Commuting - Rivendell's new road frame

http://www.rivbike.com/#product=50-618

Hey, I actually really like Rivendell philosophy on a lot of things and think they make beautiful frames.

I do, however, find their argument for buying a heavier steel road bike over a carbon bike rather weak--basically, they show a chart comparing their frame to a common carbon frame and list percentage difference in the frame weights alone, the frame plus components, and the frame, components and rider.

Obviously you see a smaller percentage difference with the built up bike and a ride combined...but this is really not a good way to evaluate weight, since weight on a frame is much more significant than weight on a rider. (i.e. - If I went from 175 to 180 pounds I would still notice a signifcant difference in my bike frame if it went from 15 to 20 pounds). An article explains this here:

http://abcycle.com/page.cfm?pageid=119

I realize this is quite subjective, but I just don't see how you can rationalize choose a heavy frame based upon the idea that "well, since I weigh 200 pounds what's another 3-5 pounds of frame weight" ..."thats only like a 0.6% difference"

I'd love to have that new frame.
I looked and looked and looked a few months back and couldn't find a decent off the peg road "race" frame that could fit wider tires and fenders, which in my opinion are the real reasons to buy that frame. I ended up with the Tommasini Sintesi (steel as well) which is nice but I would have loved to have another Riv.

I think d2c hit on something, to get a fancypants new steel bike that is a full 8oz less in frame weight than the more pedestrian (so to speak) models, you're looking at an Italian racing bike, and the frame geometry that entails.

I think Salsa, Soma, and Surly all have similar frames (for cruising not racing), but w/o the finishing touches of a Rivendell, at a higher weight (though not so detectable as a percentage of bike + rider, to be sure). (and also for sure at a much more detectable percentage of the price).

I think d2c hit on something, to get a fancypants new steel bike that is a full 8oz less in frame weight than the more pedestrian (so to speak) models, you're looking at an Italian racing bike, and the frame geometry that entails.

And they can only fit a max of 25mm (or thin 28mm) tires and no fenders. While you may not need those, that's something I was looking for and couldn't find without going complete custom.

I think a part of Grant Petersen's soul died when he built that.

It makes me laugh.

It's a rather nice bike though...

I think a part of Grant Petersen's soul died when he built that.

It makes me laugh.


It's different from the Riv Romulous or other past Riv bikes how?

http://renaissancebicycles.com/images/rivendell/JimD-rivendell-romulus.jpg

Did you know they also made a ss/fixed and are supposed to bring that back soon?

http://www.mile43.com/cycling/images/quickbeam/quickbeam_expo_lg.jpg

Not to mention the full customs they make.

http://www.rivbike.com/#product=50-618

Hey, I actually really like Rivendell philosophy on a lot of things and think they make beautiful frames.

I do, however, find their argument for buying a heavier steel road bike over a carbon bike rather weak--basically, they show a chart comparing their frame to a common carbon frame and list percentage difference in the frame weights alone, the frame plus components, and the frame, components and rider.

Obviously you see a smaller percentage difference with the built up bike and a ride combined...but this is really not a good way to evaluate weight, since weight on a frame is much more significant than weight on a rider. (i.e. - If I went from 175 to 180 pounds I would still notice a signifcant difference in my bike frame if it went from 15 to 20 pounds). An article explains this here:

http://abcycle.com/page.cfm?pageid=119

I realize this is quite subjective, but I just don't see how you can rationalize choose a heavy frame based upon the idea that "well, since I weigh 200 pounds what's another 3-5 pounds of frame weight" ..."thats only like a 0.6% difference"

Not that I disagree, but it is impossible to discuss this topic reasonably on Bikeforums.

Not that I disagree, but it is impossible to discuss this topic reasonably on Bikeforums.

This may be true, and to be honest I am not losing sleep over it...just was thinking about it earlier ;).

I actually prefer steel frames and have no interest in carbon fiber frames. I just disagree with Rivendell's logic for ignoring a drastic difference in frame weight and instead adding on rider weight to skew the statistics and appear more favorable (the frames) than they actually are.

This may be true, and to be honest I am not losing sleep over it...just was thinking about it earlier ;).

I actually prefer steel frames and have no interest in carbon fiber frames. I just disagree with Rivendell's logic for ignoring a drastic difference in frame weight and instead adding on rider weight to skew the statistics and appear more favorable (the frames) than they actually are.

You're right, though. My road bike is 631 steel and my commuter is steel something or other, but I still don't think of myself as one of "those" guys. If I had the scratch for a fancy Roubaix or something I'd consider it.

Then again, my dream bike is either a Master X Light or a Cinelli XCR. Hmm, maybe I am one of "those" guys...

Obviously you see a smaller percentage difference with the built up bike and a ride combined...but this is really not a good way to evaluate weight, since weight on a frame is much more significant than weight on a rider. (i.e. - If I went from 175 to 180 pounds I would still notice a signifcant difference in my bike frame if it went from 15 to 20 pounds). An article explains this here:

http://abcycle.com/page.cfm?pageid=119

Hmmm, I wonder what's in this can..... Somebody's going to do it. Why not?

The problem I have with the "explanation" on that web page is that it uses a completely false analogy. The reason the suitcase doesn't get any easier to carry when you lose five pounds is that the amount of weight being held by your arm doesn't change. If you had a ten pound hand and then lost five pounds from your hand, the suitcase would be easier to carry!

When you're riding a bike, the same muscles propel both bike and rider. If you add or remove weight to the combined total, it's the same muscles that feel the change. There may be some minor difference due to changes in center of gravity, but as I understand it, that actually favors dropping weight from the rider vs. dropping weight from the bike.

The only part of the "explanation" that actually holds water is the part that mentions wheel weight being significantly different.

Hmmm, I wonder what's in this can..... Somebody's going to do it. Why not?

The problem I have with the "explanation" on that web page is that it uses a completely false analogy. The reason the suitcase doesn't get any easier to carry when you lose five pounds is that the amount of weight being held by your arm doesn't change. If you had a ten pound hand and then lost five pounds from your hand, the suitcase would be easier to carry!

Yes, the suitcase analogy doesn't make sense. A better analogy would be a backpack.

http://abcycle.com/page.cfm?pageid=119 (http://abcycle.com/page.cfm?pageid=119)


The best analogy I can think of is that bike weight is like carrying a suitcase. If you have a thirty pound suitcase to carry, and you lose five pounds of body weight, the suitcase doesn't get any lighter, or easier to carry through an airport. But if you remove five pounds from the suitcase, it's much easier to carry. Same thing on the bike, except it's weight you are pedaling up hills, and weight that takes more energy to move after each stop. Lighter bikes are more nimble, climb better, accelerate faster, and simply put, are just more fun to ride.

The extra weight of the total package (rider+bike) makes a difference going up hills (and the relation is linear) and when accelerating. The bit of extra weight matters very little on the flats.

I wouldn't buy a carbon bike, either -- 631, 853, 953, would do me well for a road frame, IF I was going to buy a roadie. Not for me....

Neither would I buy a Rivendell -- personal choice.

Not to mention the full customs they make.


You mean have made?

Hell, even hypocrits have to make a living. The whole thing is funny.


You don't need a road bike, but since you're going to buy one, buy this one. It's heavy as hell because you don't need a light bike. I don't need a road bike either but what the hell, I'm going to screw with the geometry of my size Rodeo and build one for myself. If you ride the same size as me... tough luck... oh wait... you're in luck. You get the geometry you really should be riding even though it's not what you want, which is why you're buying it, except you're not because I won't sell it to you. errr... will you take it if I throw in a seersucker shirt? I know you don't want it, but you will wear it and like it because I said so

I fail to see the purpose in paying one company profit to have my bike built by another, whether it be Rivendell, Hampstead, Svelte or whoever - when I can have the builder build it for ME.

