Hi. This might be a bit of a rhetorical question in the CV forum but while looking at the Rivendell website (a bunch of nice bikes by the way) I was thinking is there any substantive difference between the production frames they offer and say a vintage Trek/Raleigh/Schwinn(Paramount)? Lugged steel, handmade, relaxed angles, clearence for fenders/larger tires are charateristic of both types of bikes. Aside from some issues like braze on's & modern drivetrain (which can be easily adapted on an older steel bike)I can't see the rationale. Anyone care to enlighten me as to what I am missing?

While it's not exactly an answer to your question, I do have a retrogrouch complaint about Rivendell's machines (and I believe this applies to Waterfords too):

Those damnned head lugs (Richard Sachs?) are too tall on top - almost a half-inch higher then the extreme top of the top tube. Disgusting, IMHO.

-Kurt

NO, I don't see that there is that much different about Riv's and older
quaity lugged frames. The main difference is that you can buy a Riv new
where you must refurb an older bike to have the same quality. For many
people new is the only choice.

When comes to bike frames I'm one who will not buy anything but
lugged steel so my choices are limited to Riv & A.N.T. bikes or used.
I buy used since I have time to work on them and I like to do so.
But to be honest a Riv Atlantis is pure drool material to me.

You can't call up Raleigh and order yourself a lugged steel classic all-rounder anymore, so Rivendell fills a much sought after niche market.

It's as simple as supply & demand, and as brilliant as the new Mini Cooper.

1st rule of marketing: Find a need and fill it.

Somewhere, out there is a bike company that sells lugged steel bikes made by Maxway (the dudes who manufacture Surlys and IROs and others) because Maxway makes lugged steel bikes. My point being that somewhere, out there is a decent production lugged bike for probably about $400 a frameset. There's got to be, right?

I think it's just a question of money and the amount of time and work you want to put into finding a bike. If you can find the right vintage frame in good condition, in your size. I see no disadvantage to going that route. And you will save a lot of money. Might not even be a question of time as most custom builders are so backlogged, it may take just as long to get a new frame delivered as tracking down the right vintage one. FWIW, If I were looking at new I would look at a Mercian before I bought a Rivendell.

Most of the new bikes use Reynolds 853 or Columbus Spirit or Life tubesets (Rivendell also uses Japanese Tohouku-Miyata tubes). With these newer alloys, the tubes can be thinner walled (and therefore lighter) than with the tubes used in the vintage bikes, and the newer steels don't lose strength when high temperatures are used to join the tubes (so they can be TIG welded instead of lugged). Since the vintage lugged bikes used low temperature silver brazing, there wasn't a problem with loss of strength at the joins.

If you aren't worried about an extra pound or so of frame weight, there are no substantive differences between the vintage lugged frames using say, 531, and the new frames.

You say vintage, as though it was just one thing. It isn't/wasn't. Grant Peterson (Rivendell) picked a spin on modern/retro and executed it quite well. That said, their product won't be the choice for everyone, just as back in the day, no 4-5 models of bike from any manufacturer would have met the needs of everyone - or even a majority of people for that matter. If you want a bike that's perfect for you, you have two options:

1. Be lucky
2. Have it made for you.

I do see that Rivendell fills a niche quite nicely.
They are the Serotta of the iBob crowd.
Yes there are still production frame shops
with steel frames, but not nearly as many
(Serotta does not have any lugged steel frames
left btw).
Cudak I too find the extended headtube to be
less than pleasing to the eye. There was a lot if discussion
about this on CR and on the Serotta board. Some posters
carefully hacksawed the extension off.
I believe it allows for less spacers on threadless
stems which is rather contradictory to Riv's philosophy no?

marty

FYI, all ANT bikes are TIG-welded. Nice bikes, though.

To the OP, some consumers prefer to buy new products that elicit feelings of nostalgia over the actual vintage items. Hence the Mini, the Ford Mustang, the Triumph Thruxton. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's a triumph of marketing.

There will always be others who prefer old things, not new things that remind them of old things.

Interesting. In the latest issue of the Riv Reader (RR 38) Grant does a review of the White Industries ENO hub and for a demonstration puts it on one of his Atlantis frames. It struck me that it looks just like a single-speeded Trek 970 or early Specialized Rock Hopper, except with drop bars. (Which you can easily do, if that's what you like.)

The question in my mind is why Trek or Specialized doesn't revive these great old steel mtbs since they are such excellent do-it-all bikes. Maybe call them the "Classic" line?

It's so easy, a monkey can do it.

There is beauty in simplicity.

These are the two diametrically opposed arguments that revolve around innovation Vs. classicism.

It is highly unlikely that the marketing strategies of big box companies such as Specialized will ever include such a small niche market as this. Ever see the Langster? Horrible design , IMHO.

Current design reflects the taste and trends dictated by MTV, Nascar, and other committee groupthink.

It's very ironic to me that one man (Peterson) bucking trends is constantly accused of being a groupthink guru. The hoopla surrounding his legacy is hysterical, and in hindsight nothing more than manipulative character assasination by his enemies and rivals in the cutthroat world of the cycling industry.

I agree. That sort of thing occurs wherever you find a small, popular trendsetter or, not even a trendsetter, just a trend-bucker that's popular within a niche market. The accusation is usually along the lines of "[brand x] is arrogant and thinks it's better than everyone else and people who use [brand x] are the same way", usually coupled with "but [brand x] is really small so therefore it has no legitimacy". Apple computer, hybrid cars and Arrested Development (the show) are a few recent examples that come to mind.

Using lugs to build a bike is a completely legitimate way to do it but lugs have a niche audience, and niche audiences are not something mass consumer orientated companies can effectively deal with. They can shoot for nostalgia, but it's not the same thing.

