Any benefits to the longer CS's?

[Lungimsam]

More rivmodels headed that way.

Cant think of any benefits other than stability, which rivs already have plenty of, off top of my head.
Was wondering what makes it worth the extra weight, 2 chains needed, and less maneuverability due to longer bike length in garages, near bike racks, BARTs, carrying through house, etc,

[Mark in Beacon]

https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=112

[masmojo]

I agree, stays need to be made stronger as well, which kind of flys in the face of arguments against disk brakes. Makes frame more flexy.
Only two real advantages and they are minor, first increased heal clearance for rear panniers/ cargo and a minor increase in stability.
That said there equally little benefit to making them super short, which is popular in some circles.

[David Banzer]

It's really comfy, noticeably so.
Increased clearance for panniers. Not a minor detail at all - Clem is first bike I've been able to ride without clearance for rear panniers.
Can fit big tires without crazy chainstay denting and curving.
Playing on that, can fit regular road cranks with large tires - I'm running Dura Ace 7410 cranks with intended 103mm bb, single 42t ring in inner position.

[David Banzer]

*should read WITH clearance for rear panniers

[Steve Palincsar]

On 06/13/2016 06:55 PM, masmojo wrote:
> I agree, stays need to be made stronger as well, which kind of flys in the face of arguments against disk brakes.

One of the arguments against disc brakes is that fork blades need to be
made more rigid. I've never seen anything like that mentioned with
respect to chain stays. Besides which, rigid chain stays (coupled with
flexible top tubes and stiffer down tubes) are features associated with
"planing." None of that explains your comment about "flying in the
face of arguments against disc brakes." Could you be more specific, or
elaborate on that statement? I'm puzzled.

> Makes frame more flexy.
> Only two real advantages and they are minor, first increased heal clearance for rear panniers/ cargo

I don't want to seem overly nit-picky, but that all-too-common
mis-spelling grates on my nerves like fingernails on a blackboard.
"Heels" are those things on the back of your feet that might contact a
rear pannier and for which clearance is required. "Healing" is
recovering from an injury or ailment. They may sound the same, but
there's a huge difference. How hard could it be to use the right word?

[Richard Rios]

On road they are fine. Very laid back feeling, smooth and what others mentioned. Off road I found I didn't like them so much especially if paired with a long top tube and non swept back bars. My impression was it made it to hard to get the front wheel up to go over obstacles so I ended up plowing through stuff and it had the reverse effect of esentially making the ride rougher...just my .02 impressions based off a long CS proto hunqapillar.

[RJM]

Off road I feel they are a detriment especially when riding single track. Getting a manual or wheelie happening (a skill used to pop over logs, ext.) is not very easy with a long chain stay bike.

But extra cargo capacity and probably stability are pros, I suppose. They will probably help with a touring bike.

[Deacon Patrick]

Fascinating, Richard. Thank you. The longer chain stay Hunqapillar is one of the things I've wondered about. That makes perfect sense, and matches what I've seen my lassies do when they ride through things on their Clementines. I couldn't tell how much was long chain stays and how much was they are still wee compared to the frame. Some of both I suspect. Not having the ability to pop the front wheel over rocks and roots with relative ease (even with a small front load) would drive me nuts (admittedly a trip I could crawl rather than drive. Sardonic grin.). 

With abandon,

Patrick

[Eric Karnes]

I assumed OP was referring to the move to suuuper long chain stays on bikes like the Appaloosa and Clem. 

I was wondering this myself. I actually really like it on frames like the Appaloosa. Reminds me of (an extended version of) the old steel Specialized Rockhopper I saved up for as a kid. That bike was really fun on trails. Super stable and felt like it could roll over anything (or so remembers my 14-year-old self). 

That said, I hope they stick with some of the more standardized (for them) chain stays. As someone who lives in a small apartment and locks up bikes in the city, super long wheelbased bikes are a very big disadvantage. Even slightly longer chain stays make a noticeable difference when carrying a bike daily up and down three flights of stairs. Of course on most Rivs the ride makes this 100% worth it.

Eric

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 6:12:12 PM UTC-4, Lungimsam wrote:

[Jeremy Till]

Most of the thread has focused on the benefits/deteriments for off-roading, but I feel that the long chainstay thing has real benefits for road/pavement riding with upright bars.  I've done a fair bit of riding on bikes with "normal" chainstays (Quickbeam and LHT) and upright handlebars (Alba, Bosco, Avenir Circa) and when you really raise the bars for comfort, you noticeably reduce the weight on the front wheel, making the controls a bit more squirrely and making you less confident about cornering with real speed, lest the front wheel washes out on you.  The long chainstays redistribute the weight and help have more cornering confidence with an upright riding position.  Maybe not a big deal for some but maybe something you think about if, for instance, you ride your bike with upright bars up Mt. Diablo and then do the very curvy descent down.  

At least that's my understanding of the theory/impetus behind the long stay bikes, from talking to Keven and reading Grant's words, and my experience riding longtail cargo bikes.  I just built up my Clem and it definitely has a lot more front wheel authority than my LHT did with upright bars.  I haven't ridden it much but I'm looking forward to getting more miles on a Riv long chainstay design, both on road and off

[Joe Bernard]

I agree with your impressions, Jeremy. I've owned any number of bikes with upright bars/talk stems, including several Rivs, and my CLEM is the first one to handle them (on pavement) with a "planted" feel to the front end. All the other ones were a bit recumbentish in that the rear always felt like it was dug in and pushing, while the front felt like it might wash out in a hard-charged corner. The CLEM is much more balanced for that riding position.

[Mark in Beacon]

I think "off road" is a little broad. Yes, at some point on some terrain somewhere, any particular bike design will start to involve compromise. In lots of directions, Rivendells take a lot longer to reach those compromises.

Single track with lots of rocks and roots and logs would start to classify as "technical" to me. Most Rivs are designed for, at a minimum, handling basic dirt roads with aplomb, and  "trail" models like the Appaloosa can get considerably rougher. But at some point, you may need to either consider another machine, or do some "underbiking." (A term I use here for ever so slight comic relief.) In other words, if a majority, or even a significant minority, of one's riding landscape includes a bunch of technical single track with many obstacles requiring constant wheelies, a Rivendell might not be the machine. Or it might, but you need to a. walk during the trickiest sections. b. figure a way to roll over them slowly, a la a curb half-pop half-rollover style maneuver, or c. start a weight training program to build upper body wheelie strength. Keeping in mind all the while that Rivendells are also designed with more bb drop, which will limit all that rock and log hoppin' probably as much as longer chainstays. As a design parameter, safety and smooth ride, predicable handling in an upright position would seem to be the goal more than gnarly single track capabilities. Still, I took my Big Dummy on a few not-quite-hairy stretches of single track without much problem. Definitely not a day to day thing, though. I plan to climb Mt. Beacon with my Clementine this summer, will report my findings!

From the link I posted above:

Longer wheelbases make a bike more stable, smoother riding, less apt to get redirected by wind and bumps. Safer, I’d say. Easier to control at high speeds. So you can’t ride as small of a circle—who cares? You can still do a U-turn, you can still ride the bike anywhere you ought to be riding a bike. It’s just better when the chainstays are longer.

I suppose you could add, "can't constantly pop over big logs and rocks as easy--who cares?" But that would be presumptuous, obviously.

While I would I would not call it a "very big disadvantage," I would agree with Eric that the longer wheelbase bikes can present a little bit more of a challenge in apartment living, and when climbing and (especially with mixte/Clementine designs) when descending stairs. I would also agree the ride is worth it.

[kielsun]

I've only spent about five minutes on a 60 Cheviot, so take this for FWIW, but I did so immediately after finishing a ride on my 56 Sam. The Cheviot felt super stable (in a good way), almost like I was an alligator and could feel my tail trailing predictably behind me as I turned--a weird analogy, but it's what I've got. I really enjoyed it, so much so that I momentarily contemplated a Sam sale to partially fund one. :)

My buddy who owns the Cheviot also raves about its character in ascending and descending hills. He says he finds it much more stable in steep sections, like its firmly planted on the ground without any fear of the front wheel popping up.

[Jon in central Colorado]

Kielsun,

Thanks for your input.Interesting.

[Mojo]

Just to give a counter point to Richard's off-road observations, I have found long chainstays to be wonderful off-road. Now I have not ridden a bike with 21 inch CS like the 60cm Cheviot, but I have ridden 17 to 19 inch CS bikes. I have also ridden Surly bikes with rear dropouts/drop-ins where you can adjust your CS length. I have found my climbing ability increases with CS length, increasing my ability to keep the front wheel in contact with the ground. Interestingly long, 19 inch CS do not inhibit tight technical descents. I would agree with Richard that CS length works in tandem with other geometry components. I wrote up a review of the long CS Jones Plus bike on IBOB. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/internet-bob/review$20of$20Jones$20Plus/internet-bob/v92_t69-FYQ/Mvy7_9-T1WkJ
And Jeff Jones gives a great talk on the design of that bike  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMkQ7z9Gi7c

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-6, Richard Rios wrote:

[masmojo]

Steve, it's easy to see the added strength needed if you look around at many disk brake frames they frequently have either very substantial rear drop outs or a small tube or loop on the brake side that goes from the chain stay to the seat stay.
As for the spelling I try to stay on top of it, but I only access this group through my phone 90% of the time and it spell checks words for me, sometimes I don't notice it's inserted the wrong word until I hit the post button! Then it's too late to change

I agree with Richards comment about off road though, but interject that the problem with popping over obstacles is not confined strictly to off road. I only really ever hit light dirt trails around town here, but I can't count the number of times I have had a hard contact with the front wheel trying to pop over a curb. Until the Clementine I have never had to worry about getting snake bite flats on the front wheel! AND having a basket on the front does not help at all!
Speaking of Clementines, that black frame on the Riv site looks absolutely sinister! If anyone wanted a step through and wanted it to look masculine, the black certainly does that!

[Eric Karnes]

Ha. I suppose 'very big disadvantage' was a bit extreme. I carted my commuter up and down a lot of stairs that day.

Eric

[Mark in Beacon]

I don't mean to minimize it though, it definitely is a consideration. I am fortunate to have the strength and health right now.  But I suspect if you can carry a regular bike up, with a bit more effort you can get a long wheelbase bike up. If you can't carry a regular bike the point is moot. So it's really about those on the borderline. It is a factor, even a limitation that some might not have a workaround for (safe bicycle common area, foyer, etc.) My Le Tour mixte is certainly easier to get up and down that my Clementine.

[masmojo]

I will say that my medium Clementine is a gangly beast, I sized up in the Riv. Tradition, but it's size is one of the things I dig about it!
That said, the chain stays are unnecessarily long. I can't even imagine if I'd have bought a large! :-0

[Mark in Beacon]

I also own a medium Clementine. How did you make the determination that the chain stays are unnecessarily long? While I do realize that there is some point where long becomes too long, I would have no clue as to where to begin to make such a definitive assessment about the Clementine cs length. In fact, since the Clementine has a distinct ride feel that sets it apart from my other bicycles, and one of its distinct features is long chain stays, I give that feature at least some credit for its Clementine-ness. Would I notice if it were one centimeter longer, or shorter? Who knows. But I bought the bike in part because the designer said "trust me" Further reading at the link I provided above gives reasons that the designer has moved to extra long stays, and those reasons line up pretty well with my ride impressions.

[masmojo]

You know it's a bit subjective, the bike is BIG and even with shorter stays it would still be big, but longs stays . . . How long is too long!? The bike was made as a homage to or at least evolved from the idea of early 80's mountain bikes, which had longer stays, steel forks, etc. The difference is in the 80's they made the stays long because they had too, their limited choice of components determined frame design to a large extent, but even then the bikes were built by road racers & they weren't going to make them any longer than they had to.
Today, we have too many choices, you could do like many 29'ers & curve the seat tube to make a very compact rear triangle (I am not advocating that). So, in the end how do you know when the chainstay is too long? Simple, when it's longer than it needs to be! Need heal clearance for bags and panniers, etc. Fine determine how much that needs to be, but no more!
My Clementine has 2.2 wide tires on it now & could probably go 2.4 without much fuss. Amazing when you consider that the stays are almost straight and the bike uses a narrow BB shell! This all tells me that they are too long, even if you did not have the anecdotal evidence of riders saying how hard it is to lift the front wheel over obstacles. I also notice the additional wheelbase in tight turns, I really have to slow down more than I normally would, because otherwise I clip the inside apex or blow off the outside of the turn.
One more thing is in addition to the medium I have a small and partly because it uses 26" wheels, the stays are much shorter. I think they are still slightly long, but they feel much better, the small feels a little taughter.
OK whining aside I think the Clems are great bikes, they definitely have a unique character & charm. The design is 90% there, just needs some tweaking, chain stay length is the main thing though.

[David Banzer]

I'll gladly take the ability to run normal cranks with low-ish q-factor compared to other bikes that fit large tires if the exchange is that tight turns are an issue.
For chainstay length, pannier clearance is completely dependent on the user (foot size and pedaling position). I'd certainly take a little longer than necessary chainstay for pannier clearance, than one that is too short. On my large Clem, I don't have to worry about clipping a rear pannier - that's something I've never experienced on a bike, including using smaller panniers on a touring bike that has longer chainstays than a typical bike.
For me, the chainstays are exactly what I want them to be.
David
Chicago

[masmojo]

The thing is on your large, the chain stays could probably be 1 to 1.5 inches shorter and you still wouldn't have to worry about clipping the pannier and you would get the benefit of a better handling bike. Too long better than too short for sure, but how much too long? Maybe for me, it's partly to do with where I ride & how I ride!? I rode cruisers/Klunkers/mountain bikes for 35 years, so I am pretty used to long stays, but it probably also makes me a little more aware of when they are too long.

[Garth]

  FWIW in regard to chainring clearance you don't have to go to super long stays in order to get this though. The original Stumpjumer is a great example of design that had the clearance for both wide tires AND any crank you wanted. In fact the original Stumpy came with TA cranks.  Why no one else uses a design like this rather than insisting on the same ol' same ol' design who knows but this just works.

http://bicycle.images.budgetbicyclectr.com//media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/270x270/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/specialized_stumpjumpersilver16_1.jpg
from here:
http://budgetbicyclectr.com/1982-specialized-stump-jumper-mountain-bicycle-22.html

[Mark in Beacon]

Yes, definitely not a homage, certainly based in part on the pure functionality of 80s mountain bikes. The vintage ones I've had (Canyon Express, Miyata Ridge Runner, Mongoose) all had chainstay lengths of, off the top of my head, 43-46cm, which is right around the touring bike territory of the day. But if you have read Petersen's writing on the chain stay thing, you'll know that they had to get special tubing drawn because nobody makes, or ever made, chain stay tubing in these new lengths, which are significantly longer than vintage mountain bike chainstays.

As far as tight turns, again, the designer specifically addresses the wider turning radius for U turns, which was, to quote, who cares? The other handling characteristics gained with the longer stays trump this and the wheel hopping based on his functional goals for the bike's handling. To say shortening the stays by a centimeter or two would result in a "better handling" bicycle does not say anything, really.

I would be surprised if the Clem chainstay length goes down--looks like most other frames are heading up toward Clem length territory.

I don't recall reading anything about chainring clearance being a factor in the decision to build with longer stays. And heel clearance for panniers is an ancillary benefit, not the primary reason for longer stays.

Even though this is the Internet, I'm not a bike designer. I've ridden lots of bicycles, but so what. I just find it odd to argue that the Clem chainstays should be shorter. In that case, probably a different bike is the answer, and there are a few to choose from. Or, maybe Grant will realize he is "90% there" and  rethink the extra long stays and shorten them up on batch number 3 (he did shorten up the stays on the tandem, but that's a different design brief). But I think they ride these prototypes extensively, and from what he has written, he seems clear on what the benefits are for the kind of bikes he wants to create. Now please excuse me while I go try to pop a wheelie on my Clementine.

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 10:35:37 AM UTC-4, masmojo wrote:

How long is too long!? The bike was made as a homage to or at least evolved from the idea of early 80's mountain bikes,  which had longer stays, steel forks, etc.

The thing is on your large, the chain stays could probably be 1 to 1.5 inches shorter and you still wouldn't have to worry about clipping the pannier and you would get the benefit of a better handling bike.

 

The difference is in the 80's they made the stays long because they had too, their limited choice of components determined frame design to a large extent, but even then the bikes were built by road racers & they weren't going to make them any longer than they had to.