I'd love to have that new frame.
I looked and looked and looked a few months back and couldn't find a decent off the peg road "race" frame that could fit wider tires and fenders, which in my opinion are the real reasons to buy that frame. I ended up with the Tommasini Sintesi (steel as well) which is nice but I would have loved to have another Riv.

Time for a bike flip! :thumb:

You mean have made?

Hell, even hypocrits have to make a living. The whole thing is funny.


Riv designs the bikes. And they will measure and fit you just like any other bike builder. Doesn't matter who does the actual building as long as it's done right and Riv stands behind it. Just as it doesn't matter that some company in asia makes the big name brand bikes as well. So no, i mean "the full customs that they make".
Do what you do best and let others do what they do best. That's smart, not hypocritical.

Each time I encounter a Rivendell thread I want a Waterford more and more.
:p

Each time I encounter a Rivendell thread I want a Waterford more and more.
:p

Speaking of Waterford. I would love to have 50% of the additional revenue they would receive from a redesigned website.

With all the custom builders really stepping up their sites lately it stands out even more.

what's wrong with the the clubman? (http://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/road/clubman/)
aside from the Rivendell allure, how is it different? oh, wait, sloping top tube. Kiss of death for this bike.

what's wrong with the the clubman? (http://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/road/clubman/)


It's metallic brown. :p

I don't think either Riv or abcycle have it right. The suitcase analogy doesn't work unless you're carrying your bike. Maybe if it's a suitcase on wheels.

Riv has it wrong too. If I were to go for a 40 minute run today that included at least some small hills, woke tomorrow suddenly 5 lbs lighter and did the same thing, I can tell you I would notice a difference.

And it DOES matter whether the weight is on the bike or on your person. It's easy to demonstrate the difference:

Ride through some moderate potholes on a rigid framed bike keeping your butt on the saddle and your arms as stiff as you can. Now do the same thing with your butt out of the saddle and allowing your arms to flex as you go through the potholes. It makes a big difference. It not only feels better, it's faster. The total weight hasn't changed a bit. What's changed is "suspended" vs. "unsuspended" weight.

Of course most people's commute isn't a continuous string of potholes. But all surfaces have imperfections and your body weight is partially suspended even if you keep your butt on the seat. Your arms aren't steel tubes, they flex quite readily. Your entire upper body doesn't have to move up and down to the same degree as your bike, you're hinged at the waist.

Ride through some moderate potholes on a rigid framed bike keeping your butt on the saddle and your arms as stiff as you can. Now do the same thing with your butt out of the saddle and allowing your arms to flex as you go through the potholes. It makes a big difference. It not only feels better, it's faster. The total weight hasn't changed a bit. What's changed is "suspended" vs. "unsuspended" weight.
It's the fact that you can do this with the large majority of the weight (ie, the weight of the rider) which makes a few extra pounds on the bike not matter to any significant degree.

All other things being equal, less weight is clearly better.


Note that Rivendell isn't saying weight doesn't matter. They are saying it only matters a little.


The real questions are how much better and how much it costs. The typical trade-off for less weight is increased cost.

I just remember from my biological research days that you were supposed to avoid "searching for significance" with your data...which is what Rivendell seems to be doing IMO.

The idea is something like: "Well, we can't possible make them as light." "I know! We'll toss in the weight of the components and an average rider to make them seem not so different!".

I realize what their point is, I get it. It just seems like they are trying to rationalize their frames without any need to do so. Just sell them as they are! Great and functional rides -- don't need to try to find a way to equate them to carbon frames.

The real questions are how much better and how much it costs. The typical trade-off for less weight is increased cost.

Unless you buy a Rivendell. Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Unless you buy a Rivendell. Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
Actually, Rivendell is making the point that their expensive steel frame is cheaper than a carbon frame because their frame is more durable.

There are two components to the cost of stuff: the initial price and the life of the item. It's not uncommon that more-expensive lighter stuff also has to be replaced more frequently.

