# Does Rivendell Make Good Bikes?



## Whodat (Oct 13, 2011)

I gather that Grant Petersen's opinions are, well, opinionated. And I've never ridden a Rivendell. But boy are they sweet looking, even the least of them. The other day I walked by a bike rack at the hospital where I work and one bike jumped out at me from yards away. It was a "Simpleone". They're made in Taiwan, not the US, and in general, I don't "get" fixies, but it was truly elegant, and looked beautifully made.
I'd seen and admired a couple other models at Harris ( before I knew what I was looking at), but this was the first time I'd seen one in the wild, and I was struck by how much it stood out.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

Grant Peterson would never sell someone a bad bike, not even someone he didn't like. You can be assured anything you buy from Rivendell will be suitable for its purpose, and built to last. Some of the premier bikes on the market today are made in Taiwan.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Rivendell's are heavy, stiff bikes with slowish handling and inexplicable extra tubes that are built to be indestructible and ride on big cushy tires so you can't tell anything about the frame qualities. They are built to very high standards, mostly by Waterford.

If that's what you're looking for, they are a very nice example of that sort of bike.


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

Does Rivendell make good bikes? Short answer is yes, if those bike float your boat.

The frames were made in Japan in the early days (by Panasonic), but to keep cost down, they have had to move production into Taiwan but the bikes are still well crafted. 

Remember that everyone has moved up one notch in production quality. So Taiwan is now where the fine stuff is made and China is where mass things are made. And Japan, well not much is made there anymore


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

Rivendells are high quality bikes if that is what you are looking for -- that is, a durable frame with nice paint and room for larger tires. They are relatively heavy, and Riv won't even tell you what they weigh. (I asked when considering buying a Rambouillet years ago, and I got a rather rude response along the lines of "if you ask that question you probably shouldn't be riding a Rivendell."

My biggest issue with Rivendell lately is their limited options with regard to sizing. Their non-custom frames come in only a few sizes with wide gaps between sizes, so the fit would be less than ideal for me. Fit is THE most important issue with regard to bike frames, and Rivendells are sadly lacking in that respect unless their geometry and sizing happens to work for you.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

tarwheel2 said:


> Rivendells are high quality bikes if that is what you are looking for -- that is, a durable frame with nice paint and room for larger tires. They are relatively heavy, and Riv won't even tell you what they weigh. (I asked when considering buying a Rambouillet years ago, and I got a rather rude response along the lines of "if you ask that question you probably shouldn't be riding a Rivendell."
> 
> My biggest issue with Rivendell lately is their limited options with regard to sizing. Their non-custom frames come in only a few sizes with wide gaps between sizes, so the fit would be less than ideal for me. Fit is THE most important issue with regard to bike frames, and Rivendells are sadly lacking in that respect unless their geometry and sizing happens to work for you.


That just reflects Rivendell's philosophy regarding fit - that things like reach are largely immaterial.

Peterson lives in his own world where real cyclists pedal around the countryside at 10mph in chinos with wool underwear and sandals on their platform pedals. He's made an ethos out of Grandma's bike habits, and provides thousand dollar solutions to $100 problems. It's just an aesthetic.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Kontact said:


> They are built to very high standards


Absolutely correct... Grant's the kind of guy who obsesses over details like tiny paint imperfections. 




Kontact said:


> mostly by Waterford.


Not any more, not for several years now. I'd ask Riv to be sure but as noted I think most are made in Taiwan now, with the full-customs made by someone here.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Creakyknees said:


> Absolutely correct... Grant's the kind of guy who obsesses over details like tiny paint imperfections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Rodeo and Hilson say Waterford in their website write ups. But I'm not keeping track of how Riv shifts their production around.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Rivendell's are heavy, stiff bikes with slowish handling and inexplicable extra tubes that are built to be indestructible and ride on big cushy tires so you can't tell anything about the frame qualities. They are built to very high standards, mostly by Waterford.
> 
> If that's what you're looking for, they are a very nice example of that sort of bike.


They do have models, such as the Roadeo, that don't really fit that description.

Apparently, someone finally tranq-darted Grant and made him design a club racer -style bike. A very nice one, by all accounts.

But yeah, most of his stuff seems aimed at the 'go anywhere' on-road/off-road bike crowd, or tourists. Not that there's a thing wrong with that. 

95% of the industry seems hell-bent on shoving TDF-replica bikes down everyone's throats, even though that might _not_ be the best bike for everybody. 

Rivendell's refreshing simply because they're different. And they (along with Bridgestone during the 'Grant years') seem to have inspired a few other small makes to do their own thing too, such as SOMA and Surly.

I don't agree with a number of things in Grant's philosophy, but I'm glad he's out there.
.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Personally I think Rivendales are dumb- basically overpriced Surlys with a bunch of marketing mumbo jumbo behind them. If you want to ride a heavy, slow plodding bike- just buy a Surly at 1/3 of the cost. Or a cross bike.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> Personally I think Rivendales are dumb- basically overpriced Surlys with a bunch of marketing mumbo jumbo behind them. If you want to ride a heavy, slow plodding bike- just buy a Surly at 1/3 of the cost. Or a cross bike.


Sure, keeping in mind that when Grant started preaching the Riv way... there was no Surly... new, production road bikes with lugs and clearance were rare as hen's teeth.

Sure, cx bikes have been around (albeit, much more so in the past few years). As have touring bikes w/ cantilevers and braze-ons. 

But you gotta give Riv credit for marketing the space for tough, go anywhere bikes. 

If you're the kind of guy who is ok with buying CF bikes from China, then, sure, buy a Surly.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

I had a Rivendell. It got me back into riding. At the time, I was really overweight and extremely uncomfortable on a bike and the answer from the bike shop was "just get a more expensive race bike, cuz, you know, carbon and stuff.

So I got the really expensive race bike and it was worse than ever. and I'm thinking, great, I'm 36 and I'm too old to ride.

I'd heard about riv, thought they were crackpots but I'd gotten some really nice parts from them in the past, and I started reading grant's ideas about fit. 

Found a used Riv on ebay, bought it and it was pretty amazing. I was comfortable riding for the first time in years. The more upright position made it easy to ride. And because it was easy to ride, I rode more. Because I rode more, I lost weight. Because I lost weight, I rode more and I could even fit on the expensive race bike again.

Here's the thing with Riv- their bikes are built to last a lifetime, as in, 100 years from now, they'll still be solid. They aren't race bikes. They aren't touring bikes. They really aren't any specific kind of bike- they're bikes designed to be ridden every day- to the store, to the office or for a week of touring or for a quick 40 on the weekend or a century or whatever.

They aren't perfect because they're a product of compromise- making them bulletproof means they aren't light. Making them good for going to the store means they won't be a crit bike, ever. Making them classic means they'll never really be exciting.

They are extremely well built. I had mine for years, bought it used and the paint still looked new when I sold it, and I rode the sh!t out of that thing. 

As long as you are willing to live with the compromises Riv thinks are important, they are fantastic bikes. 

Yes, they are expensive and heavy and they aren't race bikes. If those things are what matters most to you, then there are other options.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

SystemShock said:


> 95% of the industry seems hell-bent on shoving TDF-replica bikes down everyone's throats, even though that might _not_ be the best bike for everybody.
> 
> Rivendell's refreshing simply because they're different. And they (along with Bridgestone during the 'Grant years') seem to have inspired a few other small makes to do their own thing too, such as SOMA and Surly.
> 
> ...


Most of the bike industry is just building what the majority of customers have demonstrated they will buy. 

SOMA is a nice alternative to Rivendell, less expensive but nicer details than Surly (which also makes a fine bike). 

I like my race bikes too but equally rewarding is setting out on a wet ride with full fenders and the realization that comes only a few hundred yards into it, "I'm not going to be drinking road spray today".


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

davidka said:


> Most of the bike industry is just building what the majority of customers have demonstrated they will buy.


I think that's kind of wrong- if you only offer one kind of bike, of course that's the only one people are gonna buy. If you only push one kind of bike, that's all anyone will know about.

We now live in the aftermath of Rivendell's rants against impractical bikes. But just 10 years ago, if you wanted a road bike, you were limited to 25mm tires. You wanted racks, you could get the one touring bike still available, the trek 520. You wanted a cross bike? just get a mountain bike. It's better, trust me said the bike shop. 

Because of Riv, we've got Surly and Soma. We've got Raleigh building practical bikes, even trek is making practical bikes. 

Fast bikes that will handle 28s are no longer only customs. 

Suspension forks rarely appear on non-mountain bikes. Baskets are not considered only for kids bikes. 

Race bikes still have ridiculously slammed stems, but headtubes are rising to bring them back up to more comfortable levels. 

Race bikes are great for racing. Not so good for pulling a trailer full of kids, not so great for commuting, not so great for replacing yer car a few days a week.

Because of rivendell, we have a lot more options besides Race bike and Hybrid and Race MTB.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Buying a Rivendell will cause bunnies to hop happily across meadows and unicorns to fart rainbows.

Personally, I love Rivendell. Just as I loved Bridgestone back in the day. I like "odd".


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Lotophage said:


> I think that's kind of wrong- if you only offer one kind of bike, of course that's the only one people are gonna buy. If you only push one kind of bike, that's all anyone will know about.
> 
> We now live in the aftermath of Rivendell's rants against impractical bikes. But just 10 years ago, if you wanted a road bike, you were limited to 25mm tires. You wanted racks, you could get the one touring bike still available, the trek 520. You wanted a cross bike? just get a mountain bike. It's better, trust me said the bike shop.
> 
> ...


+1. :yesnod:

It isn't so much that ppl are screaming for race bikes (I mean, really, you're 35 lbs overweight, and your local roads are rougher than downtown Beirut, and you want a full-on race bike?), it's that that's what the industry is pushing and marketing. 

Remember the 'Lance' effect? It got a _lot_ of customers onto pricey, higher-tech racing bikes. The industry _loved_ that. 

It's all about the bottom line, and the marketing/image-making goes glove-in-fist with that. 

If the mainstream players in the industry thought for one second they could make more money on Riv-style bikes, it'd make your head spin how fast and how hard all of that would be marketed to us.

Hey, there was a time in the '70s and early '80s when touring and 'sport-touring' bikes were actually considered cool. I nearly bought an STB myself.
.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Creakyknees said:


> Sure, keeping in mind that when Grant started preaching the Riv way... there was no Surly... new, production road bikes with lugs and clearance were rare as hen's teeth.
> 
> Sure, cx bikes have been around (albeit, much more so in the past few years). As have touring bikes w/ cantilevers and braze-ons.
> 
> ...


Cross bikes have been around LONGER than Riv's. And cheaper, and better at doing the things the the Rivs are marketed as. And you can get a nice steel made in the US one if that's what floats your boat. 

But I got to give props on the marketing side.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I would maybe consider one (in the market for a bulletproof commuter) but the website rubs me the wrong way. It sounds less like he's trying to market his product's place in the industry and more like he is trying to justify its existence by arguing that anyone other than a racer (and probably even racers that are doing anything other than racing) that is riding on anything other than a 35 pound steel bike with two top-tubes and 35mm tires is an idiot that is going to be sorry one day when their expensive non-steel non-touring bike randomly explodes in the middle of the road, causing a crash that breaks 7 bones in their body and sends shards of carbon fiber shrapnel flying through the air into the eyes of old ladies, small children, and cute kittens. 

Heavy-duty steel touring bikes serve a very important purpose but I have ridden thousands of happy miles on my Cannondale race bike and it has brought lots of joy into my life.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Hey guys, here's a Rivendell Roadeo. Only one top tube, and doesn't look anywhere near 35 lbs. 
Maybe a bit over half that. 











.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Coolhand said:


> Cross bikes have been around LONGER than Riv's. And cheaper, and better at doing the things the the Rivs are marketed as. And you can get a nice steel made in the US one if that's what floats your boat.
> 
> But I got to give props on the marketing side.


And until a couple years ago, your local bike shop didn't have one.

Bag on Riv being expensive all you want- their prices are high, their designs look weird, whatever- but you have to give them credit for the current crop of far more affordable versatile bikes that are flooding the low and mid range. 

And yes, all they're doing is making really, really expensive and twee versions of the 1970 Schwinn catalog. But by doing so, they've made it possible for other companies to recognize a demand for regular, non-specific bikes. 

Look at the specialized source- Specialized Bicycle Components : Source Expert Disc

upright position. Wide tires. wide range gearing. Rack and fender mounts. A kickstand mount for god's sake. a dynamo hub and integrated lighting. It may look nothing like a Riv at all, but the ideas all came from a demand that started with Riv.


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

Whodat said:


> I gather that Grant Petersen's opinions are, well, opinionated. And I've never ridden a Rivendell. But boy are they sweet looking, even the least of them. The other day I walked by a bike rack at the hospital where I work and one bike jumped out at me from yards away. It was a "Simpleone". They're made in Taiwan, not the US, and in general, I don't "get" fixies, but it was truly elegant, and looked beautifully made.
> I'd seen and admired a couple other models at Harris ( before I knew what I was looking at), but this was the first time I'd seen one in the wild, and I was struck by how much it stood out.


While they are excellent bikes, they are designed for a particular market with particular tastes and needs. For my personal needs I wouldn't want one.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 13, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Hey guys, here's a Rivendell Roadeo. Only one top tube, and doesn't look anywhere near 35 lbs.
> Maybe a bit over half that.
> 
> 
> ...



21.4 lb. as tested (55cm frame), according to "Bicycling" last fall.
Not exactly a tank, but I'm guessing more than most $5,000 bikes out there. 

For us non-racers, am I correct in saying that the biggest limiting factor in speed/effort on such a bike would not be the extra few pounds, but rather the increased rolling resistance of the relatively wide, low-pressure tires?


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Whodat said:


> 21.4 lb. as tested (55cm frame), according to "Bicycling" last fall.
> Not exactly a tank, but I'm guessing more than most $5,000 bikes out there.
> 
> For us non-racers, am I correct in saying that the biggest limiting factor in speed/effort on such a bike would not be the extra few pounds, but rather the increased rolling resistance of the relatively wide, low-pressure tires?


and, some would argue that wider tires are actually faster.

But, yup, that'd be about it. swap those tires for 23s and yer good to go.

Also nice to know that come winter, you can throw on studded 35s and keep riding, or throw on fenders and 28s in the rainy season.

It's a hellishly expensive frame. Ridiculously so. My custom frame cost me less, and that's one of the reasons I don't ride a Rivendell anymore.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Yes, my Rivendell Rambouillet was fine and wonderful. But my current retro-steel ride, a Colnago Master, slaughters that old Rambo in every parameter I care about -- from comfort to positioning to handling to looks to workmanship to sheer riding enjoyment. Yeah, if I cared about tire width or fenders my opinion might be different. But I don't. So it isn't.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Whodat said:


> 21.4 lb. as tested (55cm frame), according to "Bicycling" last fall.
> Not exactly a tank, but I'm guessing more than most $5,000 bikes out there.


I believe Riv built one up for under 20 lbs, and without getting exotic about it (not their style). 

And it certainly doesn't have to be a $5K bike... it's a $2K frame and fork, build it up however you like.

Riv's never been about being the lightest or the cheapest. They're about practicality, 'retro cool', and having something different. They deliver on all that.



> _For us non-racers, am I correct in saying that the biggest limiting factor in speed/effort on such a bike would not be the extra few pounds, but rather the increased rolling resistance of the relatively wide, low-pressure tires?_


IIRC, there's been some studies done showing that wider tires can actually have equal or LOWER rolling resistance than ultra-skinny tires. Mainly because the contact patch on the wider tires was shorter and wider rather than long and skinny, as on the skinnies.

Think Jan Heine or someone similar did the tests.

Something like the Roadeo won't make you slow if you aren't slow already. But again, Riv's not really about that.
.


----------



## Christopaul (Jan 27, 2012)

I have a Rambouillet in my stable. It is a comfortable do everything kind of bike that now only gets road time when touring or when its raining (it really is too elegant for the abuse I give it, but hey, I'm a baby boomer...). I will keep it as long as I have a garage. It was made by Toyo of Japan. It's not made anymore. The closest one now made is the Rodeo which is a tad lighter (which is made in the US by Waterford). Grant Peterson designs the Rivendell bikes and will have them made by the best builders that he (and his customers) can afford. This will change from time to time as exchange rates and costs of production fluctuate. Most people get stock bikes and have them "customized". However, Rivendell can customize the build including every tube in the bike, if you have the $ & patience. I was once told that Rivendells are "lifetime bikes". Having my Ram for 6 years, I finally got it....!


----------



## Whodat (Oct 13, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> I believe Riv built one up for under 20 lbs, and without getting exotic about it (not their style).
> 
> And it certainly doesn't have to be a $5K bike... it's a $2K frame and fork, build it up however you like.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info.
I might have thought that combo of a wide tire and low pressure would lead to a contact patch that was both longer and wider, although maybe if the tires are correctly inflated the contact patch isn't really that long.

I had no idea I was going to stir things up this much. I was just trying to comment on how nice the Simpleone looked, and playing off the "Does Trek Make Good Bikes" meme that keeps popping up here.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I think I had my Rivendell for three years. It simply stopped being a bicycle I wanted to ride. Riding it became a joyless experience, especially when compared to the bicycle in my stable it was in direct competition with, a 1985 Somec made from Columbus SL..


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Mapei said:


> I think I had my Rivendell for three years. _* It simply stopped being a bicycle I wanted to ride.*_ Riding it became a joyless experience, especially when compared to the bicycle in my stable it was in direct competition with, a 1985 Somec made from Columbus SL..



Very interesting perspective.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Mapei said:


> I think I had my Rivendell for three years. It simply stopped being a bicycle I wanted to ride. Riding it became a joyless experience, especially when compared to the bicycle in my stable it was in direct competition with, a 1985 Somec made from Columbus SL..


I don't disagree.

Mine got me riding again, helped me lose 50 pounds and get in great shape, but it was never a great ride- it was punishingly stiff and rather heavy- I remember the seat stays were like tree trunks. I know grant likes to think that large bikes need to support elephants, but christ it makes for a harsh ride. 

BUT, the riv taught me what I liked in a bike, taught me that race bikes aren't the be all end all, and helped me figure out what I wanted from a bike.

I doubt I would be riding, or have the awesome custom bike I do now without the riv to teach me a different way of riding. 

And at the time I bought the riv, there wasn't anything like it on the market. I've had cross bikes and they don't handle the same- they're race bikes for the most part, not designed for slow rides in the country, not designed to hook up to a trailer to pull your kid too the farmer's market. 

Hopefully, my old riv is teaching someone else a new way to ride, just like it did for me.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Whodat said:


> Thanks for the info.
> I might have thought that combo of a wide tire and low pressure would lead to a contact patch that was both longer and wider, although maybe if the tires are correctly inflated the contact patch isn't really that long.


I think the 'wide tires have less rolling resistance' thing is when tire pressure is equal.

To quote Wheel Energy, a bike-tire testing and development company out of Finland:

_*Wider tires roll faster than narrower ones: *Many riders have argued for years that narrower tires – especially on the road – are faster and more efficient than wider ones when in fact, the opposite is true. According to Wheel Energy, the key to reducing rolling resistance is minimising the energy lost to casing deformation, not minimising how much tread is in contact with the ground.

All other factors being equal, wider casings exhibit less casing 'bulge' as a percentage of their cross-section and also have a shorter section of deflected sidewall. How big a difference are we talking about here? For an equivalent make and model of tyre, Wheel Energy claims the 25mm- wide size will measure five percent lower rolling resistance on average – the supposed average limit of human detection – than the more common 23mm-wide one.

Unless you're a pure climber and solely focused on weight, the takeaway message here is that you'll go generally faster on wider rubber even if it's slightly heavier._



> _I had no idea I was going to stir things up this much. I was just trying to comment on how nice the Simpleone looked, and playing off the "Does Trek Make Good Bikes" meme that keeps popping up here._


You're not really 'stirring anything up'... no one, in this thread at least, hates each other. They just have differing opinions, that's all.

Compare that to some other places on the 'net (*cough bikeforums.net cough cough*) where ppl really DO seem to get nasty at the drop of a hat, and RBR, warts and all, seems downright homey. 
.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

*Just for the What the Hell --*

A few pics of my Rambouillet, taken when I bought it in 2004. Yeah, she was a looker.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> Cross bikes have been around LONGER than Riv's. And cheaper, and better at doing the things the the Rivs are marketed as.


Yeah, 'cept Riv isn't really trying to make cyclocross or even 'hybrid' bikes... more like 'practical road bikes', i.e. what road bikes _used_ to be before they became nervous, effete, whiny thoroughbreds that often can't take tires wider than 25mm. 

Road bikes used to have things like eyelets, decent fender and tire clearances, longer wheelbase/chainstays, and enough durability to do some moderate off-roading even. Yet said road bikes rode and handled like, well, _road bikes.
_
But the road bike has gotten more and more specialized (pardon the pun) in recent years, to the point where if you want to do all the things road bikes USED to be able to do, you need two or more bikes now. 

That's... a tad bit sucky, in some ppl's eyes.

You may not personally dig it, but there is a sound rationale to why they design the way they do, and they have enough of a following to keep on doing it. 

So vive le' difference, and vive le Riv. Even if Grant is annoying sometimes. 
.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> I think the 'wide tires have less rolling resistance' thing is when tire pressure is equal.
> 
> To quote Wheel Energy, a bike-tire testing and development company out of Finland:
> 
> ...



Interesting info; especially because I'm a Clyde  !


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Peterson is a runaway hipster. These are beautiful bikes, but in reality they're pretty danged expensive nicely-painted versions of 70s touring bikes that you can still pick up on Ebay in rough form for a song. His pitter-patter is similar to most retail importers: Wax eloquent about X until you can't source it any longer, then wax eloquent about Y. 

I see he's introduced The Second Top Tube recently. Shark jumped.


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

Lotophage said:


> Because of Riv, we've got Surly and Soma.


Lets not get carried away here, Riv didn't invent the practical bike. They just copied the Dutch, the French, the Italians and the Brits who have been building and riding this style of bike for oh...a century or more.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Eisentraut said:


> Lets not get carried away here, Riv didn't invent the practical bike. They just copied the Dutch, the French, the Italians and the Brits who have been building and riding this style of bike for oh...a century or more.


You are right, they haven't invented anything, but they reintroduced practical to the us and proved there was a market with enough money to justify others trying to get in on the action.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Lotophage said:


> You are right, they haven't invented anything, but they reintroduced practical to the us and proved there was a market with enough money to justify others trying to get in on the action.


+1. Almost anything you see in the bike industry has been 'done before' in some way or to some degree, but if you're the one who rolls the dice and bets your business on non-'me too' products, you definitely deserve some props. Most ppl don't have the guts, they'd rather jump on the bandwagon of whatever's 'hot' currently. 

And to the gent who thinks Riv just makes expensive touring bikes... mmm, not exactly. They do make _some_, such as the pretty-much-iconic by now Atlantis, but 'practical road bike' ≠ 'touring' bike, and that's a lot of what Riv makes.

But we've been so beaten down by mainstream bike industry marketing that we're almost to that point these days... a lot of us think something has to be uber-specialized (and impractical for any other function) to the point of ridiculousness for it to be considered 'of the category'. 

For example, there's a poor guy on these forums who thinks that if a road bike has a cog larger than a 27 (because he runs a 27 sometimes, lol), _or_ tires wider than 23mm, or a stem's that too high, that bike automagically becomes 'a touring bike'.  

I'm sure having eyelets, or an even moderately slack seat tube angle, or an insufficiently high top gear, or chainstays longer than 410mm would also qualify, somehow. The poseur-ism is thick enough to cut with a knife. :lol:

We've come to a point where many of us can see a practical road bike in front of us, and our perceptions are so messed up from all the marketing and image-making that we think, "Wow, interesting touring/hybrid/cross bike."

Meanwhile, ppl were winning the Tour de France back in the 1970s (and even '80s) on bikes that were longer and slacker than what many of us arbitrarily consider a 'road bike' to be today. Heck, they didn't even have 11t or 12t cogs a lot of times.

So, wow... did Merckx know he was winning all those races on a 'touring' bike? Whoa. :shocked:
.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Rivendell's are heavy, stiff bikes with slowish handling and inexplicable extra tubes that are built to be indestructible and ride on big cushy tires so you can't tell anything about the frame qualities. They are built to very high standards, mostly by Waterford.
> 
> If that's what you're looking for, they are a very nice example of that sort of bike.


So Waterford built Rivendell bikes are crappy or high standards? Which is it?


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Mike Overly said:


> Peterson is a runaway hipster. These are beautiful bikes, but in reality they're pretty danged expensive nicely-painted versions of 70s touring bikes that you can still pick up on Ebay in rough form for a song. His pitter-patter is similar to most retail importers: Wax eloquent about X until you can't source it any longer, then wax eloquent about Y.
> 
> I see he's introduced The Second Top Tube recently. Shark jumped.


Maybe what a person could do is buy a really nice example of a 70's or 80's road bike, repaint it with fancy paint, and slap your own made up decal on it and people will think your riding a new custom lugged steel bike!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

holy cromoly said:


> Does Rivendell make good bikes? Short answer is yes, if those bike float your boat.
> 
> The frames were made in Japan in the early days (by Panasonic), but to keep cost down, they have had to move production into Taiwan but the bikes are still well crafted.
> 
> Remember that everyone has moved up one notch in production quality. So Taiwan is now where the fine stuff is made and China is where mass things are made. And Japan, well not much is made there anymore


Japan is still making bikes though, Toyo, see: TOYO FRAME » 700c Tourer but others like Panasonic and Anchor which is the top of line formerly known as Bridgestone, Koga Miyata, but their not sold in the US; I think you can get the Koga here though but I'm not sure. And I believe Voodoo is a Japan made bike as well and their sold here. But that Toyo bike is very nice looking bike.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Meanwhile, ppl were winning the Tour de France back in the 1970s (and even '80s) on bikes that were longer and slacker than what many of us arbitrarily consider a 'road bike' to be today. Heck, they didn't even have 11t or 12t cogs a lot of times.
> 
> So, wow... did Merckx know he was winning all those races on a 'touring' bike? Whoa. :shocked:
> .


It's really funny- I used to have a late 70's colnago super that would fit 32s easily. My early 90s serotta fits 28s under standard reach brakes.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> So Waterford built Rivendell bikes are crappy or high standards? Which is it?


Both. A beautifully executed bike of questionable design. Waterford does a great job producing these elegant looking clunkers. Functional objects aren't nice just because they are nicely made.

Rivendell is a good concept taken too far. As several owners on this thread attest, they really aren't great riding bikes. They are good looking machines to hang antiquarian parts and huge tires on. This could be wonderfully accomplished for either much less money (lugged Soma) or with a frame built to ride nicely. There's an awful lot of old frames out there that will take big tires, if that's the goal. And 650B wheels allow modern frames to be converted to this sort of thing. I just don't think there is anything at all "practical" about a bike that is unnecessarily heavy or harsh riding.

Grant Peterson seems determined to take the cycling out of cycling. He hates helmets, cleats, bike shorts, quick handling, speed and light weight. I think most people who ride on the road do it in part for the thrills that GP is such a wet blanket about. There's nothing wrong with toodling along sometimes - any bike can do that. But I would really hate to have to ride all day on one of his "comfortable" bikes. And I say that as a guy who likes metal bikes with DT shifters.

If you want to spend $2000 on a nice, new lugged bike, have a custom one made instead of buying one of Riv's import bone shakers.

IMO, and all that.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

froze said:


> Japan is still making bikes though, Toyo, see: TOYO FRAME » 700c Tourer


The best part of the Toyo website is under > About > Recruitment:

"*Recruitment* July 1st, 2011
We are currently seeking slaves.
Thank you for your interest in TOYO Frame."


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> +1. Almost anything you see in the bike industry has been 'done before' in some way or to some degree, but if you're the one who rolls the dice and bets your business on non-'me too' products, you definitely deserve some props. Most ppl don't have the guts, they'd rather jump on the bandwagon of whatever's 'hot' currently.
> 
> And to the gent who thinks Riv just makes expensive touring bikes... mmm, not exactly. They do make _some_, such as the pretty-much-iconic by now Atlantis, but 'practical road bike' ≠ 'touring' bike, and that's a lot of what Riv makes.
> 
> ...


I can't give you any more rep for a while.

I like road bikes. I like comfortable bikes. I like touring bikes. I like it better when they're all the same bike. My customers seem to be leaning that way, too. I have shiny new Scott Speedsters in the shop, but I also have my creations - a Redline Conquest Sport (700x32 tires, cantis) with Dura Ace and a Raleigh Mojave 29 with X9, inverted North Road handlebars, and creme Schwalbe tires - that get much more attention and interest.

A woman from Illinois just picked up her bike from me yesterday; the second one of hers that I've worked on. Why does she bring it here? Because I carry "odd" stuff. Odd = things that make sense to normal people and appeal to them. There is a little bit of "Racing" stuff in my store. There are also Velo Orange fenders and 650B rims, dynamo hubs, handlebar bags, 700x25 - 700x40 tires, 650B tubes, 650C tubes.... you get the idea.

700x23 tires make sense only to people who equate thinner tires with more speed. And product designers who make carbon rear triangles that won't accept a 700x25 tire. A 700x25 tire is faster (due to staying in contact with the road more and less speed lost to bouncing over little bumps) than a 700x23, but a 23 "feels" faster. Why is this important to a person who rides for fun? All non-racing road bikes used to come with 27x1-1/4" tires. That's roughly 700x31.75mm. Race bikes had 27x1-1/8" tires or sometimes 27x1". A 27x1-1/8" tire is about 700x29mm and a 1" tire is roughly 700x25.4mm. Road bikes used to come set up for normal people to ride. Now everybody thinks their a racer.

That's why I dig Grant. He goes against conventional thinking. Pompous? Yes. Right? Probably.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PlatyPius said:


> I can't give you any more rep for a while.
> 
> I like road bikes. I like comfortable bikes. I like touring bikes. I like it better when they're all the same bike. My customers seem to be leaning that way, too. I have shiny new Scott Speedsters in the shop, but I also have my creations - a Redline Conquest Sport (700x32 tires, cantis) with Dura Ace and a Raleigh Mojave 29 with X9, inverted North Road handlebars, and creme Schwalbe tires - that get much more attention and interest.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with any of this, but there are lot's of road bikes out there that will accept bigger tires or fenders, or racks. Lynskey Sportive, Calfee Adventure, Cannondale Synergy, Gunnar Sport, etc have more practical features, upright seating and many of them ride nicely. 

There is always talk about how road bikes have gone too far - and this was especially true in the '90s with very short crit chainstays. But the emergence of Endurance bikes, adventure bikes, not-so-serious cross bikes and just the more sensible geometry and upright positioning of today's race bikes suggest that the trend has been reversing for quite some time. And you could easily argue that Lemond had more to do with that than GP.

There are still plenty of stupid race bikes - Cervelo actually blogs about 25c tires while most of their bikes can't take them. But consumer's looking for more comfort have more and better choices these days than Riv. And they can do it with a modern 17 pound bike, if they want to.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

PlatyPius said:


> The best part of the Toyo website is under > About > Recruitment:
> 
> "*Recruitment* July 1st, 2011
> We are currently seeking slaves.
> Thank you for your interest in TOYO Frame."


I thought you were joking!


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

froze said:


> Maybe what a person could do is buy a really nice example of a 70's or 80's road bike, repaint it with fancy paint, and slap your own made up decal on it and people will think your riding a new custom lugged steel bike!


Been there, done that ... didn't repaint it, but stuck an "MO" on the head tube. (When people ask what the "MO" stands for I tell them, "Most Ornery") :










It's a sturdy, beautifully-made bike with chain stay and brake clearance for fenders and big, fluffy fire trail tires, eyelets for touring panniers, and a long wheelbase to keep it all pointed straight through thousands of epic miles of on- and off-road adventuring. Minus the pedals and saddle it only weighs 35-percent more than one of those flimsy, wobbly eggshell bikes that only ignorant racer-wannabes buy. Minus the wheels, tires, and crank it weighs even _less_ than one of those silly fanboy machines ... so what's all the hype about again?

*GP TREATMENT ENDS*

(I purchased this noble steed in the 70s for $179 equipped with Shimano Selecta from the JCPenney mail order catalog. Tragically no copywriter was around to offer anything better than "23" Men's Racer" in the description. Grant could have taken this straight to J. Peterman ).


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> I don't disagree with any of this, but there are lot's of road bikes out there that will accept bigger tires or fenders, or racks. Lynskey Sportive, Calfee Adventure, Cannondale Synergy, Gunnar Sport, etc have more practical features, upright seating and many of them ride nicely.
> 
> There is always talk about how road bikes have gone too far - and this was especially true in the '90s with very short crit chainstays. But the emergence of Endurance bikes, adventure bikes, not-so-serious cross bikes and just the more sensible geometry and upright positioning of today's race bikes suggest that the trend has been reversing for quite some time. And you could easily argue that Lemond had more to do with that than GP.
> 
> There are still plenty of stupid race bikes - Cervelo actually blogs about 25c tires while most of their bikes can't take them. But consumer's looking for more comfort have more and better choices these days than Riv. And they can do it with a modern 17 pound bike, if they want to.


I think Grant deserves a larger share of the credit for whatever trend there is away from 'stupid race bikes' (as you put it) than you're giving him. Remember, it's not just his work with Riv, but also with Bridgestone (we all remember the XO-1 and RB-1), and he's been doin' it for going on 27 years now.

Btw, I own a LeMond, and to me it seems odd that you're giving Greg more credit than Grant on this. For example, my LeMond road bike does not have terribly good tire clearances... fitting 28mm tires is actually a challenge, and that's on a steel model.

Something like the Specialized Roubaix, which I wouldn't be surprised to find was influenced by GP's designs/ethos, would seem to be much more of a factor, popularity-wise anyways, than anything I've seen with LeMond's moniker on it. 

Are we instead talking stuff like the Poprad, i.e. cyclocross bikes? Again, not the same thing as a PBR ('practical road bike').

Now, there are plenty of things I do disagree with Grant on... clipless pedals, helmets, cycling clothing, frame sizing, etc etc. Enough so that I definitely do not fit his mold of what cycling is, to him. But that doesn't prevent me from giving the guy his due.
.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> I think Grant deserves a larger share of the credit for whatever trend there is away from 'stupid race bikes' (as you put it) than you're giving him. Remember, it's not just his work with Riv, but also with Bridgestone (we all remember the XO-1 and RB-1), and he's been doin' it for going on 27 years now.
> 
> Btw, I own a LeMond, and to me it seems odd that you're giving Greg more credit than Grant on this. For example, my LeMond road bike does not have terribly good tire clearances... fitting 28mm tires is actually a challenge, and that's on a steel model.
> 
> ...


Maybe Grant Peterson was espousing the ideas sooner, but it was Surly that got lots and lots of newbs on bikes during the recent bike boom. The cross check complete, and then the LHT even moreso, are still fanatastic values for bikes for people who want to just go on rides in their regular clothes and have a picnic by the lake.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

PlatyPius said:


> The best part of the Toyo website is under > About > Recruitment:
> 
> "*Recruitment* July 1st, 2011
> We are currently seeking slaves.
> Thank you for your interest in TOYO Frame."


Put the bong down slowly, now go back to bed, when you wake up all should be ok.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Both. A beautifully executed bike of questionable design. Waterford does a great job producing these elegant looking clunkers. Functional objects aren't nice just because they are nicely made.
> 
> 
> If you want to spend $2000 on a nice, new lugged bike, have a custom one made instead of buying one of Riv's import bone shakers.
> ...


I know it's your IMO, but one can tell you never rode either the Waterford or a Rivendell, or for that matter any lugged steel bike. I suppose Richard Sachs makes a clunker bone rattling bike too? Oh I know what your thinking, Richard who?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> I know it's your IMO, but one can tell you never rode either the Waterford or a Rivendell, or for that matter any lugged steel bike. I suppose Richard Sachs makes a clunker bone rattling bike too? Oh I know what your thinking, Richard who?


Duder, I work for the guy who built frames with Mike Appel, I have friends who worked at Waterford for years, and have had many conversations David Kirk and with Richard Sachs, or E-Ritchie as he posts on other forums, and have talked extensively with Doug Fattic about just this kind of thing. I don't know why you would go off on this tangent, but it is baseless. Name dropping isn't very effective when both people know all the characters involved.

As I pointed out, this thread alone yielded several riders who OWN Rivs and think they ride too harshly. I don't believe GP has ever made a secret of the fact that he specs thicker walled tubing than necessary, and if you can come up with a single frame builder on earth that will tell you an extra top tube improves ride quality, I'd love to hear from them. Rivs are built to last and designed with big tires in mind, not springy tubing designed to absorb road noise. Thick walled tubing has never been anyone's favorite, going all the way back to Columbus SP.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> I think Grant deserves a larger share of the credit for whatever trend there is away from 'stupid race bikes' (as you put it) than you're giving him. Remember, it's not just his work with Riv, but also with Bridgestone (we all remember the XO-1 and RB-1), and he's been doin' it for going on 27 years now.
> 
> Btw, I own a LeMond, and to me it seems odd that you're giving Greg more credit than Grant on this. For example, my LeMond road bike does not have terribly good tire clearances... fitting 28mm tires is actually a challenge, and that's on a steel model.
> 
> ...


I don't think what GP did working for Bridgestone has a lot of bearing on what he now espouses for Rivendell. Riv does not make anything nearly has thin walled and short wheelbased as the very sporty RB-1, and never will. And Riv will put STI on your bike, which Bridgestone would not.

Greg Lemond was the first person to loudly declare the race frame trends of the '80s ridiculous and market bikes with reasonable geometry. Being able to mount 28c tires is always going to be haphazard when short reach brakes are involved.

Anyway, I think we're talking about different things. Lemond wanted "road bikes", meaning bikes that could be ridden all day and even raced, to be practical from a fit, ride and handling perspective. GP has gone all the way to advocating against road bikes altogether, declaring the 41cm chainstay of the RB-1 dangerously short and twichy and selling machines that most closely resemble early '90s mountain bikes with commuting tires, ideal for grocery shopping and biking up the road for coffee, not putting mileage on.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Duder, I work for the guy who built frames with Mike Appel, I have friends who worked at Waterford for years, and have had many conversations David Kirk and with Richard Sachs, or E-Ritchie as he posts on other forums, and have talked extensively with Doug Fattic about just this kind of thing. I don't know why you would go off on this tangent, but it is baseless. Name dropping isn't very effective when both people know all the characters involved.
> 
> As I pointed out, this thread alone yielded several riders who OWN Rivs and think they ride too harshly. I don't believe GP has ever made a secret of the fact that he specs thicker walled tubing than necessary, and if you can come up with a single frame builder on earth that will tell you an extra top tube improves ride quality, I'd love to hear from them. Rivs are built to last and designed with big tires in mind, not springy tubing designed to absorb road noise. Thick walled tubing has never been anyone's favorite, going all the way back to Columbus SP.


I don't know anyone who has bought one of those odd duck double top tubers either, but I now know two people who have bought bikes from them, one got a real Rivendell and the other an Atlantis, both tour and both love their bikes, one of the guys when he isn't touring swaps the wheels out for narrower ones and he's never noted any rough riding characteristics that you report.

And I'm not sure about those posts you say that have reported harsh rides because I've read plenty of post from all sorts of other forums including this forum that said the opposite of what you think, the vast majority of owners love them. I debated myself about getting an Atlantis back in 06 to 07, but opted for a 07 Mercian Vincitore due to being able to get a host of custom options for the same price of an Atlantis without the options. So if anything I think Rivendell bikes are over priced.

But your entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> I don't know anyone who has bought one of those odd duck double top tubers either, but I now know two people who have bought bikes from them, one got a real Rivendell and the other an Atlantis, both tour and both love their bikes, one of the guys when he isn't touring swaps the wheels out for narrower ones and he's never noted any rough riding characteristics that you report.
> 
> *And I'm not sure about those posts you say that have reported harsh rides because I've read plenty of post from all sorts of other forums including this forum that said the opposite of what you think, the vast majority of owners love them.* I debated myself about getting an Atlantis back in 06 to 07, but opted for a 07 Mercian Vincitore due to being able to get a host of custom options for the same price of an Atlantis without the options. So if anything I think Rivendell bikes are over priced.
> 
> But your entitled to your opinion.


Well, you can read two of them right on this thread from Lotophage and Mapei. If you have questions about their experiences, it seems pretty easy to ask them. That might take the mystery out of it for you.

I agree that Riv is overpriced - which is part of my point. A $2000 frame should do nearly everything pretty well, including ride. If these things were less than a $1000, like a lugged Soma is, then the ride gets a bit more excusable. But Riv is in the custom frame price zone.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

I test road an atlantis, it felt a lot like my 1985 Schwinn High Sierra that I have about $80 into after 3 years of daily commutes, the Riv perhaps has steeper seatube and headtube angles. It sure was pretty though...


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

I own a Sam Hillborne which is their lower-end "do everything" bike. I love the bike. It's not the fastest bike that I own, but it's one of the most fun. I use it mostly for commuting, but have also taken it on mixed road/dirt rides. The geo puts you in a more upright position, which allows you to pay more attention to what's around you when you ride. Most bikes are made to go fast; Rivendell focuses more on enjoying the ride.

If you need to beat your buddies up every hill you'll not like a Rivendell. If you like riding and enjoying your surrounds you'll likely enjoy a Rivendell. Others do similar bikes cheaper, but the quality of craftsmanship on the Rivendells (even on the lower end ones) is much nicer than on most bike frames.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> I own a Sam Hillborne which is their lower-end "do everything" bike. I love the bike. It's not the fastest bike that I own, but it's one of the most fun. I use it mostly for commuting, but have also taken it on mixed road/dirt rides. The geo puts you in a more upright position, which allows you to pay more attention to what's around you when you ride. Most bikes are made to go fast; Rivendell focuses more on enjoying the ride.
> 
> If you need to beat your buddies up every hill you'll not like a Rivendell. If you like riding and enjoying your surrounds you'll likely enjoy a Rivendell. Others do similar bikes cheaper, but the quality of craftsmanship on the Rivendells (even on the lower end ones) is much nicer than on most bike frames.



How's the ride; smooth? 

What's your bike weigh?

What size tires you riding on?



I'm eyeballing an Atlantis 58cm. I really like the retro-classic design and color  !


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> I don't think what GP did working for Bridgestone has a lot of bearing on what he now espouses for Rivendell. *Riv does not make anything nearly has thin walled and short wheelbased as the very sporty RB-1, and never will.*


Right on the second part, but very much wrong on the first. The Riv Roadeo, for example, isn't short-wheelbased, but it is definitely thin-walled. From GP himself:

_5. Tubing? [on the Roadeo]
a. Mix of Reynolds 725 and TrueTemp OX Plat. As thin as I/Grant could stand to go. (0.65 butts in the tt and dt, with 0.45 bellies)_

Cyclofiend

(btw, and I'm not saying this to you specifically, but how many times do I have to say 'Roadeo' in this thread before it sinks in? Would another pic help? (below))



> _Greg Lemond was the first person to loudly declare the race frame trends of the '80s ridiculous and market bikes with reasonable geometry. Being able to mount 28c tires is always going to be haphazard when short reach brakes are involved. Anyway, I think we're talking about different things. Lemond wanted "road bikes", meaning bikes that could be ridden all day and even raced, to be practical from a fit, ride and handling perspective.
> 
> GP has gone all the way to advocating against road bikes altogether, declaring the 41cm chainstay of the RB-1 dangerously short and twitchy and selling machines that most closely resemble early '90s mountain bikes with commuting tires, ideal for grocery shopping and biking up the road for coffee, not putting mileage on._


Yeah, I think this where we part ways.

As you say, LeMond was much more an advocate of all-day bike FIT, rather than whole-hog going for the 'practical road bike' in terms of, say, tire clearances, significantly longer wheelbases, eyelets (though a few LeMonds had these), etc etc. 

What he wanted was something like a Euro-style stage-race bike, as opposed 'stupid/hyper-specialized road bikes', as we've talked about.

Grant took things further, but I think it's gross exaggeration to say that he's "advocating against road bikes altogether". His vision of a practical road bike may not dovetail with yours, but there's no doubt that what road bikes were 'back in the day' were eminently more versatile and practical machines than what many of us routinely accept as road bikes today.

He's not 'anti-road bike' for trying to bring back and emphasize those strengths. Nor are all of his current models super-stout, harsh-riding machines, though I guess it is sort of refreshing to see someone emphasize durability, in an era that is willing to sacrifice that for a few (sometimes _very_ few) grams.

I disagree with Grant on a number of things, but in an industry full of 'me too' voices, I'm glad he's out there.


_(btw, that Riv Roadeo again):
_.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Well, you can read two of them right on this thread from Lotophage and Mapei. If you have questions about their experiences, it seems pretty easy to ask them. That might take the mystery out of it for you.
> 
> I agree that Riv is overpriced - which is part of my point. A $2000 frame should do nearly everything pretty well, including ride. If these things were less than a $1000, like a lugged Soma is, then the ride gets a bit more excusable. But Riv is in the custom frame price zone.


Kontact, man I'm not trying to argue with you, so please don't take what I'm about to say that way. But you came up with 2 people that speak negatively about something...just two. You have to agree that the vast majority of people that buy bikes from Waterford or Rivendell love their bikes in a big way. I did a search on this forum so I skimmed a bunch of posts, and it was nothing but post after post after post of positive experiences. I've read complaints about Colnago and a slew of other Italian made bikes, does that make them bad bikes? I read on a forum someone complaining about Lynsky custom TI bike does that make all Lynsky's bad bikes; these type of examples can be found on any bike you name be it custom or not, be it any frame material.

I have two touring bikes, the heaviest bike I have is a 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe with Tenax double butted tubing which is the same as Columbus SL tubing I've been told. It's heavy because the butts and the tubes are thicker to take the added load of touring gear. (Along with 40 spoke rims.) When I load that bike up it rides like a Cadillac, unloaded not so much, but it was designed to be loaded either with a huge person or touring gear! And the Rivendell's and the Atlantis's are designed for heavy touring, so the frames will be stout to take the added weight. On the Rivendell Grant designs the bike with the riders weight in mind plus the weight of the touring gear, so he actually, or so he claims, uses different tube thickness's to achieve what he believes will give the rider the best durability when all the weight is on the bike. The Atlantis is not designed with weight in mind because it's a factory production bike so the company just makes a generalization of what is needed to carry anticipated weight.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> I agree that Riv is overpriced - which is part of my point. A $2000 frame should do nearly everything pretty well, including ride.
> 
> If these things were less than a $1000, like a lugged Soma is, then the ride gets a bit more excusable. But Riv is in the custom frame price zone.


To be fair, Riv isn't just the Atlantis. At least five current Riv frames are around $1000... or even below:

Sam Hillborne
San Marcos (designed for SOMA by GP, but Riv sells it too)
Yves Gomez
Betty Foy
SimpleOne
.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Right on the second part, but very much wrong on the first. The Riv Roadeo, for example, isn't short-wheelbased, but it is definitely thin-walled. From GP himself:
> 
> _5. Tubing? [on the Roadeo]
> a. Mix of Reynolds 725 and TrueTemp OX Plat. As thin as I/Grant could stand to go. (0.65 butts in the tt and dt, with 0.45 bellies)_
> ...



I hear you and agree, Grant doesn't advocate against road bikes, he advocates for riding in as much comfort as can possibly be done as you pointed out, but he also advocates for a bike that is uncomplicated and durable. In that pursuit he's accomplished that...some of his clothing choices is definitely nerdy.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> Kontact, man I'm not trying to argue with you, so please don't take what I'm about to say that way. But you came up with 2 people that speak negatively about something...just two. You have to agree that the vast majority of people that buy bikes from Waterford or Rivendell love their bikes in a big way. I did a search on this forum so I could skim a bunch of posts, and it was nothing but post after post after post of positive experiences. I've read complaints about Colnago and a slew of other Italian made bikes, does that make them bad bikes? I read on a forum someone complaining about Lynsky custom TI bike does that make all Lynsky's bad bikes; these type of examples can be found on any bike you name be it custom or not, be it any frame material.
> 
> I have two touring bikes, the heaviest bike I have is a 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe with Tenax double butted tubing which is the same as Columbus SL tubing I've been told. It's heavy because the butts and the tubes are thicker to take the added load of touring gear. (Along with 40 spoke rims.) When I load that bike up it rides like a Cadillac, unloaded not so much, but it was designed to be loaded either with a huge person or touring gear! And the Rivendell's and the *Atlantis's are designed for heavy touring, so the frames will be stout to take the added weight*. On the Rivendell Grant designs the bike with the riders weight in mind plus the weight of the touring gear, so he actually, or so he claims, uses different tube thickness's to achieve what he believes will give the rider the best durability when all the weight is on the bike. The Atlantis is not designed with weight in mind because it's a factory production bike so the company just makes a generalization of what is need to carry anticipated weight.


Not arguing with me? Not only are you arguing, you're being condescending, too. Do you even remember Richard? 

The too stiff thing is something I've heard more than a few times, and low and behold two posters just on this thread who actually own them echoed that sentiment. You speak about the Atlantis being stout for a reason, but it clearly isn't stiff enough:

_"It's a stout touring-trail bike, somewhere between an Atlantis and a Bombadil. It has Bomba-stout tubing --- about 0.1mm thicker in the main tubes than the Atlantis tubing." _ -Rivendell on the Hunqapillar. And:

_The Sam Hillborne is the replacement for the Bleriot, with some differences. It's a cross between the Atlantis, our cantilever-braked touring bike, and the A. Homer HIlsen, our roadish country bike. "It's a cross..." means it has tubing halfway in between the two (in wall thickness...) and the 40mm max tire clearance (and straight chainstays) of the A.Homer Hilsen. _

So, according to Riv, the Atlantis is the one of the least stiff bikes they make, next to the very recent Roadeo offering. You already said that the Atlantis is very stiff, and there's three other models made with progressively stiffer, thicker tubing. The Hilson sounds like it must be made of water pipe, being two levels of thickness above the Atlantis, which is a full pound heavier than the discontinued Rambouillet.