[masmojo]

You know one thing that's been perplexing me on my Clementine is the amount of pedal strike I've been getting. Odd because, the BB drop, crank length, etc. isn't really measurably different from several other bikes I own that I have no such issue with!?
Then this morning I was reading Zed's review and he mentioned pedal strike as well! (And here I thought it was just me) Something about the way I built it!? Then the light bulb went on! The long chain stays/wheel base are contribuing to the pedal strike problem! Ah! Makes perfect sense now!

[Deacon Patrick]

Could you please explain this? I'm too dim to get the causal connection between chain stay length and pedal strike.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Will]

You have to lean the bike more to carve the same arc (as a shorter wheelbase bike) during a turn...

[Zed Martinez]

I'd have to measure my roadster to compare, maybe I'll do so when I get home. It's not a short bike, but not as long as the Clem certainly. I feel like the BB drop plus the Sylvans is still most of it though, it's only been a problem when I'm turning on a grade. With a BB drop of 67, and a theoretical wheel radius with tire of 340, that leaves me 273mm clearance. My crank arms are 170mm, so, that only leaves 103mm. I'm not sure how tall the Sylvan is, but, that makes the ground clearance under 4" before I even start turning, and with a pedal that wide, I guess I'm not surprised it strikes if I'm making a 90º turn at the top of a few degrees grade. Not sure if the chain stays really come into it. I'll measure my other upright bike when I get home, it also has 170mm arms and Sylvans, but isn't nice enough to spec its BB drop for me online. I can say it's already got a 6mm advantage though, being 700cx35 instead of 650bx48. Ah well, not worth speculating, I can just measure'em later and see, but I think my money is more on the frame-proportoinal wheel sizes combined with those low drops.

[Deacon Patrick]

Thanks, Will. That was the piece I'm missing.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Patrick Moore]

IOW, (I think) you have to turn sharper, and therefore lean more, to carve the same arc. Think of a semitrailer combo making a turn on a city street.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[masmojo]

Actually, the problem I am having is more of an issue with uneven surfaces, although the turning plays into it as well. The further the wheels are apart the more likely that a bump or object can stick up between them and you pedal can hit it while it rotates around. Generally, you you anticipate this and level your pedals until you clear that area, but in said circumstance mentioned earlier with getting the front wheel over objects, many times I will clear it with my front wheel to find my pedals strike the object which tends to suddenly stop me dead in my tracks! I used to race mountain bikes so I have fair bike handling skills, I don't have this issue on any other bike and generally not on the Clementine, but it does bite me from time to time. I've also scraped the pedals on speed bumps which is odd, because I've never had an issue hitting them before. Ive learned my lesson though, haven't done that in a while.

[Zed Martinez]

The further the wheels are apart the more likely that a bump or object can stick up between them and you pedal can hit it while it rotates around.

That actually sounds about right to me. Most of my pedal strikes have been when cresting a short rise at a T onto the local trail that gets suddenly steep the last two feet or so, so on my Clem the front wheel and rear are often on different sides of that crest. Makes sense to me, hearing someone else say it. 

[Mark in Beacon]

I have not experienced pedal strike with the Clementine on the road. While cutting through short, rutted trails of some grade, I've bumped a rock once or twice, but that would have probably happened on any bike. Though I am a former racer, I tend to not pedal through turns of 90 degrees or more these days. I mean, why? Especially on a fat tire roadish bike with upright bars.

I just sold my Surly Big Dummy after 3 years, no pedal strike there either. Checking the geometry, I found this.

Riding a long bike - Many people ask what the Big Dummy rides like. Basically, it rides just like a normal bike. The geometry is similar to a standard mountain bike, but with a slightly higher bottom bracket and longer wheelbase. The high bottom bracket is necessary with any long wheelbase bike to keep the cranks/pedals away from the ground.

• On road - Other than timing the corners a little differently to make sure the longer rear end clears obstacles and unweighting the bike carefully to get up and over curbs, it’s really no different than a normal bike
• Off Road - The Dummy is built for on or off-road use, so it’s durable enough to handle off-road touring or serious urban hauling. One thing you’ll notice is that your weight is almost even on both wheels, so the traction/friction through loose corners is about the same per wheel. So, imagine screaming down a gravel road around a tight corner. With equal weight on the wheels combined with a long wheelbase, it makes for an incredibly stable and predictable off-road ride. You’ll be two-wheel drifting through corners like Mert Lawwill in no time

Of course, once you load the rear end with stuff, the rear end traction gets better. Just make sure that you can get up and over obstacles, since it’ll be harder to unweight the bike and bunnyhop over things.