(There's a third component, the replacement cost due to accident loss. But that cost for the Rivendell is about the same as for a carbon frame.)

================


I just remember from my biological research days that you were supposed to avoid "searching for significance" with your data...which is what Rivendell seems to be doing IMO.

The idea is something like: "Well, we can't possible make them as light." "I know! We'll toss in the weight of the components and an average rider to make them seem not so different!".

I realize what their point is, I get it. It just seems like they are trying to rationalize their frames without any need to do so. Just sell them as they are! Great and functional rides -- don't need to try to find a way to equate them to carbon frames.
Nah, what they are doing is "marketing"!

Anyway, most bicycle companies exclude the weight of the rider to make the difference seem more different. Why is that OK?

What Rivendell is doing is probably more closer to reality.

"Weight weeny-ism" is so-much the norm in the marketplace that Rivendell might be obligated to say something about it. Also, if they can convincingly equate a steel frame to a carbon frame, they might be able to sell bikes to people who would only otherwise consider carbon (which is the default material for expensive road bikes).

There are two components to the cost of stuff: the initial price and the life of the item.


Not really. I just see the price tag when I looks at the cost of stuff. I understand what you are getting at, but don't really agree. That's like saying "buy a fixed gear, sure it costs a lot...but when you factor in how cool it looks with your pants...the price really seems a lot less!" Plus, a lot of people (not me) argue that modern frames all last basically forever if cared for properly.


Anyway, most bicycle companies exclude the weight of the rider to make the difference seem more different. Why is that OK?

Nope, not this one either. Not when buying an ultralight backpack, a tent, a car, a motorcycle, or anything else have I ever seen the weight of someone added on to "fudge" statistics.

They don't include the weight of the rider, because you are buying the ITEM ALONE. Simple. Plus, you can't possibly account for everyone's weight....which would change the stupid "percentage difference" magical figure.

"No Mr. baggage handler, even though my package exceeds weight restrictions for this flight..you forgot to factor the combined weight of myself and the package....since I am already pretty heavy
the percentage difference is rather minimal. Don't you think?" ;)

I agree with your last paragraph almost entirely. Really, this is mostly just me talking for the sake of boredom avoision. ;) I am not that serious about it.

Plus, a lot of people (not me) argue that modern frames all last basically forever if cared for properly.

Gotta agree here. I don't think anyone can argue that a nice Rivendell frame will last longer than a cheaper one. I mean, there are hi-ten frames out there you could get for ten bucks that are already thirty years old and probably have another fifty left in them (if you can stand it).

Can't you just get Waterford to make the frame and have someone local slap parts on it?

If you're spending $3,000 on a carbon frame you should be able to get it hand made, in the US. TMK, the major US manufacturers build their carbon frames at home and their aluminum and steel frames in Taiwan and China.

I really don't buy the durability argument. Yes, carbon bikes have failed. So have steel bikes. We haven't had enough time, TMK, to see how non-defective carbon frames last.

If Rivendell knew how to make the weight argument they'd point out that you can build up their frame in size Q with X wheels and Y components and still hit the UCI minimum weight. You might not have the lightest bike at the club, but you'd know it's still a very light bike. Hopefully size Q doesn't have to be a 49cm...

Honestly, I don't see why they don't just learn to make carbon frames as well.. They wouldn't be the first small carbon frame maker.

what's wrong with the the clubman? (http://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/road/clubman/).

I wonder how the Pacer complete (http://surlybikes.com/bikes/pacer_complete/) will compare in price

Anyway, most bicycle companies exclude the weight of the rider to make the difference seem more different. Why is that OK?


Because they sell bicycles and not riders. The rider should know how much he weighs and consider if he should be spending his way down the scale or dieting his way down the scale.