Rivendell makes very stiff bikes out of thick tubing.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Not arguing with me? Not only are you arguing, you're being condescending, too. Do you even remember Richard?
> 
> The too stiff thing is something I've heard more than a few times, and low and behold two posters just on this thread who actually own them echoed that sentiment. You speak about the Atlantis being stout for a reason, but it clearly isn't stiff enough:
> 
> ...


Huh? The Bombadil is a *mountain bike*. If the Atlantis is even within shouting distance of its tubing thickness (much less just 0.1mm less), then that's quite thick for a non-MB, and definitely one of the stouter Rivs.

And your second example shows that both the A. Homer Hilsen and the Hillborne are less stout-tubed than the Atlantis. Add the Roadeo to the mix (and you should, it's a sub-4 lbs steel frame), and that's at least three current Rivs that are.

There's probably more.


ps- The Roadeo isn't "very recent", it came out in 2009.
.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Huh? The Bombadil is a *mountain bike*. If the Atlantis is even within shouting distance of its tubing thickness (much less just 0.1mm less), then that's quite thick for a non-MB, and definitely one of the stouter Rivs.
> 
> And your second example shows that both the A. Homer Hilsen and the Hillborne are less stout-tubed than the Atlantis. Add the Roadeo to the mix (and you should, it's a sub-4 lbs steel frame), and that's at least three current Rivs that are.
> 
> ...


Don't bother, he hates Rivendell and or Grant for some unknown reason that he will never tell us about; it's written in all his posts and then spews the hate onto anyone who likes them; there's obviously something going on. He won't read past forum topics like I did to find out that the vast majority love Rivendell bikes, he just keeps harping on about how bad they are; and he's not even acknowledging the facts you presented about sub 4 pound steel bikes being made there. But I'm being condescending and argumentative...maybe I should get just darn right mean...ehh, I got better things to do.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> Don't bother, he hates Rivendell and or Grant for some unknown reason that he will never tell us about; it's written in all his posts and then spews the hate onto anyone who likes them; there's obviously something going on. He won't read past forum topics like I did to find out that the vast majority love Rivendell bikes, he just keeps harping on about how bad they are; and he's not even acknowledging the facts you presented about sub 4 pound steel bikes being made there. But I'm being condescending and argumentative...maybe I should get just darn right mean...*ehh, I got better things to do.*


Ahahhahahahahah!!!


:hand: Yeah right, like go argue with someone over film vs. digital?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

btw, road noise with a stiff frame doesn't really matter when you are cruising at 12 mph on a bike with 2.1s. Having stiffness is nice when you put 30lbs of food and camping gear over your wheels and want to have a bike that doesn't feel like an overdone egg noodle.

I think the frames are well designed for their intended use, and would like to own one, but that is a very low priority.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Huh? The Bombadil is a *mountain bike*. If the Atlantis is even within shouting distance of its tubing thickness (much less just 0.1mm less), then that's quite thick for a non-MB, and definitely one of the stouter Rivs.
> 
> And your second example shows that both the A. Homer Hilsen and the Hillborne are less stout-tubed than the Atlantis. Add the Roadeo to the mix (and you should, it's a sub-4 lbs steel frame), and that's at least three current Rivs that are.
> 
> ...


I couldn't tell from their write up whether the Hilsen road and trail bike was stouter or thinner than the Atlantis - to me it read that it was thicker, suggesting that the Hilborne must also be. I just reread all of those entries and I still can't tell. But I'll take your word on it.

This is my opinion, and an opinion based on talking to people who have bought what I think of as typical Rivs - the big, upright, fat tire, sometimes double top tube bike that GP has sold since the '90s. Yes, they have added the very light Roadeo in the last few years, but it always seemed like an exception to the rest of their line of big, heavy, tall bikes.

Philosophically, I am bothered by GPs materials fear mongering, anti-fit philosophy and round rejection of classic road geometry as dangerous and twitchy. He creates a "problem" and then solves it for you, levering his long experience in the bike industry to justify his position. But a classic road race bike with a carbon fork isn't going to crash on a descent or have the fork shear off - those are two concepts that have been tested for longer than Riv has existed.



As for you, Froze, this was a thread about bicycles, until you came in swinging with the personal attacks. The Richard Sachs name dropping, _I'm smarter than you_ stuff was childish and a total turn off, and is the only thing in this thread I "hate".


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> Ahahhahahahahah!!!
> 
> 
> :hand: Yeah right, like go argue with someone over film vs. digital?


 Well yes, how did you know?


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> btw, road noise with a stiff frame doesn't really matter when you are cruising at 12 mph on a bike with 2.1s. Having stiffness is nice when you put 30lbs of food and camping gear over your wheels and want to have a bike that doesn't feel like an overdone egg noodle.
> 
> I think the frames are well designed for their intended use, and would like to own one, but that is a very low priority.



golly your so smart, you took what I said and reworded it, thanks for making that plainer. I really like the egg noodle part.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

cda 455 said:


> How's the ride; smooth?


The ride is smooth, but this has more with the wide CX tires that I run on it. The sat post is super slack (71 degrees I believe) and the chain stays are long, so bumps aren't transferred through the frame to the saddle. The handling is unique - it does not dart side to side, all turns are curves (hard to explain, but it's a different feel). It's comfortable, stable, and fun. I'd not take it on a fast group ride, but it's a great bike for riding around town, riding with slower riders, and exploring. When I first got it I was surprised at how nice the upright position was for looking around and how much more I saw than when I ride my road, mountain, or CX bikes.



cda 455 said:


> What's your bike weigh?


It's not light. With 45mm Fire XC tires, mustache bars, and a Brooks saddle it's around 25 pounds.



cda 455 said:


> What size tires you riding on?


I currently have 38mm knobby tires on it (with fenders), and it will fit 45mm knobbies (nice on dirt, but fenders won't fit).


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> golly your so smart, you took what I said and reworded it, thanks for making that plainer. I really like the egg noodle part.


Ok say something else so that I can be so smart some more.

but try to keep it succinct, I don't enjoy reading your long winded, boring old posts.

Ok thanks great!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> Ok say something else so that I can be so smart some more.
> 
> but try to keep it succinct, I don't enjoy reading your long winded, boring old posts.
> 
> Ok thanks great!


Look, I'm sorry I was terse, but I got a little offended when you went off topic and attacked me about the film thing which had nothing to do with this post, you want to attack me about the film thing do so on the film post not on a different totally unrelated post.

Again, sorry for the terseness toward you, and I hope we can move forward in a more civil manner toward each other.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> Look, I'm sorry I was terse, but I got a little offended when you went off topic and attacked me about the film thing which had nothing to do with this post, you want to attack me about the film thing do so on the film post not on a different totally unrelated post.
> 
> Again, sorry for the terseness toward you, and I hope we can move forward in a more civil manner toward each other.


Somebody attacked you???

oh, and your apology is accepted. Thank you.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> I couldn't tell from their write up whether the Hilsen road and trail bike was stouter or thinner than the Atlantis - to me it read that it was thicker, suggesting that the Hilborne must also be. I just reread all of those entries and I still can't tell. But I'll take your word on it.
> 
> This is my opinion, and an opinion based on talking to people who have bought what I think of as typical Rivs - the big, upright, fat tire, sometimes double top tube bike that GP has sold since the '90s. Yes, they have added the very light Roadeo in the last few years, but it always seemed like an exception to the rest of their line of big, heavy, tall bikes.


You're a very smart guy, Kon, and it's not that hard... they were saying that the Hillborne was between the Atlantis and the A.Homer Hilsen (AHH) in tubing thickness. So it goes:

Bombadil & Hunqapillar (very thick)
Atlantis (next thickest)
Hillborne (in-between)
AHH (less thick than the above)

and of course
Roadeo (least thick)

There was actually even a little chart Grant had on the old Riv site that spelled out how 'stout' the tubing was on each model and the (no doubt conservative) rider weight limits for each bike, but after the site redesign, can't find it anymore. 



> _Philosophically, I am bothered by GPs materials fear mongering, anti-fit philosophy and round rejection of classic road geometry as dangerous and twitchy. He creates a "problem" and then solves it for you, levering his long experience in the bike industry to justify his position. But a classic road race bike with a carbon fork isn't going to crash on a descent or have the fork shear off - those are two concepts that have been tested for longer than Riv has existed._


Well, on the carbon issue... why does Grant have to like carbon? Almost everyone else in the bike industry does, and promotes it at every turn. So, it's actually kind of refreshing that one brand doesn't. Must we all march in absolute lock-step? Ugh. That'd be really, really boring. 

And GP's philosophy isn't 'anti-fit' so much as 'a different kind of fit'. I myself do not subscribe fully to it, but geez, I've seen a number of older, less flexible riders who've done quite well with it. Or even just ppl who _don't want to ride_ like racers or ppl pretending to be same.

Must we all have the wannabe-racer, "I'm riding the Tour next week, oh wait, I'm not" –type fit, even if it doesn't quite work for us? 

These problems are real for a number of riders, Grant & Co. aren't 'creating' them. Perhaps you'll find this to be true when you get older too.




> _As for you, Froze, this was a thread about bicycles, until you came in swinging with the personal attacks. The Richard Sachs name dropping, I'm smarter than you stuff was childish and a total turn off, and is the only thing in this thread I "hate"._


I would concur that ppl should be civil. And Kon, even though I disagree with you on your take on Riv, I do respect your opinion, and as you know, have rep'd you in the past. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Those frames are really beat-on-able, lock them up, load them up, and ride them for a long time.

Of course, it would be crazy to do that on something that expensive. Viva Surly.

(And braze-on kick stand plates? Really? *barfing...*)


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Well, on the carbon issue... why does Grant have to like carbon? Almost everyone else in the bike industry does, and promotes it at every turn. So, it's actually kind of refreshing that one brand doesn't. Must we all march in absolute lock-step? Ugh. That'd be really, really boring.
> 
> And GP's philosophy isn't 'anti-fit' so much as 'a different kind of fit'. I myself do not subscribe fully to it, but geez, I've seen a number of older, less flexible riders who've done quite well with it. Or even just ppl who _don't want to ride_ like racers or ppl pretending to be same.
> 
> ...


I don't really like carbon. GP likes carbon like Santorum likes gays:
Carbonomas Fork
That is a bunch of near religious hoccum.

The upright, seat further back fit is fine and dandy. But GP doesn't believe that reach to the bar matters. I'm 40, I work in the best fit shop for several hundred miles, and I know that reach matters. That's what I was talking about.

On the rest, thanks. I often enjoy your posts as well, and have no issue with mildly disagreeing with anyone - as long as it is civil.


----------



## GirchyGirchy (Feb 12, 2004)

Kontact said:


> I don't really like carbon. GP likes carbon like Santorum likes gays:
> Carbonomas Fork
> That is a bunch of near religious hoccum.


I like the "review" for the fork.

Edit....and the fact that it's $200 for what's likely the same thing as a Surly Pacer fork that's half the price.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

foto said:


> Those frames are really beat-on-able, lock them up, load them up, and ride them for a long time.
> 
> Of course, it would be crazy to do that on something that expensive. Viva Surly.
> 
> (And braze-on kick stand plates? Really? *barfing...*)


Would you prefer the kickstand crush your chain stays? 

Gotta ask, for a practical bike, what is wrong with a kickstand? Sure, it's heavy but for a city bike and a commuter, heavy is less important than practical. And say what you will, kickstands are insanely practical.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Lotophage said:


> Would you prefer the kickstand crush your chain stays?
> 
> Gotta ask, for a practical bike, what is wrong with a kickstand? Sure, it's heavy but for a city bike and a commuter, heavy is less important than practical. And say what you will, kickstands are insanely practical.


I would rather the bike held itself up without a kickstand plate. Duh.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

foto said:


> I would rather the bike held itself up without a kickstand plate. Duh.


Oh.. a magic bike?

Many of the things that Rivendell includes are related to using the bike for hauling items - either groceries, gear, or touring. To average recreational cyclist a lot of the stuff is dumb. To someone trying to load groceries into their panniers a kick-stand makes sense. To a larger rider with a fully loaded bike a 2nd top tube will stiffen up the frame enough that fast downhills don't feel like you're ridding a noodle.

