Kabloink

You will find the same attitude Rivendell haters also. Every group has those that believe theirs is the right way and everyone else is wrong.

I never really understood the hate for these two companies. They simply have a niche market that the major bicycling companies ignore. Bikedirect targets the frugal cyclists while Rivendell targets those wanting a road bike with a more traditional touring/sport geometry.

Psimet2001 

Incorrect.

The rub comes when you consider that BD doesn't try to tell people they are wrong for not buying into the ethos of what they are selling.

KrisPistofferson

Sorry to chime in here, but it simply floors me how many clueless posters on Bikeforums can't differentiate between People's Republic of China, Japan, and Republic of China (Taiwan.) They have different countries with different economies and different product quality over there in Asia, guys. FYI.

KrisPistofferson

Riv Haters tend to portray a ridiculous strawman of ad copy from Peterson, possibly gleaned from other Riv Haters on Bikeforums, and many times just made up on the spot, but they never cite sources.

Bikesdirect doesn't yet have a magazine that tells you how to wrap twine and attach feathers to a bike, but I can feel it coming...

AEO

I don't know, a lot of the stuff up on the rivendell site about frame material, component choice and how to setup your bike is cult material.

Image I get from the riv website when I read it....
"We like it this way, you should too. If you don't, you won't achieve cycling zen."
"Can't achieve your cycling zen? That's because your bike is too small for you and you're not using lugged steel."
"Cycling race engineering peaked 30 years ago when Grant was designing bicycles for bridgestone. There's no need to use space age materials like aluminum and carbon."

While I do agree with some points being made, saying the other stuff isn't as reliable, durable or repairable is a lie.

BillyD

Me either. I just don't get the animosity. Reminds me of my ex-wife . . . . complaining about nothing.

huerro

I really hope this is snark. You do realize you're making KrisP's point for him, right? Instead of providing a link to the website and letting it speak for itself, you're telling us the "image you get from it."

Just because you're getting that image doesn't mean that they're putting it out there.

huerro

but...but...evil Grant Peterson makes poor Chinese guys tig his lugged bicycles without safety goggles. Why do you hate freedom?

AEO

steel is real, carbon, especially from China, is blasphemy by rivendell
Your bike size is too small, it's not "correct" by rivendell
your bike has too many gears and lugs are the only way to join steel, by rivendell
who needs brifters? In cycling zen, you don't need no stinkin brifters, by rivendell

Here you are then.

kukusz

This is great. I didn't realize my aluminum bike is one broken rear spoke from being unrideable.

I read those links without really knowing much about Rivendell. Don't like those guys either now. Marketing drivel at best, stupid at worse. I've been trolled.

patentcad

>>To achieve that bar height, it helps to start with a bike that's the largest practical size you can ride. We suggest you get the size that allows you to put the handlebar at least 2cm higher than the saddle. That works great for most people.<<

That's Rivendell's sizing approach. That would work great for overweight people who never want to ride over 15mph or in groups where they might need to do so. Good grief what a pompous self righteous idiot. Now Pcad may match that last description, but at least I have a clue about what works for riding road bikes. For those of you who actually do want to ride 20+ mph from time to time.

As for his diatribe about other materials breaking, whatEVER. I'd agree that I've never seen steel fail. But the failures of Ti, Alu and CF are so rare - and almost never catastrophic (if the bike isn't crashed, then it sort of doesn't matter) that is it worth giving up the significant benefits of those materials? Um.... not even close. I've never ridden a steel bike (and I've ridden a bunch) that approached Ti for lively resiliancy. If you want that feel, go Titanium. I have two Ti bikes, I love them.

Retro never appealed to me. It really turns me off for cycling. Big time.

huerro

From your links, in order:

1. "We like steel bikes best, and lugged ones most. But the material and method mean nothing unless the bike is not only well-designed, but well-designed for you, and right for your kind of riding."

Do you disagree?

2. You get this one.

3. "You may personally prefer welded frames, or fillet-brazed frames, and that's fine. We prefer them lugged, and so that's all we make"

"But it's foolish to moan about "more [gears] than we need," and we know that from years of experience. So now our attitude toward the number of cogs on the rear hub is: Seven is heaven, eight is great, nine is fine, ten is kind of getting ridiculous, but it won't kill you"

Again, do you disagree with the notion that non-racers don't need ten speeds, but it's foolish to moan about it?

4. "Absolutely, you should shift as often as you like and whenever it feels right, but there is satisfaction in grunting just a little to crest a hill, and there's refreshment to be found in pedaling both slower and faster than the textbook optimal range of 95 to 100 rpms...Today's interest in single-speed riding is a backlash against more gears and ever-increasing pressure to shift at the slightest provocation. These riders find it liberating to not even have the option to shift."

I can see where you're coming from on this one, but think you exaggerate the "cycling zen" aspect, again this is that question of the image you get and the image they're putting out there.

Across all of these, with the exception of the fit issue, I don't ever see them saying that their way is the only way or even the right way, only that it's another way that they prefer because of x,y, and z and you might like it too, especially if your 50, fat, and don't race. Rivendell is basically telling old fat dudes to be Freds in order to sucker them out of their money whereas Bicycling Magazine and their ilk are telling old fat dudes to be poseurs to sucker them out of their money. I really don't understand what is cultish about that, or at least any more cultish than any other lifestyle marketing.

