The 911 will always be a collectors item because it has a unique signature; Its shape. No question about what brand or model when you see one as there is no other vehicle that looks like it. That exclusive look and the racing heritage it racked up (and continues to rack up) makes it desirable for car fanciers.
The bicycle should be judged on the same standards. When you see it, you know what it is (Hetchins for example), it has a lineage that is noteworthy (Colnago or Coppi), and has technology that is unique and changed the way the machine functioned (Campi toothed dropouts and lever shifts). These are a few examples and not the only ones.

As for Riv, Grant Petersen is a marketing genius. I respect him for it and for bringing common sense back into cycling. At the time he started on his own, the compact frame was making an entry into the market, racing was all the rage, and the common man non enthusiast was wondering why road bikes were so uncomfortable.
Grant declared the old designs were not outdated and made more sense for most everyone. Singlehandedly he steered the bicycle manufacturers toward taller front ends, longer stays and more comfortable riding positions. He did this through persuading the riding public that common sense was indeed fashionable. It started at the top end of the market and has made its way to the bottom. Trickle down if you will. Thank goodness others saw what he saw and financed the venture. The cycling industry is better off because of it.
Rivs are really well made and good looking machines. No doubt the originals will be collectable at some point in time. They represent a fella that took a gigantic risk and defied the big guys, went with old school designs, materials, and construction methods and influenced an entire industry to redesign. He influenced a huge rebirth of the independent fabricator of bicycles. The small, one at a time maker of artful bikes.
Can't fault him for any of it.

Classic cars, classic looking bikes. There is no better. Thats a beauty Stan!

Joining the off topic thing...Scooper that is one nice machine! My buddy did exactly what you did! 89 motor in the thing and it hauled the mail like no other! He also raced one and told me at the time the 911 was easily trounced on because they were so unbalanced compared to the 914.
That vehicle is a beauty and I am completely jealous! Brings back some seriously fond memories.
I miss mine, but not enough to go back into that money pit again!

Now, back on topic.

Can't say enough good things about Mike Terraferma. Great Builder.

https://www.terrafermacycles.com/

https://www.cyclofiend.com/cc/2010/cc...rmain0410.html

That Pegoretti is a whale of a choice, although I might set one up a little differently than the pic you have posted.



I'm a little surprised we haven't given the nod to Roland Della Santa though.

Unbelievable build quality and ride for the $$$$.

That's just stupid, in a great way.....

I agree that the 911 has a distinctive shape, but that alone does not ensure its status as a collector's item; consider the Pontiac Aztec.... I think it's the shape, coupled with the performance, the cache, the history....

As for GP, there are things that I can fault him for, but most are a bit off-topic. No question he's a brilliant marketeer; he has ppl convinced that he "singlehandedly" steered manufacturers back towards (more) sensible bikes. Nevermind that many continents had never given up on long-quilled threaded stems, decent-sized rubber, comfortable riding positions, and fenders. Nevermind that many ppl were holding onto their slightly vintage (at the time) practical bikes, and looking cross-eyed at the compact-geo road frames of the time...There were many adherents to the so-called Riv philosophy long before Riv became incorporated....

And how about the fact that GP is now guilty of the same stuff, ie, using a sloping TT to allow for fewer sizes on offer? Does anyone really think a Hunq is going to be collectible? For whatever good he's done, and for whatever good he's still doing, much of the Riv catalog(sic) has jumped the proverbial shark....

If I had the money... https://www.steelmancycles.com/lug.html

Dave Wages (Ellis Cycles).

I think your timeline and use of the word "many" are off a bit. GR/Riv started selling practical steel frames in '95. Take a look at a Trek, Spec'l or C'dale '95 catalog for a reminder of what mfrs were successfully selling in the US market, in total units of hundreds of thousands. Steel road was nearly dead, road bikes were built/spec'd like race bikes, and flat-bar hybrids were the primary choice for wider tires, fenders and upright riding positions. Sloping top tubes were still 4-5yrs off. Euro spec was dominated by "trekking" bikes, US flat-bar hybrids w/fenders/racks/lights. Niche primarily-steel players like Surly didn't exist.

Trek had three steel road bikes in '95, out of 10 total. The touring 520 stayed in the line because they had built it for years, in small numbers every year, never needed changing, why not? Spec'd w/28c tires. The 470 was spec'd w/23c tires, with: "...hot racing geometry for an aerodynamic body position." The entry-level 370 had a "Sport" designation, 25c tires, with "classic road geometry." Three steel road bikes out of 38 total models (22 ATB, 6 hybrid, 10 road). In my market the only steel road bike we carried was the 520, and the numbers were so small I wanted to cut it every year.

The type of bicycle GP advocated in '94-'95 didn't exist in the big mfr product lines and wasn't present on the LBS sales floor, which is where most people buying new bikes were looking. There were no discussions in product meetings about the need for steel drop-bar road bikes with quality tubing, clearance for fatter rubber and with fender/rack mounts. Mentions of GP at product meetings would draw chuckles and head shakes---he was that far off the radar. Keep in mind that mfrs don't build bikes consumers ask for, they build bikes dealers will buy. The "many" people you say were already hip to Riv issues were not walking into bike shops and asking for these bikes, so they were all but invisible to bike mfrs. People shopping the available road bike offerings didn't see any Riv-like alternatives, didn't know the alternative existed, so they didn't ask for it. Dealers didn't see the need since consumers weren't asking. Mfrs didn't bother spec'ing them because dealers weren't asking.

I don't know that Grant ever claimed or tried to convince anyone that he "singlehandedly" shifted the market. He did successfully make the case that consumers would buy practical bikes---though a niche market, it was viable and could be profitable. Reaching past the already-hip to the bigger numbers who only knew what they saw on the LBS sales floor was the key, along with offering product that made a practical build possible. And he was alone, until the ball started to roll and others jumped in.

GP hates kittens.

Andy Hampsten's frames have a nice blend of old and new.

https://www.hampsten.com/

I'm not planning on one though. I'm still stuck in the '80s and would probably go with one of the Mercians, for a new frame, which both suit me in style and still fall well under the $2000 mark. I like their wide range of options for the relatively reasonable money.

I very seriously looked at Mercian and Bob Jackson for a new frame two years ago, but ultimately wound up going with a Boulder Brevet.

Somebody dropped the G-bomb

I just saw Waterford's website. They are building Paramount 75th anniversary models. You can even get stainless steel frames. Regardless the light steel with traditional polished or unpolished lugs (or no lugs if you like) is nice. If you like the old look with all the modern features, you get them pre-drilled for internal cables or Di2

"Many" is an awesome word, but it does have that vague quality, doesn't it? In the mid-90s, some (many? A few? A preponderance? A small but significant minority? Several? Pick your favorite non-specific quantitative term) riders were still on bikes from the 80s or even the 70s, which had clearance for more rubber, horizontal top tubes, eyelets for fenders, quill stems, etc. My hunch is that many didn't actually take advantage of these features, but they did have them, and some riders stayed on those b/c beer-can treks and radically compact Giant road bikes didn't offer the comfort or versatility of their older steel bikes. There were so many bike-boom bikes still around (remember, this is before every bike with semi-horizontal dropouts was converted to a FG), that the drive to make those mid-90s abominations may have come from a need to distinguish the new bikes from the old ones.

I totally believe you that the big manufacturers and product designers at significant meetings did not care much about GP's philosophy, nor for the needs of crusty folks who would cling to their old bikes regardless. But, ppl on bikes did feel a need for more practical bikes, and GP was far from alone at the time. He may have simply been the "loudest" voice, at the time, advocating for the bikes that had recently gone off of the new-bike market.

But, yes, you're quite right that the folks who liked classic geometry and practical accoutrements were not a big enough market to register on anybody's sales strategy in the 90s....

(A 520 in 1995 was still a cool bike... When I went into a Trek dealer at the turn of the century asking for a 520, they treated me like I was a degenerate pr!ck just for asking. None on the floor, and the salesguy seemed to feel that he wouldn't wanna order one, even if I paid in advance....)

I don't think GP ever claimed to have "singlehandedly" done anything... i put the quotes around that term b/c bikeforums member TiHabanero claimed that GP "Singlehandedly he steered the bicycle manufacturers toward taller front ends, longer stays and more comfortable riding positions."

Sorry to clip your post up; I just wanted to truncate it in the interest of a slightly less cluttered thread. Short summary: GP made a huge contribution to the current state of the bike industry, but he didn't actually do anything innovative. In fact, he was just one of many ppl who lamented the shift from normal do-everything road bikes to the one-trick-pony race bikes that had dominated the market--- and still kinda do, today.

Yep; it's pretty sweet.