If don't regularly chain you bike to a post/sign/tree, cycle to the grocery store and back, or strapped a tent to the back of your bike, a lot of what Rivendell does will not make sense to you. However, if you do all of some or all of those things a light-weight carbon bike will not make sense to you - at least not as your only bike. Rivendell makes bikes on one end of the spectrum, and carbon racers on the other end - different people have different needs.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Except for the fact that "carbon racers" and Rivs are NOT the only two options out there. People have been doing loaded touring, commuting and gravel roads on lots of other steel, al and Ti bikes that are not priced to the sky or ride like bricks. See i.e. most of the Surly or Salsa offerings- not to mention just about every frickin' booth at NAHBS. . .


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> Except for the fact that "carbon racers" and Rivs are NOT the only two options out there. People have been doing loaded touring, commuting and gravel roads on lots of other steel, al and Ti bikes that are not priced to the sky or ride like bricks.
> 
> See i.e. most of the Surly or Salsa offerings- not to mention just about every frickin' booth at NAHBS. . .


A lot of those guys likely got their inspiration from Rivendell. Riv-style bikes weren't 'cool' back when Riv started out. Now they kinda are. Grant deserves some of the credit for that.

This always comes up... "Look at Surly, look at SOMA!"... well, guess what? Those guys LOVE Riv, and even sometimes sell the same bikes as Riv– the San Marcos for instance.

Yup, SOMA is so much better than Riv so much that they asked Grant to design a bike for 'em. :shocked:

San Marcos Frame Set | SOMA Fabrications
.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

And let's not forget that Grant is responsible for (arguably) one of the most sought-after Bridgestones ever; the XO-1.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> And let's not forget that Grant is responsible for (arguably) one of the most sought-after Bridgestones ever; the XO-1.


Interesting only from a novelty perspective at this point, what with 29ers and recreational cross bikes, the xo-1 is kinda not that rad.

I mean, now that there are a wide range of knobby 700c tires available, why would you want 26 on a road bike? Unless you are pretty short...


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Coolhand said:


> Except for the fact that "carbon racers" and Rivs are NOT the only two options out there.


Agreed. That's why I said, "Rivendell makes bikes on one end of the <b>spectrum</b>, and carbon racers on the other end."



Coolhand said:


> People have been doing loaded touring, commuting and gravel roads on lots of other steel, al and Ti bikes that are not priced to the sky or ride like bricks. See i.e. most of the Surly or Salsa offerings


Surly and Salsa make bikes that may work as well as a Rivendell, but they are made more cheaply. Surlys and Salsa are TIG welded frames. Rivendell makes lugged bikes, which are more time consuming to manufacture and therefore cost more. The paint is also much nicer on the Rivendells - even their low end bikes have two colors. Do lugs and nicer finishes make the bike worth the price? It probably depends on who you ask. As a comparison, why do some carbon bikes cost more than others? They're all carbon right? There's no reason for a De Rosa to cost more than a De Rosa copy, right?

For a more accurate price comparison look at the price other lugged bikes. There are not a lot being made these days, and those that are likely only exist because Rivendell has sustained the market. Again, some will not care, but some do.

To me they're a good bike for the price, but not intended for everyone. Most people would be perfectly happy with a TIG-welded bike that performed similarly. But if a Rivendell were sitting next to a Surly, I think very few people would spend much time looking at the Surly (and not that it's a bad bike).


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Coolhand said:


> Except for the fact that "carbon racers" and Rivs are NOT the only two options out there. People have been doing loaded touring, commuting and gravel roads on lots of other steel, al and Ti bikes that are not priced to the sky or ride like bricks. See i.e. most of the Surly or Salsa offerings- not to mention just about every frickin' booth at NAHBS. . .


Totally agree. And that's just on the super utility end. Look at all the semi-race but can take fenders bikes that so many companies are doing right now. Perfectly good replacments for the Hilson or Roadeo. A sportive is an awfully flexible machine.


----------



## Al Young (Nov 22, 2009)

foto said:


> Interesting only from a novelty perspective at this point, what with 29ers and recreational cross bikes, the xo-1 is kinda not that rad.
> 
> I mean, now that there are a wide range of knobby 700c tires available, why would you want 26 on a road bike? Unless you are pretty short...


The XO-1's were 700's.It was the XO-2's that had 26" wheels and a slightly different mixed groupset.The frame geo.was the same.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Kontact said:


> Totally agree. And that's just on the super utility end. Look at all the semi-race but can take fenders bikes that so many companies are doing right now. Perfectly good replacments for the Hilson or Roadeo. A sportive is an awfully flexible machine.


Look, the best way to look at it is this: rivendell is the velvet underground of bikes- both extremely influential and highly over rated. Incredibly talented and yet nothing could ever live up to the hype surrounding them.

Riv changed bikes. First by making bikes that everyone had stopped making, then by influencing a new generation of cyclists to say "that's ridiculous, I could get a custom for that price" which helped fuel the rebirth of custom, which spawned nahbs, which spawned big, useable racks on production bikes and on and on, to the point where you are talking about a style of bike (the sportive) as a valid choice when just 5 years ago, that bike just didn't exist in the us in anything close to affordable- there was riv, there was custom or there was finding the rare well made 70s sport tourer and repainting and refitting it. But since there really weren't that many actually well made sport tourers, it was almost easier to start from scratch. 

So give them their due, don't believe the hype and be glad they were there.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> Interesting only from a novelty perspective at this point, what with 29ers and recreational cross bikes, the xo-1 is kinda not that rad.
> 
> I mean, now that there are a wide range of knobby 700c tires available, why would you want 26 on a road bike? Unless you are pretty short...


Many ppl would seem to disagree. Considering that XO-1s are still highly sought-after used, and command some pretty hefty prices... 

The XO-1 and RB-1 are examples of Grant-designed bikes that actually became _more_ popular and more valuable as time has gone on. 'Meh' designs usually don't do that.
.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Many ppl would seem to disagree. Considering that XO-1s are still highly sought-after used, and command some pretty hefty prices...
> 
> The XO-1 and RB-1 are examples of Grant-designed bikes that actually became _more_ popular and more valuable as time has gone on. 'Meh' designs usually don't do that.
> .


The RB-1 is pretty overvalued these days, considering they go for like 3-400 used for a frameset. 

And I didn't say these bikes aren't _desirable_ but their "cult" following is just as much about myth and mystic as anything actually practical as far as riding goes. Look, one of the reasons the XO-1 is so expensive is that it is _novel_, and _uncommon_, hence _novelty_.

But, I am not trying to get into a competition with you, so keep that in mind.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Lotophage said:


> Look, the best way to look at it is this: rivendell is the velvet underground of bikes- both extremely influential and highly over rated. Incredibly talented and yet nothing could ever live up to the hype surrounding them.
> 
> Riv changed bikes. First by making bikes that everyone had stopped making, then by influencing a new generation of cyclists to say "that's ridiculous, I could get a custom for that price" which helped fuel the rebirth of custom, which spawned nahbs, which spawned big, useable racks on production bikes and on and on, to the point where you are talking about a style of bike (the sportive) as a valid choice when just 5 years ago, that bike just didn't exist in the us in anything close to affordable- there was riv, there was custom or there was finding the rare well made 70s sport tourer and repainting and refitting it. But since there really weren't that many actually well made sport tourers, it was almost easier to start from scratch.
> 
> So give them their due, don't believe the hype and be glad they were there.


I totally disagree. The Velvet Underground is not overrated.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

foto said:


> I totally disagree. The Velvet Underground is not overrated.


Oh yes they are. No band could live up to that kind of hype. Just like Riv can't possibly live up to their hype.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Lotophage said:


> Oh yes they are. No band could live up to that kind of hype. Just like Riv can't possibly live up to their hype.


You are wrong there, there is a band that can live up to that kind of hype...

(What hype, by the way? Is there some hype in particular you are thinking of?)


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

By the way...

XOXO | Handsome Cycles

but it isn't the same, is it? Because even thought it is a _knockoff_ it isn't a _Bridgestone_ and that is what really matters.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> The RB-1 is pretty overvalued these days, considering they go for like 3-400 used for a *frameset*.


But they weren't generally sold as framesets... Bridgestone sold them as complete bikes.

And an RB-1 *bike* can go for $900, easy. And I've seen XO-1s go for over $1000.

Point?



> _And I didn't say these bikes aren't desirable but their "cult" following is just as much about myth and mystic as anything actually practical as far as riding goes. Look, one of the reasons the XO-1 is so expensive is that it is novel, and uncommon, hence novelty._


Same as it ever was for anything: If you don't 'get it', then it's a 'cult' item. If you do, then it's worth it. 

And 'novel' doesn't really cut it as an explanation. Just because something's different, doesn't automatically make it sought-after.

If it did, then there'd be some 26-inch-wheel Paramount road bikes that ppl should be clamoring for in large numbers (if you remember those).



foto said:


> By the way...
> 
> XOXO | Handsome Cycles
> 
> but it isn't the same, is it? Because even thought it is a _knockoff_ it isn't a _Bridgestone_ and that is what really matters.


Just the fact that someone's doing a knockoff two decades after the fact says something about the XO-1, now doesn't it? :wink5:
.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> But they weren't generally sold as framesets... Bridgestone sold them as complete bikes.
> 
> And an RB-1 *bike* can go for $900, easy. And I've seen XO-1s go for over $1000.
> 
> ...


What do you mean, my point is right there in my post. These frames have _cache_ that goes beyond their utility, and has something to do with emotion and sentiment. They were well executed, and they were good values for their time, but they aren't particularly well finished or interesting to look at and an RB-1 isn't much different from any other late 80s Japanese race bike (except for not as well finished, like I just said).

Again, I am _not trying to get into an argument with you_ can you give me a little recognition that I am not totally wrong?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Just the fact that someone's doing a knockoff two decades after the fact says something about the XO-1, now doesn't it? :wink5:
> .


It says that the originals are desirable enough and rare enough for there to be a market for a knockoff. 

Do you find me threatening?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> Do you find me threatening?


Are you standing outside my front door sporting a hockey mask and chainsaw?

If not, then no, probably not. :smilewinkgrin:
.


----------



## Al Young (Nov 22, 2009)

I know G.P./Bridgestone is relevent to the discussion,but this is a Rivendell thread.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Al Young said:


> I know G.P./Bridgestone is relevent to the discussion,but this is a Rivendell thread.


Thanks for the reminder. So yeah, Rivendells. Super long quill stems look really cludgey and kinda like crap. Even you Grant apologists have gotta admit it.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

foto said:


> What do you mean, my point is right there in my post. These frames have _cache_ that goes beyond their utility, and has something to do with emotion and sentiment. They were well executed, and they were good values for their time, but they aren't particularly well finished or interesting to look at and an RB-1 isn't much different from any other late 80s Japanese race bike (except for not as well finished, like I just said).


I was going to ask you, "Where do you think the cache comes from?", but you more or less answered the Q: they were well-executed, weren't afraid to break from the mainstream, and were good values for the time. They also offered functionality that not a tons of other bikes of the time had (XO-1 was incredibly versatile all-around, RB-1 had clearances for 32C tires and fender eyelets, so you could ride it year-round).

Also, they were pretty sharp-looking, especially in certain paint schemes/model years.



> _Again, I am not trying to get into an argument with you can you give me a little recognition that I am not totally wrong?_


It's RBR. Disagreements come with the territory... no one's trying to shout you down. 

No one's saying you're dumb or "ZOMG, you should never post again!!", just that those bikes you're kind of dissing perhaps have more going on than you were (prior to this post) giving them credit for.

I'm sure there's certain bikes you could list that you like and I don't, particularly. And I could tell you that those bikes you like are overrated and not particularly worth riding or having. 

Would I not then be wrong, in your view? Would it be 'arguing' for you to tell me so, and to tell me why, in your view, I'm wrong? :idea:

It's not personal, Foto, it's just one of those RBR debates. Ppl can agree to disagree.

And they have such debates on EVERY bike forum I've ever been to, only difference is, on most others ppl call each other 'poopyhead', or the equivalent, on top of it all. 

On RBR, that only happens 50% of the time. :lol: 

Feel better? No one's mad at you.

And for the record, there are some things Grant pushes that leave me cold. I like my clipless pedals, riding shorts, and helmet, for instance. Grant thinks we should all ride around as 'civilians'.
.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

There is absolutely nothing unique about an RB-1. It is a very normal upper end Japanese steel racing frameset of the time, but came with bar ends instead DTs or STI. You'd have to be a fool to see something there that you couldn't get in a Prestige Centurion, Miyata, Fuji, etc.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> I was going to ask you, "Where do you think the cache comes from?", but you more or less answered the Q: they were well-executed, weren't afraid to break from the mainstream, and were good values for the time. They also offered functionality that not a tons of other bikes of the time had (XO-1 was incredibly versatile all-around, RB-1 had clearances for 32C tires and fender eyelets, so you could ride it year-round).
> 
> Also, they were pretty sharp-looking, especially in certain paint schemes/model years.
> 
> ...