I do think it's ridiculous to get excited about tiny weight savings on the frame. A Surly verse a Cinelli carbon frame: That's huge! This frame (at 4lbs) verse a similarly priced carbon frame (let's say, 2.5lbs) might seem like it's worth going steel to many consumers. For 1.5lbs of total bike weight I just might buy the one with the nicer paint job that's customized to my measurements.

Gotta agree here. I don't think anyone can argue that a nice Rivendell frame will last longer than a cheaper one. I mean, there are hi-ten frames out there you could get for ten bucks that are already thirty years old and probably have another fifty left in them (if you can stand it).

Of course. Older frames lasted forever whether you cared for them properly or not. I've got a '77 Gitane frame that spent 30 years rusting in a barn. It's perfectly usable. But modern frames don't last forever unless you care for them properly.

Can we start the official list of bikes that do the same thing as the Riv?
Clubman,
Pacer,
there must be more.

Can we start the official list of bikes that do the same thing as the Riv?
Clubman,
Pacer,
there must be more.

Hmmm... neither of those bikes gives me a raging ***** so scratch them off the list. :D

If you're spending $3,000 on a carbon frame you should be able to get it hand made, in the US. TMK, the major US manufacturers build their carbon frames at home and their aluminum and steel frames in Taiwan and China..

Not true acrross the board ....Specialized Carbon are built offshore.

the major US manufacturers build their carbon frames at home and their aluminum and steel frames in Taiwan and China.


What major manufacturer besides Trek builds carbon bikes in the US?

I don't consider the likes of Calfee and Serotta majors.

Not really. I just see the price tag when I looks at the cost of stuff. I understand what you are getting at, but don't really agree. That's like saying "buy a fixed gear, sure it costs a lot...but when you factor in how cool it looks with your pants...the price really seems a lot less!"
You are an irrational buyer then. What I am saying is completely unlike buying something that "looks cool". For tools (like bicycles), how long it will last is typically part of what people consider along with up-front costs. People typically expect that a more-expensive item will last longer than a cheaper item.


Plus, a lot of people (not me) argue that modern frames all last basically forever if cared for properly.
One could disagree with Rivendell that their frame would last any longer but they are claiming that it does.


Nope, not this one either. Not when buying an ultralight backpack, a tent, a car, a motorcycle, or anything else have I ever seen the weight of someone added on to "fudge" statistics.
They aren't adding it on to "fudge" anything. They are discussing the total weight to make the point that it doesn't matter a lot. It's strange that people think that this is some sort of sophisticated deception (when it's very easy to understand).

People buying bicycles expect extra-special magic performace with a slightly lighter bicycle. It's bizarre how common this idea is.


Because they sell bicycles and not riders. The rider should know how much he weighs and consider if he should be spending his way down the scale or dieting his way down the scale.
Most riders never consider their weight in the equation. Note that Rivendell does indicate the weight of the frame set.


I do think it's ridiculous to get excited about tiny weight savings on the frame. A Surly verse a Cinelli carbon frame: That's huge! This frame (at 4lbs) verse a similarly priced carbon frame (let's say, 2.5lbs) might seem like it's worth going steel to many consumers. For 1.5lbs of total bike weight I just might buy the one with the nicer paint job that's customized to my measurements.
And that's the point that Rivendell is making: don't get too hung up on the weight.

So I just went on a group ride Tuesday. We went about 50 miles and averaged 17.4 mph according to my cycloputer...

Everyone else has a carbon or aluminum bike, and EVERY bike has a carbon fork...except for mine. I used my hybrid framed commuter with 28c tires, fenders, steel frame and fork, etc. Basically a super cheap version of the Riv, pacer, etc. I kept up and, for about half of it, led the pack. Now, we weren't racing, but there WAS some rather heated competition between a few of us, and no matter how hard they pushed, they couldn't get away from me. Would I use it in a crit race or something? No, but if I wanted a faster, fenderable "race" bike, I'd certainly pick one of these bikes over a carbon/aluminum bike.

I own a couple of Rivendell's, in particular I ride a Rambouillet and from the numbers I've seen the new Roadie is a lighter version of that without the rack mount eyelets. The geometries are pretty close, you have to stay with 43mm chainstays to get the tyre clearance that GP likes. I've been thinking of getting a frame to build up as a fast road bike, but the Roadie just wasn't different enough from GP's usual designs to tempt me. I'm not criticizing, the Roadie is a great looking bike and I'm sure it will sell very well, but I was looking for something different. When I saw the $2000 price tag I realized that i could get an Italian steel bike for that so I went out and bought a De Rosa Neo Primato frame...........The build is on going here

http://www.wheelsofchance.org

So I just went on a group ride Tuesday. We went about 50 miles and averaged 17.4 mph according to my cycloputer...

Everyone else has a carbon or aluminum bike, and EVERY bike has a carbon fork...except for mine. I used my hybrid framed commuter with 28c tires, fenders, steel frame and fork, etc. Basically a super cheap version of the Riv, pacer, etc. I kept up and, for about half of it, led the pack. Now, we weren't racing, but there WAS some rather heated competition between a few of us, and no matter how hard they pushed, they couldn't get away from me. Would I use it in a crit race or something? No, but if I wanted a faster, fenderable "race" bike, I'd certainly pick one of these bikes over a carbon/aluminum bike.

Morale of the story is, you can use any bike you want for the old guys ride. :thumb:

Hmmm... neither of those bikes gives me a raging ***** so scratch them off the list. :D

Finally! A post that made me laugh out loud today. Thanks.

Not when buying an ultralight backpack, a tent, a car, a motorcycle, or anything else have I ever seen the weight of someone added on to "fudge" statistics.
What's different about these is that people don't say the equivalent of "I'm going to be a much better cyclist if I have a lighter bike" about these other things. (Backpackers certainly understand that lighter is easier but, because bicycling is so much more efficient than walking, a little bit of extra bicycle weight isn't as important.)

You are an irrational buyer then. What I am saying is completely unlike buying something that "looks cool". For tools (like bicycles), how long it will last is typically part of what people consider along with up-front costs. People typically expect that a more-expensive item will last longer than a cheaper item.

I can honestly say that "how long will it last?" hasn't been a factor in any bike purchase decision I've made since I quit buying X-mart bikes for the kids. My feeling is that pretty much any half-way decent bike I'll buy will last as long as I want it too barring any major accidents or thievery.



They aren't adding it on to "fudge" anything. They are discussing the total weight to make the point that it doesn't matter a lot. It's strange that people think that this is some sort of sophisticated deception (when it's very easy to understand).

People buying bicycles expect extra-special magic performace with a slightly lighter bicycle. It's bizarre how common this idea is.


I agree that people think weight is more of a performance factor than it actually is but nice lugs and detail work don't make you any faster either.

Adding the weight of a person when considering the weight difference between two frames IS deceptive. A few pounds can make quite a difference in the way a bike handles, how easy it is to carry, etc. I hang my bike up in the garage every day and in my office. It's a piece of cake with my road bike. On my winter bike, - not so much, especially if I have to maneuver around some obstacles the kids may have left in my path.




And that's the point that Rivendell is making: don't get too hung up on the weight.

Don't get hung up on weight and instead get hung up on aesthetics and image. ;)

I understand there's more to a Rivendell than just looks but I bet if you put a Raleigh badge on a Riv bike, you wouldn't be able to sell it for anywhere near the same price.

Don't get hung up on weight and instead get hung up on aesthetics. ;)



Hell yeah! See my ***** comment above. :thumb:

http://www.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/3108/50-618a.jpg

Nice looking bike. In fact, it looks a lot like my '86 Gazelle Champion Mondial:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/CalOso/Bikes/DSC02728-1.jpg

Which I bought and built up myself for about $500 less than the Rivendell frameset alone.

Morale of the story is, you can use any bike you want for the old guys ride. :thumb:

Doing some quick mathematics, the "old guy ride" averages about 30 years of age...