Yes, the Trek 910 is low trail.
I wasn't referring to all the variable things that can be done with a Rivendell vs my Trek. I simply meant (and should have said) that the quality of the frame of my Trek is as good as a Rivendell. I also wasn't disparaging Rivendell. They are great looking and, no doubt, great quality bikes.

Pretty sure. Are we not permitted to say anything negative about Rivendell,or did you not get that I was showing an example of how it's possible to have different opinions about a company's product and it's conduct?

When you say low trail do you mean long or short trail, or do you mean bottom bracket drop?

Just because Rivendell has a long trail doesn't make it a better bike than a Trek 910. In fact for touring purposes less trail is idea for more stability at lower speeds.

Bottom bracket drop simply means how low the center of gravity will a bike have, thus a lower bottom bracket will have better handling and better stability which in my opinion would be more idea for touring as long as you won't be riding over any obstacles but if you're doing that you need more of a mountain bike design because your touring offroad. However as the BB drops you decrease how fast you can turn without hitting the pedals so for a racing bike you want a higher BB, and a track bike has a real high BB compared to other bikes so the pedals don't hit the floor of a high banked velodrome. BB drop is often excluded from most frame dimensions, but it's easy to measure simply draw a line horizontally level to you get above the BB than measure from that line to the center of the BB.

Chainstay length is another good indication as to how comfortable a bike will be on a long tour, thus most touring bikes have longer stays which is why the wheelbase on a touring bike is about 6 inches longer than a racing bike. Trail is also easy to measure, simply measure from the center of the rear dropout to the center of the front dropout; whereas chainstay length is measured from the center of the R dropout to the center of the BB.

Lastly is the stem height, on touring bikes the idea is to get the stem height as such a height that the handle bars are even with the seat (though depending on personal preferences some owners may put theirs lower or higher than stock.

Stem length isn't real important for touring but suffice to say that the average person regardless if on a touring bike or a road bike usually while their hands are on the drops that the hands will obscure the front hub, any changes to that is strictly personal.

The better touring bikes will have a long trail, which is due to the longer chainstays (which affects long term comfort that touring demands), low bb, with the bars about even with the seat.

So with all of that in mind the Trek 910 would be better than the Rivendell for touring purposes, but this is all subjective, Grant seems to think that high trail is better but I think he's thinking for the person who may go mildly off road and may want a tad more ground clearance for the pedals but from a standpoint of comfort while doing loaded touring the vintage touring bikes hit the head on the nail with perfection which is why bikes like the Trek 920 and the Schwinn Voyager are considered the holy grail of touring bikes.

What bike and what was wrong with it?


I've built up 4 Rivs and still own two and haven't seen any problems on the quality side, so I'm generally curious. What is FUG marketing?

I think you are using the term "trail" in place of "wheelbase", in your explanation.

Trail is a front-end measurement that is a product of head tube angle and fork rake. Grant's Rivendells are generally mid-trail bikes.

Other than that, your comments follow traditional wisdom and are exactly the characteristics that Grant prefers in a bike: low bottom bracket, high handlebars, long chainstays and long wheelbase. His newest bike, the Clem Smith Jr., has chainstays that are over 50cm long!

I know very little about the Trek 910 but if it's built with those characteristics back when Trek was a small, specialized frame maker, I have no reason to think a Rivendell would be any better.

ETA: I went to VintageTrek.com and checked out the geometry of the 1979 Trek 910. Grant's bikes generally have lower BB's, longer chainstays and longer wheelbases than the 910. In addition, the 910 has 73/73 angles while Grant's touring bikes have 72/72, which is more relaxed and considered more comfortable.

The 910 has much lower trail than a comparable Riv (Trek=49mm vs Riv=66mm) and that comes down to personal preference. I think the 910 falls more into the old "Sport Tourer" category, which is all but extinct but highly regarded, based on what I've read.

You said "But I will bash the company. From what I saw of the quality control of one that came into my clinic,coupled with their FUG marketing,I'll totally hammer them. BTW, I love my Dyna Super Glide Sport, but can't stand Willie G and what he's done with the company. "

You can say whatever you like about Rivendell but you should back it up with examples. And no, this isn't a Harley Davidson list nor do I own one so I didn't understand your Dyna Super Glide Sport / Willie G comment.

Thanks Corwin. You saved me some work.

I have been dropping into shops that cater to roadies recently and I gotta say the Rivendells are looking pretty modestly priced in comparison to some of that stuff!

Rivendell, in order to generate more revenue, has found some bikes that are still in the retro lug style that Grant likes and thinks some of the public likes as well but at low enough price points that the average buyer can afford. Back in 06 and 07 when I was looking for a new lugged steel touring bike I had seriously considered the Atlantis but later got a Mercian because for the same money as the Atlantis I had a bunch of options done on the frame that Rivendell wouldn't do. If you look at the price of the Atlantis it's still very high compared to what a few other custom builders can do, and the Atlantis isn't even custom! However their other lines of bikes under the Atlantis like you said represent a decent value for what you can find especially the Sam Hillborne which for $1,300 plus if you buy their $1300 starting groupset that is recommended for the Atlantis you have a nicely painted and artistic lugged steel bike with decent and reliable components for $2600 for a bike that will last a lifetime and get oohs and aahs from the bike crowd.

I've been quietly watching this thread for a couple years now; decided it is finally time to contribute. I have two.

Awhile ago I found a 1984 Trek 890 found in fair condition on CL for $100. I learned that if the Poor Man's bike needs upgrades (and most of them do), the price will very quickly escalate. Beyond the basic criteria laid out in the OP, Rivendells tend to be fairly nicely appointed. In pursing that standard I entirely rebuilt the bike. It now has Phil Wood hubs on tandem rims, along with a lot of other nice used parts. It is tough, it carries weight with ease and it is ugly so nobody wants to steal it. It is super useful. Total investment: about $850 and well-worth it. It is a nice bike. How Rivendell-ish is it? I don't know, but I have to think that Grant would approve.