Yes. Thank you. 




















(I never said I didn't like Bridgestones by the way, you inferred that incorrectly...)


----------



## maxxevv (Jan 18, 2009)

Guess they do make decent bikes. Just that the industry has moved on and there are equal or or better bike makers who do represent better value out there now ...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kontact said:


> There is absolutely nothing unique about an RB-1.


You are unintentionally convincing me that I must add one to my stable.

Even though I already have one bike too many. 
.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

foto said:


> By the way...
> 
> XOXO | Handsome Cycles
> 
> but it isn't the same, is it? Because even thought it is a _knockoff_ it isn't a _Bridgestone_ and that is what really matters.


It's also not the same because it's not the same. Contrary to the ad copy the geo is not the same (particularly in the smaller size), it's available in fewer sizes, and it's not lugged. But the paint is still cool.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 13, 2011)

laffeaux said:


> It's also not the same because it's not the same. Contrary to the ad copy the geo is not the same (particularly in the smaller size), it's available in fewer sizes, and it's not lugged. But the paint is still cool.


OK, so back in 1974, when I got my first "10 speed" (my beautiful "coffee" Motobecane Mirage that--sob!--ended up plastered against the door of a Dodge Dart), frames _had_ to be lugged (at least that's what _Consumer Reports_ said ). With current alloys and welding technologies, is there still an advantage to lugged frames (other than the subjective aesthetic one)?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> It's also not the same because it's not the same. Contrary to the ad copy the geo is not the same (particularly in the smaller size), it's available in fewer sizes, and it's not lugged. But the paint is still cool.


What makes you say they geos are different? I ask because the numbers on the website are identical to the numbers in the bridgestone catalogues.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

foto said:


> What makes you say they geos are different? I ask because the numbers on the website are identical to the numbers in the bridgestone catalogues.


My bad. I was comparing small to small. Bridgestone offered two frames sizes that are smaller than Handsome's smallest. I was compared the 53cm Handsome to the smaller Bridgestones. For the three sizes that they offer, they are the same. My mistake.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Whodat said:


> OK, so back in 1974, when I got my first "10 speed" (my beautiful "coffee" Motobecane Mirage that--sob!--ended up plastered against the door of a Dodge Dart), frames _had_ to be lugged (at least that's what _Consumer Reports_ said ). With current alloys and welding technologies, is there still an advantage to lugged frames (other than the subjective aesthetic one)?


They offer no advantage. They do require more work (at least for nice lugs) which increases costs, which is a good bit of the reason that they're not used much anymore. But to some (not all), it's like comparing an original painting to a print - they look very similar and server the same purpose, but one shows more craftsmanship.

A person may or may not see value in paying for a lugged frame, but the price is higher due to the increased labor. So comparing the costs and saying that a lugged frame is too expensive doesn't recognize that there is more work involved. However, I completely understand not being interested in paying the extra money to own a lugged frame when functionally it's no different. I own several lugged frames (new and old) and really appreciate the way that they're made, but I also appreciate a nicely made non-lugged frame too. 

But lugs are nice:

<img src="https://www.eandsweb.com/bikes/pics/sam_hillborne/IMG_1982_md.jpg" height="533" width="400">


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Whodat said:


> OK, so back in 1974, when I got my first "10 speed" (my beautiful "coffee" Motobecane Mirage that--sob!--ended up plastered against the door of a Dodge Dart), frames _had_ to be lugged (at least that's what _Consumer Reports_ said ). With current alloys and welding technologies, is there still an advantage to lugged frames (other than the subjective aesthetic one)?


Your going to get into a massive argument about lugs. Most steel frame builders will tell you that lugs gives the bike frame more strength at the joints, I agree with them, but aside from that I think they add an artistic flare to a bike. What most people don't realize is that if you build a steel bike without lugs you have to use tubesets with thicker end butts, the thicker end butts accomplish virtually the same thing as using steel lugs and thinner butts and almost the same weight and the lugs will be still be stronger.

So here comes the war of words now.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> Your going to get into a massive argument about lugs. Most steel frame builders will tell you that lugs gives the bike frame more strength at the joints, I agree with them, but aside from that I think they add an artistic flare to a bike. What most people don't realize is that if you build a steel bike without lugs you have to use tubesets with thicker end butts, the thicker end butts accomplish virtually the same thing as using steel lugs and thinner butts and almost the same weight and the lugs will be still be stronger.
> 
> So here comes the war of words now.


Oh my god! Don't go there!


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

Lotophage said:


> You are right, they haven't invented anything, but they _reintroduced_ to who? practical to the us and proved there was a market with enough money to justify others trying to get in on the action.



This is a bold statement considering that they don't sell more than a couple hundred frames a year at most.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Eisentraut said:


> This is a bold statement considering that they don't sell more than a couple hundred frames a year at most.


Ferrari only sells a couple hundred cars a year in the US, those cars influence the style of sports cars all the way down to mass market huyndais. 

Riv's style, their unique tweedy take on a european cycling fantasy world that never really existed, that influence can be seen in sooooo many budget LHTs with North road bars and porteur racks from VO, brooks saddles and shiny silver bits... 

Riv and their annoyingly frustratingly polarizing newsletter influenced a lot...

From "The Devil Wears Prada"

_Miranda Priestly: Something funny?

Andy Sachs: No. No, no. Nothing's... You know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. You know, I'm still learning about all this stuff and, uh...

Miranda Priestly: 'This... stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff. _


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

I'm still looking for that Hyundai that looks like a Ferrari.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Whodat said:


> OK, so back in 1974, when I got my first "10 speed" (my beautiful "coffee" Motobecane Mirage that--sob!--ended up plastered against the door of a Dodge Dart), frames _had_ to be lugged (at least that's what _Consumer Reports_ said ). With current alloys and welding technologies, is there still an advantage to lugged frames (other than the subjective aesthetic one)?





froze said:


> Your going to get into a massive argument about lugs. Most steel frame builders will tell you that lugs gives the bike frame more strength at the joints, I agree with them, but aside from that I think they add an artistic flare to a bike. What most people don't realize is that if you build a steel bike without lugs you have to use tubesets with thicker end butts, the thicker end butts accomplish virtually the same thing as using steel lugs and thinner butts and almost the same weight and the lugs will be still be stronger.
> 
> So here comes the war of words now.


Isn't it with lugs, one can completely change a tube section. Like a TT, for example,?

Pull out the tube and then replace it?


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

cda 455 said:


> Isn't it with lugs, one can completely change a tube section. Like a TT, for example,?
> 
> Pull out the tube and then replace it?



Yes you can, BUT, the cost to do that is expensive, you have to buy the new tube, and pay to have the bike repainted and the labor involved for both. In some instances, depending on the value of the bike and or frame it may be cheaper to just buy a new frame.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

froze said:


> I'm still looking for that Hyundai that looks like a Ferrari.


Genesis Coupe Gallery

Ferrari California

There's more than a little influence from Modena in those curves. Not as well executed, without a doubt, but that's one of the differences between a 20k car and a 300k car...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Lotophage said:


> Genesis Coupe Gallery
> 
> Ferrari California
> 
> There's more than a little influence from Modena in those curves. Not as well executed, without a doubt, but that's one of the differences between a 20k car and a 300k car...


How do you know the Ferrari isn't modeled after that hyundai? Hmmm?


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

foto said:


> How do you know the Ferrari isn't modeled after that hyundai? Hmmm?


'Cuz the Ferrari's been out longer.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

cda 455 said:


> Isn't it with lugs, one can completely change a tube section. Like a TT, for example,?
> 
> Pull out the tube and then replace it?


"Back in the day" this made sense. The majority of a frame's cost was materials and labor was comparatively inexpensive. The ability to replace a single tube made sense under those conditions. Today the materials are very inexpensive and the labor cost is high. A single tube may cost $25, but the labor to replace it will be in the hundreds of dollars. Meanwhile a full aluminum frame is rolling off the factory in China for a cost of under $100 (before paint, shipping, and mark-up). Economically, it's making less sense to repair frames. (This applies to many things today, when was the last time you repaired a TV or a radio? Disposable products is the wave of the future.)


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Huh, yeah. That whole "you need a lugged frame in case you crack your top tube in Turkmenistan" is bogus. In that situation, you want a cheap, low key bike like an old diamondback mountain bike so when your top tube cracks, you wont be crying when the "local framebuilder" welds a piece of rebar to your frame to keep it all together and get you back on the "road".


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Lotophage said:


> Genesis Coupe Gallery
> 
> Ferrari California
> 
> There's more than a little influence from Modena in those curves. Not as well executed, without a doubt, but that's one of the differences between a 20k car and a 300k car...


vaguely similar, I'll give you that one. But in today's world of cars there's a lot of cars that look like other cars, it's why I hate newer cars because the designs are all so boringly similar.

There's only a few cars on the new car market that I like and most of those are reproductions!! The only non reproduction complete line of cars I like is Lotus, I like the BMW Z4, and that's about it.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

froze said:


> vaguely similar, I'll give you that one. But in today's world of cars there's a lot of cars that look like other cars, it's why I hate newer cars because the designs are all so boringly similar.
> 
> There's only a few cars on the new car market that I like and most of those are reproductions!! The only non reproduction complete line of cars I like is Lotus, I like the BMW Z4, and that's about it.


Yup.

Point being, low quantity, super exclusive and expensive stuff influences the hell out of the bottom of the market.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Lotophage said:


> Yup.
> 
> Point being, low quantity, super exclusive and expensive stuff influences the hell out of the bottom of the market.


That may be true to a small degree, but that Ferrari is ugly, thus the Hyundai is even more so. But not many of the other car lines from the big 3 in Japan or the US don't follow the Ferrari design cues.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

You are really not familiar with what Rivendell offers or Grants opinions. Also there is no comparison between a cheap SOMA frame and a Roadeo. Many if not most Rivendell bikes are not for the average cyclist buying carbon but they are selling to a niche market that does want what they sell. I'm not interested in much of what they sell but I am considering a Roadeo.



Kontact said:


> Both. A beautifully executed bike of questionable design. Waterford does a great job producing these elegant looking clunkers. Functional objects aren't nice just because they are nicely made.
> 
> Rivendell is a good concept taken too far. As several owners on this thread attest, they really aren't great riding bikes. They are good looking machines to hang antiquarian parts and huge tires on. This could be wonderfully accomplished for either much less money (lugged Soma) or with a frame built to ride nicely. There's an awful lot of old frames out there that will take big tires, if that's the goal. And 650B wheels allow modern frames to be converted to this sort of thing. I just don't think there is anything at all "practical" about a bike that is unnecessarily heavy or harsh riding.
> 
> ...


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

I don't know what your Grant/Rivendell diatribes are about but again you have shown you don't know much about the products. The RB-1 had less crit style geometry, would fit wider tires, and a nicer fork than any of those bikes. Some of us were actually around at the time and know these bikes.
If you don't like Grant or his products then don't buy them. Making inaccurate statements about them, or what people have actually said about them, or comparing them to bikes that aren't the same doesn't work with people who do know these things. 



Kontact said:


> There is absolutely nothing unique about an RB-1. It is a very normal upper end Japanese steel racing frameset of the time, but came with bar ends instead DTs or STI. You'd have to be a fool to see something there that you couldn't get in a Prestige Centurion, Miyata, Fuji, etc.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

darwinosx said:


> I don't know what your Grant/Rivendell diatribes are about but again you have shown you don't know much about the products. The RB-1 had less crit style geometry, would fit wider tires, and a nicer fork than any of those bikes. Some of us were actually around at the time and know these bikes.
> If you don't like Grant or his products then don't buy them. Making inaccurate statements about them, or what people have actually said about them, or comparing them to bikes that aren't the same doesn't work with people who do know these things.


I have an RB-2 and I've ridden an RB-T and an XO-1 (coolest bike ever, BTW) as well as various Schwinns, Centurions, Japanese Bianchis (I had a San Remo), Lotuses, etc. and what you say is correct. To me there is no comparison; Bridgestones produced while Grant was in charge were some of the best bikes of their day. That's why they're still highly sought after now. Watch any Bridgestone auction on eBay and you'll see what I mean.

Not only did they ride better than most of the competition, they were also more versatile.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

I had an RB-1. From what Grant has said in the past he can't make money on an RB-1 priced bike. Makes sense especially in low volume. They were showing titanium RB-1's just before Bridgestone USA folded up shop. I was lusting for one of those. But I've been making do with a Moots.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

darwinosx said:


> I don't know what your Grant/Rivendell diatribes are about but again you have shown you don't know much about the products. The RB-1 had less crit style geometry, would fit wider tires, and a nicer fork than any of those bikes. Some of us were actually around at the time and know these bikes.
> If you don't like Grant or his products then don't buy them. Making inaccurate statements about them, or what people have actually said about them, or comparing them to bikes that aren't the same doesn't work with people who do know these things.


