Any 90ish PBH folks riding a 52 Clem H?

[tc]

Curious to see if anyone rides a "1 size down" Clem H, with SH lowered a bit below Riv recommendation (maybe by 4ish cm?) for improved off-roading agility and standover ... esp when running fatter tires?  Obviously a significantly lowered saddle wouldn't fly if you're on a long ride, but for 2 hour adventures, this is an intriguing idea.

Would love to hear thoughts from those who're actually riding a smaller Clem or were between sizes and opted to go smaller.

In my case (90.5 PBH), a 59 Clem works well for paved riding.  A 52, though, still has a 61.5 ETT and frame geometry that is closer to hardtails that I'd ride than the 59.

Tom

[Deacon Patrick]

When I've done test rides after wrenching on my wife and daughter's medium Clementines, it is a snug fit and I never ride far because of that. My PBH is 90, and until Boots, I'd upsized a bit and really like that ride. Boots is great too!

With abandon,
Patrick

[Christopher Cote]

I don't see why you'd want to ride with your seat that much lower off-road. Maybe a few mm. Mountain bikers have been riding gnarly terrain with normal seat heights for decades.

[Zed Martinez]

Not quite the same thing but I'm right at the cusp between the 45 and the 52 with about an 80.5 PBH/70cm saddle height. So, literally the last model of overlap. I started with the 52 in the H, and eventually switched to the 45 but in L. I don't suspect the fit and position I have is quite what Riv generally has in mind for the Clems, but I have been considerably happier with my fit on the smaller one, and I certainly didn't dislike the bigger one any despite some perennial issues that probably arose from me messing with the fit adjustments too much trying to find where I liked it best. I do need a pretty long stem now, a 130, and I'm only using VO's Crazy Bars, anything as sweepy as Riv's bars would possible need longer still. But, the biggest thing on the bigger size was I struggled to get the saddle as far forward and the bars as low as I wanted. So, it ended up being one of those things where at a point it's easier to make a slightly too small bike bigger than a slightly too big one smaller.

[Eric Daume]

Keep in mind that the Clem has a slack (71 degree?) seat tube angle, so that ETT measurement doesn’t quite line up with a traditional mtb. Reach would be a better indicator. 

Eric

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9d95ba98-d827-4a0b-b203-99008b856755%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[tc]

Thanks all for your comments so far!

Patrick, I know you are a bigger frame kinda guy.  I'm finding that I don't like the bigger frame on my local trails.  My 64 Atlantis is wonderful for gravel and pavement, but feels way big (as does my 59 ClemH) on singletrack.  A longish stem and a MTB flatish bar, or Wavie, might be the ticket for me on a 52.  Dunno...

Christopher, I guess my saddle height reference is more of a side comment.  Back in the 60s when my friends and I tore up trails on our "BMX'd" Stingrays, we'd always lower our saddles.  I guess it was what you'd call a learned adaptation to riding rigid bikes that bounce over roots and rocks when ridden fast :)  Done that ever since when riding rigid when the going gets rough off-road.

Zed, I was hoping you'd chime in too, as I've followed your Clem experiences with great interest.  You have probably toyed with more combinations of Clem setups than any of us.  I think you're on to something re: making a smaller Clem bigger is an easier feat than a bigger one smaller.

Eric, yes that's a great point re: reach...but it's kinda crazy of me to even compare.  The 52 Clem H's ETT (actually 60cm, 71.5 ST angle) would effectively give a greater reach than my 61 Roadini (60.5 ETT, 72 ST angle) and my 60.5 AHH (60 ETT, 71.5 ST angle), as their taller seat tubes would put more of the top tube behind the crank.  And of course the 59 Clem's reach would be longer still.  

It is interesting that several of the Blue Lug Clem H's are set up with more seat post height than what is normally confitured/pictured elsewhere.  That's really what started me down this line of thinking for off-road riding.

Tom 

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

I'm 6'5" with 97-ish PBH and ride a 65cm Clem H.  I'm at the low for pbh range of the 65cm and high for the 59cm and have very little standover clearance on my 65cm but once I'm on it I couldn't imagine wanting the smaller one for most of MY riding... which mostly involves non-technical multiuse paths/road.  I'm also somewhat biased from riding a too low MTB for most of my adult life (I'm 38 and rode only my early 90's rigid MTB from age 14 until my late 20's/early 30's.)  I had originally considered ordering that first 59cm Clem Prototype... that undecaled gold/tan powdercoated one they once listed, still can be seen in some parts pics on their site... and I know I'd likely have been just as happy riding the 59cm with more seatpost and stem extension but having ridden the 65cm the past two years I find I definitely like the bigger fit for most of my daily rides but if I had more local technical single track instead of all the gravel multiuse paths I'd probably consider going down to a 59cm for similar reasons and gaining the extra standover clearance.  I have a short single track detour in my local park system that I could handle with the 65cm but I've had to place a foot or bail out enough times to know I'd want something lower if riding the same terrain the majority of the time.

59cm and 65cm both share 29" wheelsize.  Your proposed change incorporates going from 29" to 27.5" wheels.  Not sure how much a difference that makes in the bigger picture with your fit/crank length/etc. or if that's also part of the appeal for you? 

Maybe also consider a Gus or 59cm Clem L?  Or maybe someone local to you will have a 52cm to test ride and compare them side by side?

Brian Cole

Lawrenceville, NJ