I like the Trek a lot, but I've noticed a few posts (like # 563) suggesting that the Sam Hillborne is the real Poor Man's Rivendell. I concur. I found a frameset on e-Bay (not much discount BTW) and built it up. I think it turned out well. Granted, this cost a bit- but it was cheap compared to a "real" Riv.

http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/Trek79.pdf

Here is the info for my Trek 910.
This bike is pretty much considered a "sport tourer". It does have braze ons for 3 water bottles. I have 32mm Continental Contacts on it and occasionally (like last night) take it on a gravel trail on part of my typical 25 - 30 mile ride (gravel trail is only a mile or so of the ride).
Mostly Shimano 600 Arabesque with a Campy seatpost and dropouts. Bar tape, hoods, pedals, and saddle are not original; though I do have the original saddle and pedals.
If I can ever figure out how to get the photos from Photobucket to here, I'll post them.

Love the Trek 890. Don't seem to see many.

It's been awhile,but I'm pretty sure it was a Homer Hilsen. First,the brakes weren't set up properly;it had road calipers,but the levers were set for long pull. Not a huge issue,but on a bike this expensive,you'd think they'd at least make sure it was set up properly. The second issue was the derailleur hanger was too long. The bike wouldn't shift properly into the lowest cogs. I cranked the B screw to the max,and it still wouldn't do the granny gear properly. She wound up installing a long screw,and that fixed the issue. This was a standard build,so it wasn't like she was trying to use some exotic part,this was a Deore der that was used on lots of their bikes. So it was def an issue with how the frame was built.

Typo,should've been FUD:
Fear, uncertainty and doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They used to have a fork called "Carbonomas". The marketing was pure FUD. They don't actually state that carbon's not safe,but they certainly imply it. That's just wrong. You see Ford/GM/Dodge talking about how their truck gets better mileage/more power/more towing than the others,but they never say that the other companies' products are unsafe.

See above.

I like the fork sword fight posted here: Carbonomas Steel Fork - 1-1/8" - Threadless - Curved It definitely shows that steel is superior to carbon.

Ya,ok. If you like to go around smashing your bike into things,then maybe you should stick to steel. BTW,I've known two people who's steel forks have broken from regular street riding. Never met anyone who broke a CF fork.

Never? Geez, do you ride bikes? Do you go into LBS's? I've seen a lot more broken CF forks then I ever did with steel in 50 years of being around bikes and steel was around a lot longer than CF in that time span.

Attachment 543705Attachment 543705Well, it took me a while, but I finally got mine built:

http://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...l#post17983601

Attachment 543706

Total cost, including custom frame modifications; custom powder; restoration decals & clear coat; & the complete build: just under $1,100; or, if you like, about $200 less than the base cost of a stock Sam frameset.

If I'd wanted to add a second (or third) set of bottle-bosses & full touring braze-ons to the fork, it would've cost only $200 more, which would have raised the total price to equal that of a Sam Hillborne; keep in mind however, that that's for the complete bike, not just the frame alone.

If I'd wanted to build this bike on the cheap, as a strictly functional ride with none of the custom work or repairs, I could've built it for about $550; that is, the cost of the components + $25 for the bike itself.

Edit (11/20/2016): It's amazing what you can find, poking around on Japanese websites; I just found a small archive of photos of the original, non-export version of my aforementioned Panasonic. In Japan, it was apparently called the 'Viatore CT' and it was indeed a 650B Rinko frame, and a pretty nice one. The one shown below is actually a few years newer than mine.

Attachment 543707

This is my just completed Riv-ish build. The frame is a Biemzetta contracted Palo Alto.


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...pslhwi0e8m.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psv7yolty6.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...pszunsuniq.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psnxsw8ois.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psnq2r50bt.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psss2jpaqw.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psmkfdopkp.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psnoxwhxre.jpg


http://i936.photobucket.com/albums/a...psrxyi1mrp.jpg

There are some pretty bikes in this thread so I won't post my cheap Riv imitation. ;)

I like the way this thread keeps coming back. It shows that form matters to people along with function. Otherwise you could just say that Surly bikes and their peers are the poor man's Riv and leave it at that.

There are lots of 80's and earlier bikes that are pretty close in terms of both function and beauty to the modern Riv that didn't cost as much that and can be had for a lot cheaper now if you're willing to do some work and invest in some nice parts.

I like that Grant believes in paying workers a decent wage. I recognize that there's a niche that went underserved when people abandoned road bikes for MTBs and hybrids back in the late 80's and 90's, but I don't share his distaste for newer materials and technologies.

I built up a '92 Viner CX frame for my poor-man's Sam
all total, about half-price of a new Sam
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...947fe814df.jpg

my utility bike is my '77 Raleigh (bought new and on it's 3rd rebuild)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7.../aP5280019.jpg

They're both awfully nice, [MENTION=442798]bulldog1935[/MENTION].

thanks

Ssweeeet. :thumb:

[MENTION=129154]KonAaron Snake[/MENTION], do you still have (and ride) that Biemzetta/Palo Alto? I haven't see pictures or any mentions of it since you posted it over a year ago.

I'm not that wild about the bars...and I prefer the drop bar MTB for around town stuff. So...while I still have it, it isn't used very often. I changed from those overrated suntour bits to much more effective deerhead stuff that works a lot better, but the position has just never been great with the bars, and I have so many other darn bikes that I've never really played with changing the bars.

It's pretty...but I have too many bikes and too much replication. I really only regularly use 4, and one is the tandem.