So does the longer CS length contribute in some way on Clems? Maybe. Interesting. But I suspect it's a matter too of riding style, and once you've ridden the bike for a bit, the pedal strike thing, unless egregious, will, as they say, self-correct.

As a side note, I liked the Big Dummy, but it does not have the smooth handling of a Clementine, the steering is comparatively tight and twitchy.

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:49:41 AM UTC-4, masmojo wrote:

[Mark in Beacon]

Hmm. I have not been riding the Clementine off road and I doubt I have your off-road skills. I can see where the bike could get "hung up" especially on a grade. But speed bumps with no lean, that would be purely a bb height issue, no? Are you guys both running the Compass Switchbacks? Are they appreciably less tall than the stock Kendas?

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 4:26:18 PM UTC-4, masmojo wrote:

[masmojo]

I've been riding Big Bens, which I believe are nearly identical size wise to the Kendas.
And yes, I've adjusted my riding style, but occasionally you get stuck in an awkward place and you get jammed up. I remember one night I was trying to lift the front wheel up from street level to the sidewalk, a car turned towards me, I don't quite get the wheel clear, but it rolls over the top anyway, just as I am cussing myself for missing it and thinking OK it wasn't graceful, but I made it, my pedal/foot hit the curb ever so slightly, but just enough to break my momentum and stop me. No harm done, but it makes you feel kinda stupid, you put your foot down & the pedal pegs dig into the back of your leg! URGH!

[Zed Martinez]

I'm running Switchbacks Mark, but mine's totally just noob mistakes. I never pedal through turns, but I'd also never had a bike where I had to pay any particular thought to raising the inside pedal before the turn. I mean, I've scraped the end of a few before, but on the Clem that sucker just slammed into the ground and about knocked the bike over the first time I took that little crest lazily. In my case, I guess I didn't so much have to raise my cornering game as bother to bring one at all. Like masmojo, quick to adjust for it, but yeah. It probably does come down to both the lowish BB and the tendency for the wheels to straddle obstacles. No big deal at all, if amusing for trail users when I forget, but definitely a thing I had to start paying attention to for the first time as just a commuter.

[Jeremy Till]

So I got my Clem set up with tubeless knobbies (Spec. Fast Trak 29x2.2) and my wife and I went singletracking with our Clems over the weekend.  In general, I was super happy with how the Clem performed as a mountain bike--it was exactly what i was hoping for.  Bullet points:

Upsides of long chainstays:

-Climbing moderately steep stuff, the long chainstays performed exactly as intended, allowing me to climb with a relaxed upper body position without the front wheel popping up or losing traction.  

-Descending was equally awesome.  Putting my weight back behind the saddle, I felt perfectly balanced, with both plenty of front wheel steering authority and no feeling like I was going to go over the bars.  As many have described with long chainstay bikes, that "sweet spot" of balance was really wide.  

-The low bb and big tires gave me a wonderful "in the bike feeling" that even other 29er's haven't had for me.  

-One unexpected benefit from the long wheelbase was stability in deep sand.  The park where we were riding (Granite Bay on Folsom Lake, CA) has plenty of sandy washes and the Clem just plowed through them with none of the nervousness that one usually feels in such conditions.  

Theoretical downsides:

-While climbing steep stuff, not once did I feel like the rear wheel lacking for traction, at least any more so than normal-chainstayed 29er's I've ridden.

-There were a couple of times where I was "threading the needle" between obstacles where I could get the front wheel through but then the rear wheel hit the obstacle (but just self-corrected and rolled right over, thanks to the big wheels), but honestly that can happen on pretty much any bike.  

-I did smack pedals a couple of times, but again, that happens on most any bike, and the handling benefits of long chainstays and low BB make it a fine compromise for me.  

[Patrick Moore]

Very interesting; thanks for this report. I'll be interested to hear how the C and the Joe Appaloosa compare off road.