But good on you for actually backing up what you wrote!

huerro

The thing is, that's exactly who they're marketing to and they say so. That's not self righteous or pompous, it's finding a niche market and selling them overpriced bikes that they don't need.

Why should you be the only one who gets sold overpriced bikes you don't need?

Psimet2001 

See....



....cult.

patentcad

Everyone should get overpriced bikes they don't need. I fully support that. They should however get overpriced bikes they don't need that fit and perform well. Rivendell bikes will look gorgeous in your garage. When you ride them they'll be heavier and if you follow their fit advice they won't fit very well. So maybe you'll get dropped on your local touring club 'C' ride because you can't keep up.

That's not retro. That's stupid. Well, OK that's retro stupid. But by all means, buy a Rivendell if that floats your boat. Of course if you post about it here, I'll no choice but to bust your balls. Frankly I'll bust your balls whatever you buy, so what's the difference?

chipcom 

Hi friend, have you been saved?

heckler

" You don't need a top gear more than 100 inches. You'll appreciate a low gear of 23-inches or less. Your big ring should be less than 50t, you middle ring should be 36t or 34t, and your small ring should be 24t or 26t. The biggest cog on your cassette should be at least 27t, and preferably 32t."

"If you weigh more than 150 lbs and/or are not racing (meaning, even if you weigh 122 lbs and don't race), the smallest tire you should ride is 27mm wide.You may be able to ride comfortably and safely and problem-free on skinnier tires, but there's no benefit to the skinniness, and the drawback is more strain on your wheels, your frame, and your body; and less traction, and you're more likely to get a pinch flat. "

HAHA i never heard about them before, but these guys are crazy.

patentcad

They are the Ultimate Fred Idiots of the Universe. They give Freds a bad name.

Kabloink

You do realize, you are proving my point about every group having someone that believes their way or views are correct and everyone else's is wrong.

patentcad

But everyone else IS wrong.

trelhak

I read those articles, I gave them the respect that their tone warranted. I even went so far as to build a Surly Long Haul Trucker in the Rivendell mold.

It was two sizes bigger than all my other bikes, I gave it 650B wheels with fat tires and bar-end shifters. I put the bars nice and high and kept the gearing nice and low. I shellacked cork and twine-whipped some Nitto Noodle bars.

I hated it. I sold it. (Thankfully, I sold it for what I built it up for.) It was absurdly slow and weighed a ton. I didn't feel like I was riding a bike built beyond the hype-and-hustle of 'modern' bike technology. I felt like I was dragging forty pounds of steel around on underinflated tires.

I'm the guy who looked for religion, visited the churches, read the literature, spoke with the preachers, attended the services...and still couldn't buy into that billshut.

When I went back and read the Rivendell tracts, a tone that I didn't notice before stood out. "You can do what you want. I'm not going to stop you, because we're all free to do what we want. But, remember, there's the Rivendell way, and the wrong way."

Grant Peterson is cycling's L. Ron Hubbard...minus the schizophrenia, and substituting 'lugged steel' for 'spirit auditing."

schnee

Oh, lordy.

Longfemur

You know, it takes like 10 seconds to lower the stem on a Rivendell down to a more classic road bike riding position.

The Rivendell or Rivendell-like road bike that can appeal to someone who would initially like handlebars higher can just as easily appeal to the most experienced road bike enthusiast.

Same thing with fenders. You have room to put some on if you need them, but you don't have to.

Anyone my age who had been a cycling fan for a long time knows that this is how all "road bikes" used to be. It's nothing new, but it may not appeal to the current technologically-frenzied younger generations, I know.

AEO

A "Cult" is basically a religion that says "We're correct, you're wrong if you think otherwise". Marketing and propaganda are pretty close to this ideology.

1. The whole paragraph from that cut out has a hint of "we'll customize it for you, but with lugs only, because lugs are the ideal way of frame construction."

3, 4. Why should I get any less just because my religion says so? The thing is though, they don't give you an option to do what you want to do with your gears. "We like it this way, we're only going to sell you what we like because to do otherwise is crazy and not worth our time and effort to stock it."
Taking a peek through what they sell...
They have no brifters, only bar-ends and DT. - What's wrong with brifters?
Headsets for threaded forks and also mostly quill stems. - threaded and quill is obviously preferred to riv.
If you want brifters or even 10sp for your riv bike, then you'll have to buy the frame and then have yourself or a LBS build it up. Full bike with brifters or 10sp from riv? nah.

If for instance you go to Surly, they only offer bikes with bar ends and no brifters, but they won't lecture you about how they don't like to use certain parts. They'll only give you lectures about why they did what they did with their frames and recommendations for setups to keep you from killing yourself or endlessly breaking parts.
Surly is also part of the "steel is real" club, but they offer frames which make sense for it to be built of steel and they're not saying "you're not a racer, you don't need space age materials".

Psimet2001 

Exactly, but to the cult members this is the same moment they found their inner Jesus-errr....grant.