Originally Posted by Hangtownmatt

Nothing wrong with a 1979 Trek 910. That's for sure. But I'm guessing they are probably harder to find than a Rivendell. You say "A Rivendell can't be a better bike ..." I disagree. I'm not about to go into a bunch of research on '79 Trek 910's but I'll venture to say the Rivendell is better because it's designed for modern easy to find components. For example: 700c and 650B versus 27" wheels, 135mm rear axel versus whatever was used back in the day, Fatter tires (my Hillborne can take 40mm tire w/fenders), better brakes, a more realistic selection of drive train components, and the flexibility to get those handlebars up into a more upright position if and when needed. You can grow old with these bikes. I'm not saying these differences can't be dealt with from a frame built in 1979, but I know from experience these modifications can be costly to implement. And in the end, the frame geometry wasn't initially designed for the conversion and the overall ride quality suffers.

Please keep in mind that one of the biggest advantages to a Rivendell is the way it rides. And if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the Trek 910 have a low trail geometry? Rivendell's are not low trail. There isn't anything wrong with low trail but comparing a low trail bike to a Rivendell is like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.

What is it that makes a poor man's Rivendell? I can assure you that it isn't simply using cotton handlebar tape, Brooks saddles, and sweptback handlebars.