Going really large on Clems

[Paul Donald]

Hi, I'm new here, all my Rivendell ownership is currently confined to their components all over my Riv-esque bikes, Soma Saga, New Albion Privateer, Schwinn High Sierra (that one is destined to be replaced with a proper Riv) Omnium Cargo. It would be nice to have the main course and not just be fiddling with the condiments.

I've been reading what folks have written about Riv sizing, both here and on Rivs website, and was particularly interested in Grant's experiment with a 64 Clem for his 85mm PBH. I have a PBH of 85.5 so in theory I could do similar. Oddly, according to their spec sheets, a 64 has 1mm less reach than a 59.

Anyone cheerfully riding against the grain size-wise?

[Patrick Moore]

I've no advice on Riv sizing except that I personally prefer to downsize wrt their recommendations, but I do want to remind you that list rules require you to post photos of your bikes if they are at all interesting, and yours sound interesting indeed.

[For the terminally earnest: No, there is no such list rule, but posting photos of interesting bikes is what old fashioned Catholic moral doctrine called a temporal work of mercy, like caring for the sick and visiting the imprisoned. That's a joke too.]

So, please do!

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c2348c56-457f-44c9-8058-02898b8cf5fan%40googlegroups.com.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[ian m]

I'm a proponent of sizing to the largest frame that you can comfortably standover, but obviously the Clem L throws that out the window. The thing to look out for on the Clem's is the absurdly long effective top tube. I previously owned a 52 Clem H (83PBH here) and I think it had a 61cm top tube?? Could never get comfortable even with albatross bars. Looks like the current models are even longer, but you are right, the reach remains near the same as the stack increases, bringing the handlebars up and closer to begin with. But a near 47cm reach is nothing to sneeze at, unless you have a very long torso/arms you'll be running exclusively very swept back bars. For comparison a Hillborne reach averages 10cm shorter.

[Josh C]

I could fit on anything between 59-64cm with the low top tube but I'd pick the 59 just to keep the overall length down. These bikes are already crazy long, I don't want to make it longer unnecessarily, a 64 clem is like riding an 80s Lincoln Towncar. I don't understand the draw of sizing up. 

[Joe Bernard]

Oh shoot, I put this on the wrong thread. Sorry! 😬

On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 10:29:24 AM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote:

Welcome to the Bunch! For me the choice would be between the Homer and Platypus. Within that spectrum I would pick my preferred brakes, standover clearance, color and name. 

Joe Bernard 

[Richard Rose]

To Ian’s point, the Clem is unique but very flexible & that long reach is not a limiting factor in my experience. I am (according to Riv) an “in betweener” size wise. I comfortably ride a 52 Clem L with a fistful of seatpost, Bosco bar & 135 FacePlater. Even with the long reach the Bosco needs the long stem - that’s how far back the Bosco comes. So if the longish ETT is “absurdly long” it’s what makes the bike work imho. Possibly important to note is that I have the stem almost at its limit height wise. I know I could ride one size up with less seatpost exposed and less stem exposed as well. I might also need a shorter stem, not sure.

But, I also ride a large (57?) Gus which has a similarly long reach as the Clem. I only have a couple of inches of seatpost showing and use a less sweptback bar (Albacore) that has a bit of forward sweep also. So that bike only has a 35mm stem. The handlebars though different on these two bikes are in nearly identical grip positions relative to the saddle - and both are supremely comfortable. FWIW I do not have a long torso/arms. When you have a bike where standover is irrelevant there are all kinds of possibilities.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 24, 2024, at 12:27 PM, ian m <darkg...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm a proponent of sizing to the largest frame that you can comfortably standover, but obviously the Clem L throws that out the window. The thing to look out for on the Clem's is the absurdly long effective top tube. I previously owned a 52 Clem H (83PBH here) and I think it had a 61cm top tube?? Could never get comfortable even with albatross bars. Looks like the current models are even longer, but you are right, the reach remains near the same as the stack increases, bringing the handlebars up and closer to begin with. But a near 47cm reach is nothing to sneeze at, unless you have a very long torso/arms you'll be running exclusively very swept back bars. For comparison a Hillborne reach averages 10cm shorter.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/35fd1dbb-a90f-4248-b6ec-7d9f62369abcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Isn't Grant's intention with these very long reaches to the bar, to allow bars with long sweepback on a stem of reasonable length and with a lot of rise?

