Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    Kid A TurbineBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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"
    Cyclist, angler and aquarist

  2. #2
    Senior Member d2create's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Houston we have a problem
    Posts
    2,911
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    2008 Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen
    Pics and Specs Here!

    2010 Specialized Rockhopper 29er

  3. #3
    GATC
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    south Puget Sound
    Posts
    6,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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).

  4. #4
    Senior Member d2create's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Houston we have a problem
    Posts
    2,911
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HardyWeinberg View Post
    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.
    2008 Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen
    Pics and Specs Here!

    2010 Specialized Rockhopper 29er

  5. #5
    Jet Jockey Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    My Bikes
    Cannondale CAAD9 SRAM Red, Ritchey Breakaway Cross, Nashbar X-frame
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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...
    Good night...and good luck

  6. #6
    Senior Member d2create's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Houston we have a problem
    Posts
    2,911
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Banzai View Post
    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?



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



    Not to mention the full customs they make.
    2008 Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen
    Pics and Specs Here!

    2010 Specialized Rockhopper 29er

  7. #7
    member. heh. lambo_vt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene2308 View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Kid A TurbineBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Cyclist, angler and aquarist

  9. #9
    member. heh. lambo_vt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene2308 View Post
    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...

  10. #10
    Team Water Andy_K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR
    My Bikes
    2013 Kona Jake, 2008 Kona Major Jake, 2013 Kona Jake the Snake, 1999 Kona Muni Mula, 2012 Ridley Excalibur, 2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker
    Posts
    6,790
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene2308 View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,399
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy_K View Post
    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

    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.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-22-09 at 06:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,793
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  13. #13
    not a role model JeffS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    4,644
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by d2create View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JeffS; 09-22-09 at 07:25 PM.

  14. #14
    Velocommuter Commando Sirrus Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    My Bikes
    '88 Specialized Sirrus, '89 Alpine Monitor Pass, two '70 Raligh Twenties, '07 Schwinn Town & Country Trike, '07 Specialized Sirrus Hybrid
    Posts
    2,536
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by d2create View Post
    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!
    Riding 19 Years of Specialized Sirrus Tradition.
    Live in Houston? Come to http://bicyclecommutehouston.blogspot.com/
    1988 Specialized Sirrus, 1989 Alpine Monitor Pass MTB, 2007 Specialized Sirrus 700C hybrid, 2007 Schwinn Town & Country trike, 1970 "Resto-Improved" Raleigh 20, 1970 "WIP" Raleigh 20, and 1980 "WIP" Schwinn Town & Country trike

  15. #15
    Senior Member d2create's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Houston we have a problem
    Posts
    2,911
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffS View Post
    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.
    2008 Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen
    Pics and Specs Here!

    2010 Specialized Rockhopper 29er

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Each time I encounter a Rivendell thread I want a Waterford more and more.

  17. #17
    not a role model JeffS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    4,644
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DataJunkie View Post
    Each time I encounter a Rivendell thread I want a Waterford more and more.
    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.

  18. #18
    Real Men Ride Ordinaries fuzz2050's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what's wrong with the the clubman?
    aside from the Rivendell allure, how is it different? oh, wait, sloping top tube. Kiss of death for this bike.

  19. #19
    Senior Member d2create's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Houston we have a problem
    Posts
    2,911
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fuzz2050 View Post
    what's wrong with the the clubman?
    It's metallic brown.
    2008 Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen
    Pics and Specs Here!

    2010 Specialized Rockhopper 29er

  20. #20
    Senior Member tjspiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,763
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by tjspiel; 09-23-09 at 08:30 AM.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,399
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tjspiel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-09 at 12:32 PM.

  22. #22
    Kid A TurbineBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Cyclist, angler and aquarist

  23. #23
    member. heh. lambo_vt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,399
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lambo_vt View Post
    Unless you buy a Rivendell. Sorry, couldn't resist.
    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.)

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gene2308 View Post
    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).
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-23-09 at 01:29 PM.

  25. #25
    Kid A TurbineBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Cyclist, angler and aquarist

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •