Hunqapillar vs Appaloosa ride quality?

[Gary L]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for opinions about the ride of a 58 Hunq vs a 58 Appaloosa. I know that is pretty specific, but here's why. I just finished building up a 55 Appaloosa for my wife and we were on a ride this weekend where we traded bikes. Both of us remarked that the Appa felt much more lively, smoother, and lighter than the Hunq. Seeing how her bike has the awesome 55mm Compass EL tires, I traded wheels to see if that would account for the difference, but it really didn't make much difference.

So.... before I start thinking about replacing my beloved grey/kidney bean Hunq with an Appaloosa I thought I'd reach out and see if anyone else out in Riv land has had experience with both, ideally in my 58 size. Am I just imagining the difference??

Thanks for any input you have!

Gary

Asheville,NC

[Ryan M.]

The Hunqapillar is a pretty stout trail touring bike that basically sat between the Atlantis and the Bombadil when it was first coming out. It’s been my experience that it rides nicely when loaded down or when riding chunkier stuff.

The Appaloosa is different, being a bike that sits next to the Atlantis, but for a wee bit lighter load and riding style. It is a nice riding bike but I think for loaded touring with a bunch of weight, it may get squirrelly.

If I were doing loaded touring that took me on gravel roads or dirt trails, I’d keep the Hunq. It’s built for that. I’d you are just MUP riding, road riding, and commuting with it, it’s probably overbuilt.

Sounds like you need a second bike. Lol.

[Ryan M.]

Here is good page that describes the Hunq. It’s one of my favorite head badges. Lol

I thought the Hunq road pretty nicely as a trail bike when I got a chance to ride it.

http://www.cyclofiend.com/Images/rbw/pdf/original_hunaqbook_pdf.pdf

[Chris L]

I would love to ride a 54 Hunqapillar and a 55 Appaloosa, set up identically, back to back.  I've compared the geometry charts and the only real difference is the chainstay length of the Appaloosa.  I have an image in my mind of how the Appaloosa would ride and it's a smoother, more stable version of my Hunqapillar.  

I've never seen the tubing specs for the Hunqapillar but Will gave me the tubing specs for the Appaloosa (don't know which size) and there were several "1.x" tube thicknesses in there.  I don't think the Hunqapillar is that stout.  

[Andrew Stevens]

How tall is your PBH? I'm 5'10 w an abnormally high PBH, and am riding a 62 Appaloosa. I can stand flat footed over it with Thunder Burts, but have some 2.1 Scwhalbe Slicks that make it a bit tall. The ride quality is "Centaur-like" by my accounting: very relaxed long and stable feeling rear triangle, with a more traditional road/sport touring front end. I have it set up 1x8 with a 11-36 tooth cassette in the back and Billie bars and I am *never* out of my seat, even on steep climbs. 

From my research, including that pamphlet Ryan M shared, one would typically size up in Appaloosas, as opposed to riding the same size: the standover is comparable between a 58 Hunq and a 62 App, but the reach is much longer on the App, hence Billie bars. I rode it on the decomposed granite trail in Austin quite a bit, and it "planed" in a way I couldn't have expected. I also rode it off road a bit, but found the standover frightening when I had to dismount on uneven ground.

All in all, I was quickly enamored with the solid and smooth ride quality of the Appaloosa. However, I am selling it soon (I have another touring bike thats a little more updated,) and I am looking for a 58 Hunq, so if you (or anyone on the list) would care to trade/buy, let me know

Cheers

Andrew

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 5:38:23 PM UTC-5, Gary L wrote:

[Gary L]

Ryan, thanks for the Hunq brochure - I'd not see that before.And I do LOVE the head badge!  I agree that the App feels a bit lighter and more roadish, while the Hunq feels just rock solid. I'm not sure what MUP riding is :) but I'm definitely not doing loaded touring on trails any time soon.  And yes, another bike is always the answer!

Chris, the Hunq feels much more stout to me than the App.

Andrew, my PBH is 91 and I'm pretty sure a 62 Hunq would be too tall, even tho I've got my seat set with lots of post showing. I didn't realize that the 62 App had more clearance. I'm using Albastache bars with a dirt drop stem on the Hunq and the reach is great. How do you think that would that work on your App? I'd be interested to see a pic of your bike so I can see where your seat is set. What is your PBH?

