on the RBW web-site puts him at a 89 PBH and
says he got the Hunqapillar as a "mountain bike". I don't need (or
want) the "extra" standover that "mountain biking" would suggest.

But all of the numbers are close enogh that only actually straddling
one would tell. The idea of a second Hillborne appeals to me enough
that it makes unusually precise demands on the Hunqapillar
alternative. 

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[William]

CUS-TOM!
CUS-TOM!
CUS-TOM!



On May 25, 3:55 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>

[erik jensen]

i'm 93cm pbh, btw

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

--
oakland, ca
bikenoir.blogspot.com

[jamison brosseau]

Hey so, I have an 89cm pbh. i am six feet tall. i have a 63 cm
homer, a 61 atlantis and a 60 cm bombadil. if i were to choose a
hunquapillar i would get a 58, to account for the larger tires and
such ( the same reason i have a 61 atlantis. I can lift all of my
bikes about 1-1.5 inches off the ground, but i seldom do this cause in
the real world i rarely if ever need to do this. anyhow i was just at
RIV last week and test rode some bikes, and did in fact ride the 62 cm
hunq. i didn't lift it up, and the top tube was up there but i was
able to straddle it with flat feet, and the ride was fantastic, it
felt great. the have that whole crotch worrier scenario on there site
if it doesn't worry you then go for the 62. i live in nyc and love
having the bomba with the huge tires, it may not seem necessary , but
the ride is awesome, and i find myself choosing the fat tires for city
riding most of the time.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Now, *that's* encouraging news! Thanks!

Presuming then that standover might be okay...

If the effective top tube length is only 1.5cm longer than the
Hillborne (the RBW geometry PDF has the Hunqapillar at 62.5cm vs the
Hillborne's 61cm), then I'm confident the Hunqapillar would fit
overall with my current cockpits; the bar being a little further
forward won't bother me. If it's actually 3cm longer (64cm vs 61cm, as
hinted at some point in this thread) then I'm a little more concerned
about it.

But it's looking up! Definitely in the "worth consideration" category.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

On May 26, 4:59 pm, jamison brosseau <jamison.bross...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Brett Lindenbach]

jeezus, the agony!  tls, you still haven't shared with us how you happen to be in this fortunate position of requiring a second bike, possibly even if it duplicates what you already own.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Well, I decided.

First, I should address the "why" more clearly. Primarily, sheet redundancy. Secondarily (a close second), the ability to keep one bike shod with studded tires through the winter. Thirdly (distant third), have two different "arrangements" available at any one time, for those unexpected riding opportunities and quirky ad hoc preferences. That is, sometimes you just wanna ride Bullmoose, no matter what you've got set up or what you'll need the next day! This would at least enable that.

Now, honestly... either the Hunqapillar or the Hillborne would provide sufficient redundancy. The fact that the Hillborne is a pure duplicate doesn't really matter with respect to redundancy. And I could put studded tires and any of my cockpits and racks and baskets and bags on either bike; so reasons two and three were also satisfied by either Hill or Hunqapillar.

But... the Hunqapillar's sizing just would not work. The 58 would pose issues for getting the bars as high ad I like them. The 62 would be a challenge to straddle comfortably, which I do often as a commuter waiting for lights and what-not and when riding with my family.

So another 60cm canti-studded double-top-tube Hillborne is on lay-away for delivery early next year. Green, this time. The recent July e-mail update picture is a very flattering depiction of that green. If it looks like that in person, I'll be thrilled.

Thanks for the info and opinions and questions; they all helge me think this through.

I already know exactly how I'll build it. I'll do some side-by-side photos when it's all set.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean

[René Sterental]

Right on!!!

Sent from my iPhone 4

On Aug 3, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Thomas Lynn Skean
<thomasl...@comcast.net> wrote:

> --
> 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/-/3OYDxqc6DpwJ.

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Uh, that's "sheer redundancy". Sorry. And there's at least one "ad" that should be "as".

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
who is wondering if "sheet redundancy" is technical jargon in some realm