Thanks for digging this up to make those points.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

I'm glad you liked it and took the trouble to post and tell me so.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

darwinosx said:


> I don't know what your Grant/Rivendell diatribes are about but again you have shown you don't know much about the products. The RB-1 had less crit style geometry, would fit wider tires, and a nicer fork than any of those bikes. Some of us were actually around at the time and know these bikes.
> If you don't like Grant or his products then don't buy them. Making inaccurate statements about them, or what people have actually said about them, or comparing them to bikes that aren't the same doesn't work with people who do know these things.


I worked at a Bridgestone dealer in 1991. The RB-1 of that era had short reach brakes, 410mm chainstays and fairly typical angles and a very normal 70mm BB drop. None of that made much of an impression at the time - sorry. A steel Miyata was very similar with 408 chainstays and so forth. And pretty much the same as most road bikes of today with 405 to 415mm stays.

I see in the catalog from that model year that Bridgestone says you can get a 32mm tire under those short reach brakes - which I have a hard time believing, but I never tried, and none of our customers ever requested anything over a 25c tire.

The RB-1 was a very nice bicycle, but there was nothing groundbreaking about its geometry. Again, I'm sorry that my opinion about this bicycle offends you: I just don't get the hoopla.

As for the Rodeo, why buy a stock geometry Waterford made lugged frame when you can buy a full custom Waterford from Waterford? They're a fork different in price. But most of my comments about about Riv pertain to their more typically Riv designs. And apologies for not loving those, either.


Another IMO for y'all.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> I worked at a Bridgestone dealer in 1991. The RB-1 of that era had short reach brakes, 410mm chainstays and fairly typical angles and a very normal 70mm BB drop. None of that made much of an impression at the time - sorry. A steel Miyata was very similar with 408 chainstays and so forth. And pretty much the same as most road bikes of today with 405 to 415mm stays.
> 
> I see in the catalog from that model year that Bridgestone says you can get a 32mm tire under those short reach brakes - which I have a hard time believing, but I never tried, and none of our customers ever requested anything over a 25c tire.
> 
> ...


Well then why not build your own frame and do it better then any of the masters have done it,and show those morons how it's really done.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> Well then why not build your own frame and do it better then any of the masters have done it,and show those morons how it's really done.


Really? Even for you that's pretty nonsensical. 

Thanks for taking the thread to whole new level.


----------



## GirchyGirchy (Feb 12, 2004)

Kontact said:


> Really? Even for you that's pretty nonsensical.


I don't get it either.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

I am looking forward to revisiting these same exact ideas in three months.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Really? Even for you that's pretty nonsensical.
> 
> Thanks for taking the thread to whole new level.


I aways try to take threads like this one to new levels. 

I was just referring to you're seemingly profound knowledge on how all steel bikes are basically the same and nothing groundbreaking has been developed and therefore steel frames are nothing special. I guess if you want to look at bicycles that way the same could be said about any bike be it titanium, aluminum or carbon fiber, and if that's true, and according to your infinite knowledge on such things, it would be true, then therefore no bike is anything special. And that's why I suggested that you could be the forerunner, the master, the genius if you will, to make a new frame that would be groundbreaking for the world to gasp at in awe.

Nonsensical? me? sure, but I'm not the one that said steel bikes are nothing special.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> I aways try to take threads like this one to new levels.
> 
> I was just referring to you're seemingly profound knowledge on how all steel bikes are basically the same and nothing groundbreaking has been developed and therefore steel frames are nothing special. I guess if you want to look at bicycles that way the same could be said about any bike be it titanium, aluminum or carbon fiber, and if that's true, and according to your infinite knowledge on such things, it would be true, then therefore no bike is anything special. And that's why I suggested that you could be the forerunner, the master, the genius if you will, to make a new frame that would be groundbreaking for the world to gasp at in awe.
> 
> Nonsensical? me? sure, but I'm not the one that said steel bikes are nothing special.


I posted about one steel bike, not all steel bikes. 

Frequently you make absolutely no sense, and this is just another one of your emotional outbursts. I could pick it apart, but past history tells me you would simply disappear as soon as anything you post is logically challenged, and just pop up somewhere else posting something equally off the wall.

This is a bicycle forum, not third grade recess. No one reading your posts is going to be impressed with your tantrums.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

BTW- to kill one stupid myth: Steel isn't real. Nor is it magic, or any better than Ti, Al or Carbon for making bikes. There are plenty of crappy steel frames out there. 

It is what the builder does with the tubing, welds and angles that is real. Steel gives the most options to small craftsmen, so there are many interesting options to be had. And some overpriced, poorly riding, slow handling heavy frames. *Its all in the builder.*


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Kontact said:


> I posted about one steel bike, not all steel bikes.
> 
> Frequently you make absolutely no sense, and this is just another one of your emotional outbursts. I could pick it apart, but past history tells me you would simply disappear as soon as anything you post is logically challenged, and just pop up somewhere else posting something equally off the wall.
> 
> This is a bicycle forum, not third grade recess. No one reading your posts is going to be impressed with your tantrums.


I do sometimes wonder if username "froze" is meant to be ironic, considering how much flame-bait he posts.

(assuming its a he)


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

This thread is funny....

I have no problem with the Rivendell bikes. They do what they are made to do and that is fine. What I have a problem with is GP's marketing and the fear-mongering on the website. It bothers me that he tries to scare people into believing that anything other than a heavy steel bike is going to explode. His arguments may have carried some weight 25 years ago when carbon fiber bike technology was young and Cannondale was in its "crack-and-fail" days. It is a different world and the market is full of strong, safe comfortable carbon and aluminum bikes. 

From the Rivendell website: 

"We think all bikes should be able to fit fenders, short (sub-41cm) chainstays are dumb, and modern road gearing is too high."

Also on the website: 

"A bike should be appropriate for how and where you ride it, and your fitness."

These two statements are contradictory. In one statement it is said that one's bike should be appropriate for how and where one rides it as well as one's fitness but then the statement is modified to express that this is the case provided that how and where one rides it as well as one's fitness is what Grant Peterson defines as appropriate. When he says that ALL bikes should be able to do any particular thing, he has personally limited the "how and where you ride it, and your fitness" part. My road bike's cassette is notably smaller than my mountain bike's cassette, too small by Grant's description but I don't miss the extra gears at all, even when I'm climbing a steep road. My fitness allows me to do that so why should I choose a cassette with bigger cogs but less fine tuning within the range of gears that I am comfortable with? 

I feel like his telling people how and what they should ride and trying to scare them into believing that everything else is dangerous is just as bad (if not worse) than the crowd that thinks that anyone who rides anything other than a $10,000 race bike with top end components and carbon wheels isn't a "real" cyclist. 

I wonder sometimes if he really is that misguided or if he has figured out that there is a crowd of people who are afraid of fitted bike clothing, skinny tires, and clipless pedals that have a fear that he can play and convince that all of the people in lycra on race bikes are brainwashed morons and that HIS bikes are the only ones that anyone should ride.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

^ Either that or its a predilection, turned into a personality disorder gone bad. 

As mentioned somewhere along the line, I was an early Rivendell member back when G took orders from his house over the phone. Had spoke to him many times talking bicycles and ordering loads of great components, like a beautiful NIB Mavic 631 crankset and last model NIB Superbe Pro (highly polished) brakeset and front/rear derailleurs (gah).

Never had a Bridgestone, but came a hairs breadth of ordering the initial Rivendell roadbike, which was essentially a Joe Starck built RB-1 with Joe Bell paint. I still feel a slight pang thinking about that loss opportunity, and also regret selling those cool parts.

His first U.S. built fixie/SS was the last Riv frame I wanted. After that his designs increasingly didn't meet my needs. No problems with that of course, but what seemed before as GP humor, began turning into what looked like distastefully crass extreme niche marketing. 

Haven't payed attention for a long time, and have no need for Rivendell shibboleths.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> I worked at a Bridgestone dealer in 1991. The RB-1 of that era had short reach brakes, 410mm chainstays and fairly typical angles and a very normal 70mm BB drop. None of that made much of an impression at the time - sorry. A steel Miyata was very similar with 408 chainstays and so forth. And pretty much the same as most road bikes of today with 405 to 415mm stays.
> 
> Another IMO for y'all.


Kontact, it's ok to have an opinion, I'm not calling you on that, I'm calling on what you said that I have posted above, you did not say this was only about the Bridgestone, you said: "And pretty much the same as most road bikes of today with 405 to 415mm stays" You said pretty much that most steel bikes are the same, thus went on to say that so was the Bridgestone, and by doing so your implying that most steel road bikes are not groundbreaking when you said "but there was nothing groundbreaking about its geometry" So while you may have been discussing the Bridgestone you were implying through your other comments that all steel frame geometries are not groundbreaking, in that light no frame geometry be it steel, TI, CF, or AL would be truly ground breaking geometries.

Now if your saying that you worded your statement incorrectly and was not implying that and was only discussing Bridgestone then I'm ok with that. Personally I also don't believe that Bridgestone's upper end bikes were anything super special, nice perhaps, but not super special. I do know for a fact that the Miyata's upper end spline tubing was superior to the upper end Bridgestone frames; having rode both and a few others before getting the 87 Miyata Team, which at the time the Miyata was built I felt it was superior over ALL the other frames on the market. And I'm not talking about geometry between the two, just how the bike rode and felt. But that is just my opinion too.

And then you go on to say I was just posting nonsense and do so frequently and then disappear. thanks for the thoughts. But I find you were doing just that then attempt in a feeble manner to put this problem you had with your wording onto me.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> Kontact, it's ok to have an opinion, I'm not calling you on that, I'm calling on what you said that I have posted above, you did not say this was only about the Bridgestone, you said: "And pretty much the same as most road bikes of today with 405 to 415mm stays" You said pretty much that most steel bikes are the same, thus went on to say that so was the Bridgestone, and by doing so your implying that most steel road bikes are not groundbreaking when you said "but there was nothing groundbreaking about its geometry" So while you may have been discussing the Bridgestone you were implying through your other comments that all steel frame geometries are not groundbreaking, in that light no frame geometry be it steel, TI, CF, or AL would be truly ground breaking geometries.
> 
> Now if your saying that you worded your statement incorrectly and was not implying that and was only discussing Bridgestone then I'm ok with that. Personally I also don't believe that Bridgestone's upper end bikes were anything super special, nice perhaps, but not super special. I do know for a fact that the Miyata's upper end spline tubing was superior to the upper end Bridgestone frames; having rode both and a few others before getting the 87 Miyata Team, which at the time the Miyata was built I felt it was superior over ALL the other frames on the market. And I'm not talking about geometry between the two, just how the bike rode and felt. But that is just my opinion too.
> 
> And then you go on to say I was just posting nonsense and do so frequently and then disappear. thanks for the thoughts. But I find you were doing just that then attempt in a feeble manner to put this problem you had with your wording onto me.


Dude, you misread my very simple post, adding all sorts of funny conclusions. Find someone else to explain it to you: You're rude and have your head in clouds, I'm done monkeying around with you.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Dude, you misread my very simple post, adding all sorts of funny conclusions. Find someone else to explain it to you: You're rude and have your head in clouds, I'm done monkeying around with you.


So I concluded "funny" conclusions? I've even posted how you concluded the "funny" way in your own post, but it's my fault for not being able to your mind? NOW I understand, but from just reading your first post there is no way anyone could have understood it, it wasn't till after all the bantering that it came to light that you ill communicated your thoughts which you refuse to admit. That's fine.

I'm rude? OK fine, I can accept that, so I apologize for being rude to you. Now lets see if we can have more civilized conversations between us from now on.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

froze said:


> So I concluded "funny" conclusions? I've even posted how you concluded the "funny" way in your own post, but it's my fault for not being able to your mind? NOW I understand, but from just reading your first post there is no way anyone could have understood it, it wasn't till after all the bantering that it came to light that you ill communicated your thoughts which you refuse to admit. That's fine.
> 
> I'm rude? OK fine, I can accept that, so I apologize for being rude to you. Now lets see if we can have more civilized conversations between us from now on.


Please read some of the other comments about you and your responses in this thread. I am not alone in finding your posts often ridiculous. You are too much work.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Please read some of the other comments about you and your responses in this thread. I am not alone in finding your posts often ridiculous. You are too much work.


There you go, you said you weren't going to monkey around with me anymore but you do so anyways; I don't think you understand yourself when you say things.


----------