In my own case, with short arms and long torso and a drop bar level with or below saddle, I need a very undersquare frame (60 X 56 c-c is perfect) for a level top tube; of courses, if I were to use a non-drop bar with a lot of sweepback, things could be different.

[Richard Rose]

Yes! 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgu5jTaTQ1JhcrX4-ncWw9Zdk-xqiz6fSWhUoYFWtogH%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Johnny Alien]

My PBH generally puts me in the middle of sizes. Either at the top of one range or bottom of the net. For a step thru/general use bike I would go with the size up and for a road setup or diamond frame model I would size down. That has always worked for me. I understand that Rivendell will sometimes suggest massively sizing up on step thru frames but I have never been comfortable that way and also just don't like the look of a slammed stem and seatpost.

[Mackenzy Albright]

I've ridden a 59 clementine and "sized up" 64 clem jr. I would have been equally happy with both in terms of ride and fit. I don't feel reach (TT) is an issue with hillibikes given their headtube angle and design around sweptback bars. I'd be cautious sizing up if you want to run flat bars. Aesthetically the saddle was a bit low in the seattube on the 64 for some peoples tastes - but had no issue with leg rub etc. The main reason I kept the 59 and resold the 64 was: a really tall person (the previous owner with regret) wanted the 64 back if I decided it wasn't for me as well as I found the previous Clementine (59) to have a slightly more traditional handling feel which worked better for it's utiliarian commuter purpose as I often am lugging around weight on a porteur rack for work. For unloaded trails and general rides I would have slightly preferred the new gen 64. Both are incredible riding bikes. I can't imagine my life without a Clem. 

[Diana H]

I own a 50cm Platypus and I wish I had sized up and gotten the 55 cm because it could fit 700c bicycle tires (where the 50cm can only do 650b). Something to think about if you might end up using your Clem for more gravel. 

[Kim H.]

I originally bought a 59cm Clem "L". I rode it for nearly two years thinking that it was right size for me. However, I came to realize that it was way too big for me to handle. I have a long torso with short limbs.

I was fortunate to sell it locally and find a beautiful RBW blue 52cm Clem "Demo" at Rivendell Bicycle Works headquarters in Walnut Creek. I delight in riding it much more so than the 59cm with it smaller 650B wheels. I love my bicycle now. 

The buyer of my 59cm Clem is happy. He is the same height as I am, but he has longer limbs and a shorter torso, than I do.

Kim Hetzel

... the cold, wind and rain have come back with possible snow.

[Justin Kennedy]

I have a 91 PBH and rode a 64 Clem L for a couple years that felt a hair too big. I now ride a 60 Platypus that fits much better. (Obvious different geometries/rides - plenty of that discussion on this board.) 

Still got the 64 Clem L frame if you're looking! I'll make you a deal.... 

[Nick Shoemaker]

I'm a 91/92 PBH (~6'1) and ride a 64 Clem with very mildly swept back bars (Soma Osprey). If I were any shorter, I think I would be happier on a 59, but I've never actually ridden one, so who knows?! The bars you plan to use will make a big difference - I wanted less backsweep for riding MTB trails, so the bike feels much 'bigger' than it did when I first built it up with Albatross bars (80cm Dirt Drop stem with both bars). If you're anywhere near East TN, I'd be happy to let you take it for a test ride!

On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 11:49:07 AM UTC-5 snipp...@gmail.com wrote:

[Graham McCall]

I've got a 90.5 PBH and after talking to some owners here and Will at Riv I ordered a 64. Love it. Feels like a cruiser and is great of road. 

[Paul Donald]

I really appreciate all these great opinions. I *could* ride a 64 judging by what I’ve read here, but perhaps it is more prudent to seek out a 59. Of course now I have to pay very close attention to the posts about Clem vs Platypus. My inclination is toward the extreme, and the Clem fulfills that with wheelbase etc. The Platypus is relatively sensible in comparison. But this is about bicycles, and bicycles are “inherently” sensible so, surely, anything goes right?