--

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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mark in Beacon]

I wouldn't say a noob mistake, Zed. I do think the pedals on the Clems are lower than your average bear, and, perhaps combined with the long cs, might need some getting used to, depending on your riding style/terrain.

For comparison, the JA in the 52cm 650b size has a bb drop of 68.9, with 52cm stays, the Clem 52cm 650b has a bb drop of 67, also with 52cm stays, very similar specs, though the JA is not for the same range of riders, of course. The larger Joes with 700c wheels, comparable to the largest Clem, have CS lengths around 3cm shorter, and 78bb drop vs. 80 for the large Clems. And though the Clems have a direct bloodline from Mt. Bikes, it is more as they were reimagined/reconfigured for urban/town use, less as full on mt bikes, obviously. And that seems to be how many here are using them, while the Joes seem to see more trail action. All speculation and conjecture on my part, but I wonder if any Joe users have experienced an adaptation period regarding pedal strikes caused by low bb/long cs configuration?

[Mark in Beacon]

Notwithstanding Jeremy's report, which is great to read. Are you intending it for mainly traditional singletrack duties, or will you be switching back and forth (tires, wheelsets)?Other than dirt paths and a one-mile loop of singletrack, I can't really get to mountain biking trails without a car. When I go with my son, I take my Raleigh Twenty, because the Clementine, with fenders and racks (and probably even without) won't fit in the back of the Subaru with also him and his bike. Just got the car, don't have/can't really afford/don't like the idea of a bike rack for it. Don't intend to keep it past the first repair (has 238,000 miles on it).

[Mike in WA]

You need to ride a Jones Plus! Getting the front wheel up is super easy!

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:19:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Rios wrote:

On road they are fine. Very laid back feeling, smooth and what others mentioned. Off road I found I didn't like them so much especially if paired with a long top tube and non swept back bars. My impression was it made it to hard to get the front wheel up to go over obstacles so I ended up plowing through stuff and it had the reverse effect of esentially making the ride rougher...just my .02 impressions based off a long CS proto hunqapillar.

[Eric Daume]

I have a Jones Plus, and "super easy" is an exaggeration for me. I can lift the front wheel, but it doesn't pop up nearly as readily as, for instance, my Karate Monkey. 

That being said, the long chain stays are great for stability, balance, climbing, and descending. 

Eric

--

[Garth]

I noticed the Jones Plus uses a 68mm BB shell, but wondered what the minimum inside width for cranks is to clear the chainstays ?   I'm real interested in one but the cranks are giving me pause as I run short 152 length XD cranks and I have found no comparable crank in current mtb models.

[Grant @ Rivendell]

Bikes generally grow taller way faster than they grow longer, and so...bigger bikes are top-heavy. "Top-heavy" isn't exactly a scientific description, but it's a way to casually talk about the proportions of weight-up-high to wheelbase-down-low. For hundreds of decades, the longest chainstays available without jumping thru hoops were intended for small to mid-sized bikes, but when you can get (or have made) longer chainstays, it makes some sense to put them on bigger bikes.
I likem on any bike, because they set you less on top of the rear hub, and combined with a softish tire, that has to make a less bumpy ride. Long wheelbases make a bike react less errratically on rough ground and in wind...and this is something I bet most people will notice. Also, with the shallowish seat tube angles we like (71.5 to 72.5 degrees), the saddle tends to sit back more than it does on a tracbikelike 74.5-deg seat tube angle (depends on the seat post and saddle too, but---all things equal, this is true).
Dave here can wheelie a long-stay Clem with the best of them, but the wheelie factor isn't important to me, as a guy who makes up numbers for bike frames. In the mid - '90s there was a mtn bike with super short chainstays, said to be a super climber. In theory kinda sorta--it is easy to say the shorter stays put more weight on the rear wheel for more tractions. But traction is only sometimes the thing that's stopping you from getting up the hill. On any steep seated climb, that bike wheelied all the time (putting even more weight on the rear wheel, for even more traction). I don't like to talk about bikes as "climbers" and "not climbers," but that bike was a "not climber" despite its traction-increasing short chainstays.
I think everbody should own a unicycle, a long-wheelbase tandem recumbent, and a couple of bike in between.


On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 3:12:12 PM UTC-7, Lungimsam wrote:

More rivmodels headed that way.

