Clem Smith Jr vs Polyvalent Lowkicker?

[Paul Jenkins]

Hello-

I'm considering getting a step-thru bike for my partner. She's pregnant and her normal touring bike is feeling less and less comfortable. We're looking at the size 64 Clem Smith Jr or the XL Velo Orange Polyvalent Lowkicker. She's 6'3 with 97 PBH.

I was wondering if anyone here might be able to say how the ride quality might be different on the two bikes? Or if there are reasons I should consider one over the other?

We mostly ride on pavement on country roads and the occasional dirt/gravel road. The Clem looks longer which I imagine would make it more stable? I imagine this might be nice if we eventually put a baby seat on the back. 

The Polyvalent Lowkicker uses 650b wheels and I'm a little concerned with toe overlap as it looks like a shorter wheelbase. I know the Polyvalent uses more modern standards like thru axles and disc brakes for better or worse. I like that the Polyvalent is a bit more affordable but the Rivendell seems like more of a classic. I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Thanks!

Paul

[Steve]

Paul, if you've not seen Russ Rocca's review of the Polvalent Low Kicker on YT, here's a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbVDYvjiwdM

I've never ridden a Polyvalent, but I do ride a Platypus. Having pulled a Tag-Along with the Platy and ridden with child carriers on the rear of other bikes, I have to say a bike with longer chain stays and a longer wheel base will definitely be a better choice for those situations.  

[Hoch in ut]

One thing to consider about the Clem is, any weight on the back will make the rear end wag harder than my dog sitting by my 5 year old on meatloaf night. 

The Polyvalent seems to be better supported for rear weight. 

[David Ross]

Personally, I prefer the Clem, if for no other reason that it has zero toe overlap. I'll never again own a bike that has toe overlap. The geometry of these bikes is fairly different and the Clem has way more stack and reach. I've got a Gus myself and it's like nothing I've ever owned and I've owned a lot of bikes. Between the relaxed front end and the super long chain stays, it's like riding on a magic carpet. 

On Sunday, August 18, 2024 at 9:25:38 PM UTC-4 paulje...@gmail.com wrote:

[Steve]

Hoch raises a good point about the 'tail wag' effect. 

To be honest, I'm not sure if longer chain stays and wheelbase will magnify or mitigate that effect. Intuitively it seems like the longer bike would be better, but then again, intuitively the sun rotates around the earth. 

[Joe Bernard]

If the step-through feature is important to your partner get the Clem. My Riv Custom has a semi-dropped toptube like the V-O and I can't reliably step through it without kicking the tube, usually I treat it as a diamond frame and swing my leg over the saddle. My Clem L is very easy in this regard, I always use the step-through. 

[Eric Daume]

I'll add a few points:

- I'm 6'3" and rode a first gen Clem that I thought fit well at 59cm. And I think they've gotten a bit longer since then. 

- The Polyvalent will likely be OK for toe overlap due to the smaller wheels and low trail fork--the rake on the front wheel kicks the front wheel out and away

- If you do a rear child seat, the VO might not be great, since the low trail (or maybe it's more mid trail) prefers a front centered or at least balanced load.  I liked front mounted child seat much better when my kids were that age, regardless of the bike.

- I once did a comparison, using a Burley Picolo trail-a-bike attached to my Clem and then my '96 Rockhopper, and with my strong 10 year old son on the Picolo (he was really too big for it at that point). I really didn't notice any big change in stability between the two bikes.

Eric

who now has no Clems, child seats, or trail-a-bikes

--
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/a12cf3b1-f50a-4e4b-b7f7-8970e8731692n%40googlegroups.com.

[DJC]

Paul,

I own both the Polyvalent and the Clem Smith H; I've also built up for others the Polyvalent low-kicker and the Clem L. The Clem has a laid back, swoopy feel; it's equally comfortable on the road or in the dirt, whereas the Polyvalent feels snappier and more nimble. That's doesn't mean the Clem is sluggish, but rather it's not as "fast" handling as the Poly. I'm selling my Polyvalent because it's too close to other bikes in my stable; the Clem is a forever bike for me. Another consideration will be the fit; the Clem has a very generous headtube / stack compared to the Polyvalent, plus with the Clem you get the advantage of the quill stem for setting the front-end height

Both are lovely bikes, but very different in design and riding characteristics. Remember that the Polyvalent is a "low-trail" bike, but to the higher end of the range, which makes it more neutral in handling compared to low low-trail bikes. It handles a front load better than a rear load, but still manages a light rear load well. The Clem is a rear loader primarily, and capable of a light front load. I've chosen the Clem because it's become a groovy analog trail bike that compliments my Gus Boots nicely. However, I did have the Clem build as a city commuter for a couple of years and it was very capable.

Best,

Dave

On Sunday, August 18, 2024 at 9:25:38 PM UTC-4 paulje...@gmail.com wrote:

[Chris Halasz]

I assume someone pregnant prefers a more upright position, irrespective of its declared benefits to the health of one's pelvic floor (important to me, anyway), and overall spinal and wrist comfort (subjective, I suppose). It makes sense then to extend the chainstay, and so proportionately the overall triangle from the center of mass of the more upright cyclist and the bicycle wheelbase. 

Likewise, it makes more sense for the cyclist who rides low and in the drops to ride a shorter chainstay and so a shorter wheelbase than the Clem. 

At barely 6'1", with an 89cm PBH, my 64cm Clem L has a more accessible 'step-through' than my 60cm Platypus, and, to me, the Platypus appears to have much more step-through access than the Lowkicker. I don't see how one could really step through the Lowkicker without considerably tilting the bike. 

- Chris 

[Richard Rose]

I’ve used a Wald basket mounted to a Tumbleweed “T” rack on the front of my Clem L & the rear of my Gus. In both cases I also utilized the triple mounts of the rack to support King “many things” cages to hold my fork mounted bags. The front wheel flop on the Clem was far more noticeable than any tail wag on the Gus. Having said that, neither bothered me much. Both bikes handled the load well.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Chris Halasz <cha...@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/11a9aa80-0773-4d8f-8e04-3cd26294f38cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mackenzy Albright]

I'm on team Clem jr and will never part with mine. I think the low kicker is a beautiful bike and would not be a bad choice either. 

I find a big deal breaker for some is often access to bike racks on cars and transit and storage due to wheelbase. If these are not a concern I'd go with a Clem purely on my personal preferences. I really enjoy the extra top tube which gives adjustment vs putting the longest possible stem on a bike. 

[Paul M]

Another thing to consider is that the 64cm Clem L has the longest effective top tube of any Rivendells. I had a 64cm current model Clem and it was a challenge to get the right fit for me. With woman generally have shorter torsos than men, that definitely needs to be considered. I also experienced a front-end shimmy if I took both hands off the handlebars with a loaded rear rack trunk mounted on the top of the rack. 

[Paul Jenkins]

Wow - thank you all for sharing your excellent tips and suggestions! I think we'll likely go with the Clem considering the lower step-thru, less chance of toe overlap, quill stem for dialing in handle bar height and the more stable / magic carpet ride quality of the Clem. I do need to measure the garage and make sure it will fit without too much trouble as it does seem quite long. 

[Chris Halasz]

Paul 

Let us know or PM me (but others may be interested) if you need any particular 64cm Clem measurements. 

- Chris 

[Garth]

Being that tall myself there's no way I'd ride the Polyvalent as the toe overlap alone disqualifies it was practical.

This one would be more suitable. It's also for discs and 650b or 700c wheels. The front-center should be alright with either wheel size.

https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/soma-frameset-buena-vista-disc-teal-metallic-5615?category=990&search=buena+disc#attr=4583

[Mr. Ray]

The Polyvalent being low trail with a 60mm fork rake has NO toe overlap.  My own Large Polyvalent has no toe overlap; not even close unless I was wearing clown shoes.  Since the Polyvalent is an "all-rounder" the top tube length is not extra long (like the Clem) so swept back handlebars with a 90 degree upright sitting position (using a generous lay-back seatpost) can still feel cramped.  You could get more room with an extra long stem (i.e.150mm) but that just changes the steering feel too much in a negative way.  If you don't mind a 60 degree or lower riding position, the Polyvalent is a very good and flexible production bike.  For example, the frames disc brake tabs allows the choice of 26", 650b or 700c wheels.  Since the frames tubeset is on the stiff side, comfort can be increased by having wheels built and parts selected using a knowledgeable wheel builder.  

[Paul Jenkins]

Hi Chris- it it's not too much trouble I'd really like to get an approximate length of the bike from the end of each tire. I'm trying to determine how it will fit into my modestly sized garage. 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 4:51:25 PM UTC-4 Chris Halasz wrote:

[Chris Halasz]

Paul 

I measured 79+3/4" (with 43mm front, 38mm rear, so ... 40mm average tire?) overall length. 

For fun, I turned the front wheel 180 degrees, and that measurement is 74+3/4". 

Happy to measure more, 

Chris 

[ian m]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 11:12:03 PM UTC-4 Mr. Ray wrote:

The Polyvalent being low trail with a 60mm fork rake has NO toe overlap.

Low trail and high fork rake is absolutely no guarantee of no toe overlap, especially not enough to emphasize the no. I would almost guarantee from the first picture that unless the front of one's foot remains glued to the front of the pedal like a runner at an Olympic starting block that there would be overlap at low speed. An image search on the model shows many such examples, if perhaps fewer at the largest end of the size range

[Paul Jenkins]

Thanks Chris - those measurements are super helpful!

[DTL]

I have recently got a new bike and immediately noticed the toe overlap (XL Crust norEaster with 29x2.1+Fenders) – while I am already learning how to work with it (carry momentum in wiggly parts so I can turn hard while feet are in the 6 and 12 o'clock position) i double checked that a different bike would make no difference. The Crust Romanceur is 650B so you'd think that would solve it but the reach is 20mm shorter and negates wheel size differences. Like you said Ian it can be unavoidable for some. A poster above mentioned clown shoes, and some of my US13 sneakers might qualify as clown shoes.

[Kiley Demond]

Only here could you find someone who actually owns both the bikes in question... 😁

On Monday, August 19, 2024 at 7:13:54 AM UTC-7 DJC wrote: