1987cp

Just saw this customized Specialized Sequoia on Fleabay. Not "poor" enough for a lot of folks, but seems like a good value, and very Riv-ish with the 650b conversion and R559 brakes!







Here's my Riv-ish project, has a comparable number of original parts as the Sequoia above. I was rather surprised when I figured up recently how much I've actually spent on it as it sits.

Sixty Fiver

Rivendell has done very well in taking classic designs and making them available at a slightly less than custom price... $1200.00 for a frame and fork is $400.00 less than what we charge and much less than many custom builders.

The quality of the workmanship on the Rivendell frames I have seen appears to be very good although I could not do any destructive testing.

irwin7638

There's no imitation involved anywhere in a Riv frame, unless you consider continuing to use lugged steel as imitating. I'd say they just continue the technique they like and understand. The lugs and beautiful paint are only the frosting on the cake. Compare the the geometry between the Riv and whatever classic frame you like. Those subtle differences in angles, lengths and BB drop amount to a lot of difference in performance and comfort. In the interest of full and fair disclosure: I love my Hunq.

Marc

H.S.Clydesdale

I suppose I cant resist posting to this thread, due to the color scheme on my ride. The bike does fit the bill due to the fact that this would likely be a rivendale if I had more disposable income. Now, If only I could find a cheap 80s frame with the double top tube.... This is near as I'll get I suppose.



It is a 68cm 1987 Nishiki Sport. Straight gauge 4130 CroMo. The frame itself is 8 pounds, and the entire bike is 32 pounds with the internal hub. It is smooth and very steady at speed (have had it up to 40mph).

I am currently experimenting with a very "small" setup to see if I could swing a 64cm frame. With the seat and bars where they are, they are about where they would be on a 64cm frame. They fit, though at the low end of what I think is comfortable. (I am 6'7")

amdoo

H.S. Clydesdale- What length are those cranks? 200?

blakcloud

This was my experiment at trying to have a Poor Man's Rivendell.

https://

The bike didn't stay like that for long as it didn't make for a good commuting bike, it was too upright for my liking.

I always knew it was an experiment and it did help me refine what I wanted and needed.

Last week I just built up a Rivendell Betty Foy for my wife and she loves it. This has convinced me that I should buy the real deal for myself because I know I will never be happy until I do. A. Homer Hilsen is on my wish list.

Johnny Alien

I am a huge Rivendell fan. I have owned a bunch of old 80's steel frames and I don't think they can really get you the same relaxed geometry but it's also not a bad suggestion. Going the used route obviously a used Bridgestone would be a good suggestion but they have crept up past "affordable" in alot of instances. A 91-93 RB-1 or RB-2 would be in the Soma San Marcos territory and the XO-1's would fit the all-arounder/atlantis territory. Of course the RB's can still be had for an OK price but the XO-1's not as much. The next step is probably Surly which has a similar mentality but done without lugs and fanciness. Like someone said way earlier even Grant is a fan of Surly and would recommend them if you don't require lugs and such. The price would go up if you tried to Riv them out with accessories and Nitto and Brooks items. Next up would be Soma but my guess is that by the time you outfitted them with the same exact parts you would be beyond the "poor man's" realm.

AusTexMurf

Handsome Cycles

corwin1968

I just can't get those 650b conversions out of my mind. A 700c sized bike with fat-tired 650b wheels just looks so proportionally right to me. I don't have it on this computer but I have an image someone took of two identical frames, one with either skinny 700c's or 27" wheels and the other with 40'ish mm 650b's and the difference is astounding. It really makes me want to get a 650b bicycle and reading Jan Heinie's constant praise of the 42mm/650b combo doesn't help any.

Sixty Fiver

The frame angles and bottom bracket drop on a 700c equipped Hunq are 72/72 with an 80mm bottom bracket drop and touring length chainstays... this is how ones goes about designing a comfortable and stable bicycle but Rivendell does not build bicycles that are by any means radical in their geometry.

This is a little radical... you would be hard pressed to find a nicer riding bicycle and as far as carrying bricks... it is designed to carry loads of them around the world.

jrickards

Wow, paint it black and call it a hearse!

That is quite the hauler but it almost needs a matching trailer to finish it off.

What would they call the extra rear stay?

1987cp

My experiment with '90ish Schwinn Frontier wheels (40-584, steel rims, nutted hubs) on an '84 Raleigh (USA) Record frame was a lot of fun. The biggest impression was that it was very confident and predictable. I've tried the same wheels on a '75 Grand Prix, but the steering seems somehow too fast - sounds weird probably, but that's how it comes to mind to describe it. Brake reach is interesting, too - I recall measuring about 100m brake reach for one wheel on the Grand Prix 650b experiment, which I managed with some BMX brakes and is more than is claimed for either the R559s or the long-reach Dia Compe U brakes.

corwin1968

I did a lot of research into what is available in framesets in the Surly/Soma/Salsa price range and also what frame geometries were available. The one difference I've seen in the Rivendell bikes, and the Hunqapillar in particular, is that it has a mostly touring bike geometry but Grant adds a higher rake fork to achievem road bike trail measurements. This also lengthens the wheelbase a bit more. I know that Marc had a LHT and he's commented that the Hunqapillar is much more lively (or something to that effect). The LHT is very, very similar to the Hunq in geometry except it only has a 45 mm for rake, resulting in a higher amount of trail. Since Marc made that comment I've wondered how much the Hunqapillar's lower trail measurement had to do with the difference he felt.

My Handsome Devil has a trail measurement that is basically the same as a Hunqapillar, which is what I wanted (lower trail..not necessarily the same as the Hunq) but I sometimes find myself thinking it's too low. I rode into some dirt and hit some loose dirt clods and the front-end almost got away from me. I used to ride my 95 Trek Multitrack (very high trail) in the same type of terrain and that never happened. It's interesting that the Hunq is basically billed as a MTB/tourer with a road bike level of trail.

Sixty Fiver

It will carry two full sized panniers off the back and when the front rack is mounted it will carry two more... it also has 5 water bottle mounts and curbs out at a whopping 32 pounds.

Interesting enough is that the extra rear stay does not add that much extra strength to a frame that is already a little overbuilt but does fill in that gap quite nicely.

The most important thing is that it is such a sweet riding bicycle whether it is unloaded or loaded for touring.

corwin1968

I'm not familiar with the two frames you mentioned but since trail is largely affected by wheel radius and fork rake, I can see where putting smaller wheels on a frame designed for bigger ones could be a hit-or-miss proposition, based on the rake of the forks.

I've only owned bikes with canti studs so I would be forced to either buy a disk compatible frame or simply a disk front fork and just run a front brake. I don't even know if that would work, mechanically speaking, with a 650b wheel. I have more bicycle experiments in mind but 650b is probably the most expensive...and furthest down the road.

corwin1968

I recently listened to a new radio interview with Grant and it seems his (and Rivendell's) new thing is long chainstays. Riv's tend to have longer chainstays already but he was talking in the 50+ centimeter range. He commented that when you get to that length, "good things start to happen". I assume much of this is based on their experience with the Joe Appaloosa bike that Grant designed and sold, sight unseen, to ten customers. Last I heard they planned to make it a production model next year so they are obviously quite impressed with it. The cargo bike you mention reminded me of the Appaloosa, albeit a bit longer in length.

H.S.Clydesdale

yup, 200. I am a proponent of proportional cranks. The larger arc allows me to bend my knee more, utilizing my glutes. With the 175mm cranks, it was only the thigh muscles. Actually, I think sheldon brown said it best in his defense of non-proportional cranks. He said "short or tall, we all use the same stairs". Which is true, but I always take two stairs at once, it feels much more natural than the single stair. That is when I knew I had to try longer cranks, and I have not regretted it. They are my favorite part of the bike.

Sixty Fiver

The amount of trail a bike has / needs is dependent on many things... longer wheelbases usually rate more trail than shorter wheelbases and bicycles that are designed to carry more up front will have lowered trail to make their handling more stable when loaded.

The LHT is designed to carry significant weight up front and does that quite well.

Sixty Fiver

The "cargo bike" is a touring bicycle... we have been building these longtails here for a few decades and it seems a few people have realized the benefits that longer stays bring. The Arvon World Tourist has 65cm rear stays which makes it nearly as long as my Extrabike but it weighs much less.

Johnny Alien

The Handsome Cycles XOXO when built up is as much or more than an actual XO-1 would cost on the used market and is lugged. There is a brand new XO-1 on ebay right now that will probably sell for less than an XOXO. At $650 for the frame it will likely be close to $2000 or more built up. They have other models that are more affordable but with materials, components and prices right on par with Surly.

Sixty Fiver

My 1988 Kuwahara Shasta, which will probably be going to a new home tomorrow... I must be insane to sell off such a nice bicycle save for the fact my Cascade is nearly identical.



That and my oldest nephew said he wanted a bicycle that he could commute on, tour with, and tow the kidlets with, and I could not think there could be a better ride for that.

DIMcyclist

Wow! I guess that's proof that a seriously strong frame can also have very nice aesthetics; it's beautifully proportioned.

Viner Rider

Hello,

Barrettscv,

I recognize that this your post was 2.5 years ago, but in the event you get e-mail notifications I wanted to ask a question.
I have a Trek 520 from the same era, and I am curious what type of ferrule you have used at the rear der. shift cable exit of the chain stay.
It appears that you are using standard SIS non-compressible shift cable house in the run from the exit of the chain stay to the rear der.

Thanks,

tarwheel 

I don't think I ever posted photos of my newest PMR in this thread. It's a Ritchey Breakaway Cross that I bought off eBay for a bargain price. As a homage to Rivendell, I put some Jack Brown tires on it and they are really nice. They measure 35 mm wide on my Open Pro rims and provide a nice cushy ride with not too much of a weight penalty (less than 300 g per tire). Another nice thing about these tires is that I can swap my spare set of wheels with cross tires onto the Ritchey without having to reset my computer. This is my first cross bike and I love it.

irwin7638

This has to be the best Rivendell thread ever! 3 years 6 months and still rolling along.
FYI, I love my Hunq.



Marc