Cant think of any benefits other than stability, which rivs already have plenty of, off top of my head.
Was wondering what makes it worth the extra weight, 2 chains needed, and less maneuverability due to longer bike length in garages, near bike racks, BARTs, carrying through house, etc,

[James Valiensi]

In my experience long chain stays have two drawbacks: its harder to pull up over an obstacle  and the need to buy two chains because 114-links is not enough.

Short stays make the bike feel twitchy and ride rough.

Competition hill climbing motorcycles use really long swing arms, so how do short stays make a bicycle climb better? I think this is a typical bicycle thing where the laws of physics are ignored. 

On a bicycle, the most import upgrade you can make is to the motor and the most important feature is the paint color.

Cheers!

[Steve Palincsar]

On 06/30/2016 11:04 AM, Grant @ Rivendell wrote:
>
> Bikes generally grow taller way faster than they grow longer, and
> so...bigger bikes are top-heavy. "Top-heavy" isn't exactly a
> scientific description, but it's a way to casually talk about the
> proportions of weight-up-high to wheelbase-down-low. For hundreds of
> decades, the longest chainstays available without jumping thru hoops
> were intended for small to mid-sized bikes, but when you can get (or
> have made) longer chainstays, it makes some sense to put them on
> bigger bikes.

How big is "bigger"? And where does "mid-sized" end and "bigger"
begin? I'd like to think my 59-60 cm frames are at the high end of
"mid-sized" but not yet across the "BIG" boundary...

[Mark in Beacon]

Steve, from here it looks like you are at the exact midpoint between your basic unicycle and your tandem recumbent. (Maybe a smidge toward TR.)

[Deacon Patrick]

Doesn't it all depend on how many rocks are in the top of the engine? I'm top heavy just because of all the granite between my ears! Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Grant Petersen]

"Rocks in the top of the engine" is a phantastik fraze---I just wish it were more versatile so I could plug it in here and there during the day.

--
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/yBj6qrJqfuA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Deacon Patrick]

Fittings occasions will doubtless be plentiful for brilliant, self-effacing, dry witted cranksters! Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Eric]

If I have to use two chains...count me out!

[Garth]

:)   Ahahaha !   Not really of course, more like one extra chain would last you for quite a few link add ons to a another new chain.

[Grant Petersen]

It's one chain, just more links. Most chains come 114 or 116 links. The 60cm Cheviot has a 56cm chainstay (our longest) and typically uses 123 links...so, to be clear, eradicate all heads of visions of double chain shenannigans. It is true that when you buy a boxe chains you have to buy two of them. But you use only ten links of the second (about 8 percent of it), so for the next eleven chain changes, you can buy just one chain & keep using the surplus from the first second chain.

This next is a minor point, but a longer chainstay reduces chain angles and so minimizes friction and makes any chain last longer.  Anyway, the ride and function should trump the cost of an extra chain that'll continue to feed to stubs of it for a decade or more! 

We can still count you out, Eric--easy come/easy go--but I thought this point was worth clarifying.
G

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Eric <ericwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

If I have to use two chains...count me out!

--

[Joe Bernard]

There's a plethora of cargo bikes and recumbents out there with long chains..it's just a thing you deal with for the benefits of a longbike. And those benefits are real: My New Blue Appaloosa exhibits a lovely "sitting in the bike, not on top of it" feel, and tracks straight as a freight train on fast descents, while retaining responsive steering at ride-around-town speeds. I dig long stays.

[Bill Lindsay]

Never buy a tandem, then!  You'll need three chains for one of those.  Two for the timing chain and one for the driving chain.  Don't even get me started on tandems where the captain crankset has the drivechain.  

[Steve Palincsar]

On 07/01/2016 04:52 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote:
> Never buy a tandem, then! You'll need three chains for one of those.
> Two for the timing chain and one for the driving chain. Don't even
> get me started on tandems where the captain crankset has the drivechain.

Absolutely no worries about angularity and cross-chaining with a set up
like that! That's how my first tandem was, with a hand-made child
stoker adapter.

[Mojo]

I have saved chain fragments from decades of riding on bikes with too short chainstays. If anyone needs chain fragments for 7/8 or 9 speed chains to get started I can mail them. No cost. But it'll probably be the slow mail choice.

Joe in GJT