Thanks again everyone,

Gary

[masmojo]

You could talk about fit and ride quality, yadda. Yadda, yadda . . .
At the end of the day the main difference would be cost. The Hunqapillar being made domestically, one at a time & the Appaloosa being made overseas in batches (and limited frame sizes)
Additionally, I don't know the current situation, but early Hunqapillars would have been made of a better quality tubing and be quite a bit lighter than an Appaloosa.
It's all academic though, seeing as old Hunqs are rarely sold and they've been replaced by the new "hilly bikes"

[Jeremy Till]

Masmojo, can you point to a source that describes the tubing differences you mention? Or is it something you experienced from riding both? I've been following Riv bikes pretty closely since the Hunqapillar came out and don't remember such differences being mentioned, but I could have missed it.

I've got an interest in this thread as I have a Clem H which I've ridden as an off-road bike for the last 4 years or so, and honestly it's the best bike in terms of ride quality I've ever owned. I've got a chronic case of upgrade-itis, however, and I've wondered if an Appaloosa or used Hunq would fit the bill. Given how smooth the Clem rides I'd want to make sure its replacement shared its ride quality. I've never ridden a Hunq but I did work on a couple of Waterford built Bombadils and I remember them being way stout. I had an opportunity to buy an Appaloosa frame locally but it had less tire clearance than the Clem and it would have been a tight fit with my preferred tires.

-Jeremy Till
Sacramento, CA

[masmojo]

I think Rivendell uses what they refer to as "Silver" tubing in their current lineup of overseas manufactured frames. As far as I know this steel is possibly sourced from one or more manufacturers (True Temper?). Perfectly adequate I'm sure, but older US made frames were made with more common popular tube sets (likely Reynolds). Problem is one or more of these companies stopped producing steel tubes for bike frames.

Then their lug maker shut down.

Someone could probably lend some more details, it's one of those things that I read and it barely registers so my recollection of it is not too good.

[masmojo]

The Appaloosa would be a definite upgrade over the Clem.

I think if you went through the Blug and the Blagh for the last 2 or 3 years, you would find something.

[Joe Bernard]

I've owned both, the Hunqapillar was a stout trail bike and did not feel appreciably lighter than an Appaloosa to me.

[John Phillips]

   Back in 2013, I test rode an Appaloosa prototype while waiting for my Hunqapillar to be made. I didn't pick it up to feel its weight compared to the demo Hunqapillars at Riv, but it did ride much differently than the Hunqapillar. The longer chains stays give the ride a much different feel. I liked it, but I don't remember wishing I could have ordered it instead of the Hunqapillar. Some people really love the longer chain stay Rivendells, but I didn't think Riv bikes needed a smoother ride.

   I really liked the feel of the Hunqapillar, and it already had that Rivendell touring bicycle geometry. It felt perfect to me. I think the Hunqapillar has more trail than other Riv models, more wheel flop, but it never bothered me. As far as the weight of my 54cm Hunq goes, I carry it up the stairs to our 3rd floor apartment without any problem when the elevator breaks down. If I had purchased a longer chain stay Rivendell, it wouldn't fit in my elevator (it's a tiny elevator), and would stick out to the sides a bit more on my bike rack, and be a bit less manageable on trains.

   But I have absolutely no idea what you would think if you could ride the Hunq & Appaloosa back to back.

Here's what the Rivendell catalog said about the Hunqapillar when I ordered it in Dec. 2012:

http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/f-hunqapillar.htm

YMMV,

John

[Gary L]

Hi Jeremy,

I've got a 58 Hunq and my wife has the 55 Appaloosa. I started this thread to see if anyone has experience with a larger Appaloosa because I was so surprised when I rode her App for about an hour how much livelier and supple it felt compared to my Hunq (one of the first generation grey/maroon ones). I thought maybe because it was a smaller frame?  But others that have responded seem to have felt the same thing. My Hunq is noticeably heavier and just FEELS heavier riding it compared to my wife's Appaloosa. I don't know about the tubes, but it sure seems that the Appaloosa either has lighter tubes or the longer chain stays contribute to the significantly different feel. A clydesdale vs a gazelle difference almost.  Not good vs bad, just different.

Gary

[masmojo]

Well it is a smaller frame likely doesn't have the double top tube so it should feel lighter. The longer chainstays do give the bike a springy feel.
That's the magic of Rivendell!

It kinda reminds me of a friend of mine many years ago who worked in a high end stero store, when I asked him about Bose speakers, he said "did you ever notice how Bose doesn't list the frequency response of their speakers" mainly because they really did concentrate on frequency response, but the overall balance of the sound. Most people find extreme highs irritating and don't care much about extreme lows.

All modern Rivendells are about balance, not the highs and lows! It's a product that is so unto itself that it defies comparison to anything else.

[Joe Bernard]

There's also the matter of looks, color, name and maybe just wanting to try something different. It's a thing!