Paul Donald
snipp...@gmail.com
www.paulcdonald.com

> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/qKgvFZlCf5A/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/da715ea9-1bf9-4a3e-a5f6-9c15ae4957f9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Donald]

I'm a rule follower so I'll post a pic of the cargo bike. Aesthetically It's a bit of a shambles, but it is supremely useful. And even longer than any current Rivs, but at a different end.

Thank you all for your opinions! I've been trying to figure out a formula for calculating stem/bar combos using my commuter bike set up in order to apply it to a bike with a very long ETT. Sadly I realized I have a masters in fine arts degree instead. After years of drops and flat bars I seem to be settling into swept back bars slightly above saddle height. My commuter bike (New Albion Privateer) uses Soma Oxford bars and the hand position is one that I keep returning to. The Oxfords are very close to the Riv Albatross. What I don't like about the Privateer is horizontal dropouts, toe overlap, and absence of kickstand plate (or even a space to easily fit a stand near the BB).

At 6', I'm long torso, average arms and legs, and not frightened of high standover but I resisted looking at the two very nice 59 Clem H's that are being sold because I am wanting that looong wheel base, step-over life. 

It might be best for me to stick to a 59, even though 64's are more readily found as frame sets, which is what I want in order to soak up the excess parts I have... I've been reading posts here regarding Clem vs Platypus since that might be worth considering. I like the utilitarian look of the Clems with the flourish of curve in the TT. The Platy's look fabulous, but push my budget too high. 

[Patrick Moore]

You might find this site helpful for comparing stems: http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/stem.php

Back in the pre-internet days I used to create little cardboard template stems to gauge the differences I'd need, and this method worked well, but I always used the same model of drop bar. But  a degree in philosophy didn't stop me.

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 11:59 AM Paul Donald <snipp...@gmail.com> wrote:

... I've been trying to figure out a formula for calculating stem/bar combos using my commuter bike set up in order to apply it to a bike with a very long ETT. Sadly I realized I have a masters in fine arts degree instead. After years of drops and flat bars I seem to be settling into swept back bars slightly above saddle height. My commuter bike (New Albion Privateer) uses Soma Oxford bars and the hand position is one that I keep returning to. The Oxfords are very close to the Riv Albatross. What I don't like about the Privateer is horizontal dropouts, toe overlap, and absence of kickstand plate (or even a space to easily fit a stand near the BB).

At 6', I'm long torso, average arms and legs, and not frightened of high standover but I resisted looking at the two very nice 59 Clem H's that are being sold because I am wanting that looong wheel base, step-over life. 

It might be best for me to stick to a 59, even though 64's are more readily found as frame sets, which is what I want in order to soak up the excess parts I have... I've been reading posts here regarding Clem vs Platypus since that might be worth considering. I like the utilitarian look of the Clems with the flourish of curve in the TT. The Platy's look fabulous, but push my budget too high. 

[Paul Donald]

I wish I could test ride some of these bikes! I am certainly taken by the aesthetics of the larger Clems, but my eyes may not be sensible guides for actual ride fit. Graham and fiddleharpa (sorry, I can only see your email handle here), your pbh's are greater than mine, which is at 85.5, and I set my saddle at 74.5mm for 175 cranks. Would you tell me what height your saddles are set at, including crank length? Talk me into taking up Justins offer of a deal. Or I'll go back to staring at the two size 60 Rosco Bubbe Paltypus's I see out there...

[Kim H.]

@snippy.paul,

With your given PBH of 85.5cm, you would most definitely be riding a 59cm Clem. I owned one for about a year, before I decided, it was way too large for me to handle. I sold it locally. I found and bought a 52cm Clem this past November. Since then, I can proudly say that the frame size and bicycle feels a lot better in handling and riding. My saddle height is 69.85cm. My silver crankset is 173mm. I have a long torso with short limbs.

Kim Hetzel.