I really enjoy the RR. I mean the guy spends pages comparing fork spacing and handlebar ramp angles (something I wish I'd read before buying a set of ridiculously steep NOS Cinelli bars). But I have to agree with the OP. Personally, I'd rather scour craigslist and yardsales for that neglected classic that would otherwise hang in someone's rafters.

Is it possible to find an old bike with lugs as elegant as on the Rivendells? The older bikes I've seen all have plain lugs. Are there older bikes (or other new ones) that combine functionality with aesthetics like Rivendell does?

I've restored a vintage bike and while it can be a learning experience, it can also be a pain in the butt, whereas the Riv will be new and clean from the get go. Also, the Riv uses new components, while restorations can involve tracking down NOS vintage components if you want to keep the time frame close to the original. So the short answer is, it depends what you want out of it. A restoration can end up being almost as expensive as a new riv.

Of course I like Riv-D's, but I would prefer an old Raliegh/Peugoet/MotoB/Paramount
caliber bike from the 70's any day.
[ponderous philosophy]I think bikes are like music....you always prefer
what you liked in the happiest times in your life. Somehow cycling was 'better'
in the 70's. Pre-STI, carbon, Mick Taylor was still with the 'Stones, etc....
[/ponderous philosohy]

You will find that most vintage English frames, many European and some American frames have intricate lugs. The glaring exception has been Italy. Other than being cut back a little more and occasionaly having some holes or cutouts, Italian lugs are basically just like the pipe fittings found on utility roadsters.

Rivendell makes three levels of bikes. At the top level, each bike is essentially custom-made, one at a time, by a single builder here in the USA. At the second level, the bikes are built in a very small shop in Japan with about five guys building the bikes. And, their entry level bikes are made in a larger shop in Taiwan.

Not many "vintage" bikes were made "one at a time". The Paramounts of the 1960's were made in very small numbers, but by 1972 or so, a much larger number was being made by a variety of builders. Most of the "vintage" bikes we see, such as Panasonics, Bridgestones, Motobecanes, were made on factory assembly lines turning out hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of bikes each day.

And, the best Rivendell bikes are much like the best Paramount bikes of around 1968 or so: priced out of the reach of "Average Joe Cyclist".

I totally agree that these bikes are usually not worth restoring, although you can sometimes buy a good NOS bike that has been sitting in an attic for half a century. As per my earlier comment about restorations being as expensive as a new riv, I was thinking of high end classic bikes, not the mass market kinds.

The extended head lug is "different" at best to someone who was used to the "traditional" look. Riv appears to use it to get the handlebar higher, Sachs does it appears to adapt to the current vogue of stems and associated hardware without resorting to lots of spacers. Note his extensions are shorter than Riv. but his clients want a race like bike.

Beyond that stuff, Riv has a number of models, at least one is USA made and "custom" built. The others are contract production, by good mfgs. So, hard to "compare" directly. Riv makes stuff for currently made parts, Vintage designed for parts made long ago. Riv kind of translates vintage to the modern world in at least one language, Grant's.

I like the old stuff, but I know how to shift and don't race. If I was to race again, I would want as I did back then, the competitive edge, both functionally and to intimidate others. Spare wheels? No, spare bike!

To answer the original question, Rivendell makes bikes that are vintage-like. The strict definition if "vintage" according to Classicrendezvous, is 1983 or older. Although clipless pedals and aero brakes had already reared their ugly head by then, in my view these also are not "vintage". One exception CR makes is frames made in the traditional manner by builders known as Keepers Of the Flame (KOF). I think Rivendell falls into that niche.

I agree with cudak888's opinion of mishapen top head lugs. They are really ugly. The only purpose I can think of that they may serve is on touring bikes for old geezers who can't bend over much anymore and need to have the stem out at maximum extension but still need to be able to stand over the top tube.

I happen to be a Riv Kool Aid-drinker, so I've gotten into many "discussions" with the many critics Grant P seems to have on this forum. What the haters mostly have in common is that they obviously have never read a thing he has written, and are going by a badly-rendered strawman they read about on the forums at Weighweenies.com.

I would say there are lots of older bikes with functional, elegant lugs. Here's a '72 Paramount with Nervex lugs.

Back to the original question . . . . The biggest difference between a modern Rivendell and a classic of the types mentioned, it seems to me, is the custom fit. If you are a hard-to-fit person, odds are a Riv (or any other custom-made frame, fro that matter) is going to feel and ride significantly better than almost any vintage steed you happen to find, just as it would feel better than any off-the-rack modern frame. So in a way, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Now if you are comparing a modern off-the-rack frame to a classic, that's more of a toss-up from my experience. I have both a 2000 Lemond Zurich (TIG-welded 853 w/carbon fork) frame and a 1967 Paramount touring frame (531 throughout), both decked out with similar (but not identical) non-original components (I got both of them as frame & fork only). The differences in ride quality between the two are the result of differences in geometry and not in age. To give you an idea of what I mean by "differences" between them, the Lemond feels like it is on rails on descents, while the Paramount feels like it's a well-built sports sedan, maybe a 5-series BMW. Somewhat different feels, but both secure and both a total blast. The other differences are on a par with that - fairly subtle and a matter of taste, as far as preference goes. My guess is that the same would be true if you threw a modern lugged stell OTR frame like a Ramboullet (from Riv), Atlantis (ditto) or Heron (used to be sort-of ditto, but not any more)into the comparison.

As for the cool-factor of riding a frame that is close to as old as I am and showing no signs of slowing down or wearing out (unlike the rider ) - man, that cannot be duplicated. I'm not saying it's the only kind of cool out there, or even the only kind of cool that floats my boat, but it is unique and I love having people recognize the old Paramount for the great old frame that it is.