Been looking at these too, to add a new Mercian to my old Mercian!

what I think is interesting is when custom frames are noted as expensive...when many high endproduction frames are just as expensive if not more so

specialized Tarmac SL4 Pro Frameset $2950
Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4 Frameset $3500
trek madone 7 $4400

In many cases you can get a custom frame, with you selected components for less than a complete high end bike would run.

for me, in my dreams that means: Dave Kirk custom, bright chartruese metallic green with white lug lining, ultegra di2

....Della Santa spent a lot of time at the 2012 NAHBS show here trying to talk people
out of the idea that they needed custom frame sizing in order to live a rich, full life.

By being THE voice of the "normal" bike crowd- it IS innovative.

Take Rivendell out of the mix- and who are the big-time makers that are making steel frame do-anything bikes?

It's a niche segment of the population that go for that. The "riding a bike for the sake of riding a bike" crowd isn't a very vocal bunch. Put 'em on an inexpensive upright hybrid or on their same old sweet bike they've had for 20-40 years and they're happy. But by and large- they're the most people riding bikes. So, yes- bikes with "Rivendell-ish" appointments are everywhere. You have such a bicycle build. But those bikes aren't Rivendells. But Rivendell, even being a tiny company, are the biggest company that use that "conventional wisdom." So things that relate to those appointments and that concept and philosophy are by default pointing back to Rivendell.

As I read your posts, you seem to understand that Peterson's bicycle build concept and philosophy has been around "for decades" and is "ancient." You seem to understand that all of the big bicycle manufacturers have gone away from that philosophy and bicycles built like that would have an exceptionally small niche in the market. You seem recognize that Peterson's bicycle build concept is essentially the same as yours. But yet you seem to disparage Peterson and his company for espousing that philosophy and selling products that relate to that as his "schtick" and "insipid." I don't understand that.

Bikes are "leisure" to me. While I don't have anything from Rivendell, I understand they 'play for my team.' While a person who is into bicycling will look at my 30 year old bike and refer to it as a "relic," the same person would be more likely to look at a Rivendell with a similar build and think it's cool, although in a retro sort of way. At this point- to get a bike with the appointments and the style I'd like- I could go on the cheap and figure out how to upgrade a "vintage" bike (which still won't give all the features I REALLY want), go for the outrageously expensive route and get a custom build, or I could go the still rather expensive route and get a Rivendell.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't place any negative connotations on having a "schtick"; i see that as a necessary aspect of being in business, selling things. As for the admittedly disparaging term "insipid", I applied that to the goofy names they give to existing Nitto products. To be honest, I think the whole Tolkien/Dungeons n Dragons-themed stuff is a bit tough to swallow, too... But, overall, I admire what GP has done for the cycling community. I just don't want to revere him as some sort of bicycling God. (Some other insipid stuff? The "Bosco" bars with the integrated stem... the diagatube on the Hunq. The sale of artisanal axes, although I get it that they promote bike-camping, which could arguable open up more markets for them, so bless 'em for trying...)

As for Rivendell being the "biggest"; I'm not so sure about that. Surly makes steel all-rounders, and they're available at every shop that uses QBP, plus all over the interwebs. Surly bikes tend to have all the practical features of the Riv bikes, but none of the aesthetics. Clearly, they're going after a different crowd in terms of style/culture, but still ppl who want to ride for riding's sake.

Also, at this point, more and more "big name" manufacturers are offering steel road/tourish bikes with clearance, cantis, fender/rack eyelets, etc. (To be fair, one might argue that this would't be the case without GP/Riv...) Some (Bianchi, Jamis, Trek...) had never stopped, even if these makers limited such bikes to a single model. I bet that if you got your 30 year-old bike repainted with a contrasting headtube and panels, and if your components are still shiny & nice, most ppl would think it's as cool as a Riv.... The nicest Riv bikes look just like high-end bikes from the 70s and 80s, but with a shiny new finish... and 135mm rear ends.

In closing, you can get a Mercian or a Bob Jackson for the same money as a Riv, and you can even choose from a bunch of colors, rather than just one....

PS- I think my gripe is less with GP himself, and more with ppl who seem to think he invented upright bars, fenders and fat tires. Most of the products are nice, as is the philosophy behind them. I once had the pleasure of tuning up a Toyo-built Atlantis, and it was an extremely nice frame with an appealing build. I think the world is a better place for having GP and his company in it. I just don't think he deserves the sort of exalted status he's achieved in some circles.

If Grant Petersen-style repackaging of existing ideas as something new and special is a crime, then Dario Pegoretti is in for some serious jail time. The Pegoretti story is a classic illustration of the triumph of marketing over reality.

Nicely done! 3.2 Carrera driver too ....