chipcom 

I've seen you mention this a couple of times. It looks like they have other similar saddles with widths more like the Team Pro and Swift, some even with ti rails.

late

Not a prob. Read the first couple years of the Rivendell Reader sometime.
I thought for sure he was going to go under.

bmike

yeah... this size was recommended to me by the owner / designer person.
i'm giving it a ride for its money. i'm switching back and forth between my well used brooks and this and working out what i like and don't.

thenewblk

Just three things:

1. poo poo face
2. does it come in flesh tone pink
3. page five...kickflip backside bluntslide

charles vail

I'm not quite sure what is so much horsecr@$ in the Rivendell Reader. The last couple of years I have been reading it has been very informative and interesting. A little poetry, interviews with industry leaders, like the president of Shimano and former pro racers like Andy Hampsten among others, articles about their bikes and how to use them for overnight camping with baggage, reviews of unconventional bikes like the new Rans crank forward bikes, a great interview with the president of Waterford bicycles, articles on durable wheel design, saddles, photos and stories of customers refurbed old classic bikes, just to name some.

What you won't find in the reader is; ten different ways to go faster in six weeks, fashionista "style man" B.S., pilates for improving your riding, articles on the latest carbon fiber parts that won't last, advertising dollar driven bike reviews, the latest alien lycra bike clothing or 101 things you just have to buy in order to be able to ride a bicycle.

As far as being credible........he did work for a very large bike company who thought enough of him to pay him for quite a few years and in the process he was responsible for designing some great bikes. Many people like Rivendell bikes as evidenced by the fact that his company manages to employ a dozen people year round,so he must be doing something right.

comradehoser

At the risk of flogging a dead cow,

Chip and bmike,

out of curiosity I emailed the dude at selle anatomica. I can tell you he was a bit grumpy about my feedback regarding his website.

Anyways, he also recommended the Titanico LD clydesdale waterproof for me, because that's the only thing they have! When I asked him about the narrower sizes, he confessed that they haven't actually started making them yet.

I also found out that College Park Bikes has a bunch in stock and I talked them into letting me test ride one next week. The craftsmanship looks really good, actually, although the cut-out is a bit more drastic in person than it looks on the website.

the under-laminate surrounds the cut-out, and is, indeed, arranged cross-grain to the top leather, I imagine for stability.

jp_nyc

He was that way when I talked with him on the phone a while back. Not a particularly pleasant experience, but maybe I caught him on an off day.

What he told me about the narrower saddles was that they made a few, but realized the Titanico was the only one that worked for EVERYONE, so they were selling what was left of the old narrower ones and would not be making any widths other than the wide Titanico version.

Seems like there might be some contradictory statements here.

He also recommended the Titanico LD for me (big surprise!). Anyway, two of my bikes are outfitted with them. I will hold off on a review until I've had a chance to really test them. So far, after two weeks, I am still having a hard time dialing them in.

JaphyRider

+1!!!! all you "hip hop fashionistas" with your carbon fiber bikes, your flourescent green lycra, and your pilates should STFU!!! We know whats up!!!

comradehoser

hey all,

this is a follow-up based on my two-day test ride of the titanico clydesdale LD waterproof model, on my regular 14 mile commute, both with and without chammy shorts, oh, and I'm 5'11" and weigh 185 lbs.

Sorry to those who don't care, but I felt like sharing. And a big thank-you to College Park bikes for letting me try out the saddle they had. I won't add too much, because those who have actually ridden it basically covered a lot of what I have to say.

Personally, I found that the claims on the website were pretty much true. Like I posted in the thread above, the craftsmanship of the saddle looks first-rate. It's a very long and flat saddle with lots of room to move around. It's made similarly to a brooks, but with a cutout and a secondary strip of leather laminated underneath, cross-grain to the top hide.

The leather is made to give--it seems thinner than a Brooks, and functions literally like a dual suspension hammock for your a$$. It's is very flexible and rideable out of the box--you can easily press the saddle down a half inch with your thumb on the stock tension setting. Like bmike, I had to tension it up quite a bit (3 full turns of the tension screw).

Even though I think I have a big butt, like bmike, I also found the saddle, not so much too wide as too triangular at the base. While the top follows the profile of a Brooks, the "rails" or "skirts" of the seat after the wide seat portion of the saddle are short and flare quite a bit more than a Brooks. In a Brooks, the saddle swoops quickly into the line of the nose section.

This caused some unpleasant resistance at the lower butt/top thigh area for me which reminded me of the crappy wide WTB seat on my old mountain bike. It's a bit ironic that they claimed that the titanico would meet most everyone's needs when clearly it does not (even more so since they go on about the evils of wide saddles in their website's promotional writings).

The width caused me to sit further forward on the saddle and so probably canceled out any perineal advantages. I don't have any special sensitivities "down there" so I can't tell you to what extent it alleviates saddle pressure problems, other than it was more comfy than my 1971 Brooks B-17N.

I also found the saddle to be a bit more sticky than my brooks--this might be the waterproof coating or it might just be a break-in issue. No pinching issues at all (and remember, I rode it sans chammy). The saddle is also pretty light.

My ultimate take is that the idea behind the saddle is a good one, and I would probably even have bought one on the spot had it come in a width that I'd feel comfortable on. I'd also like to see what a different cut-out would do for the ride. I suspect that the saddle would do very well for people with wider sit bones and pelvic gap than me, so it might suit a lot of women quite well. Before plunking down 160 bones, though, I would strongly urge you to try one out in person, or make sure selle anatomica has a good returns policy.

it also does look a bit...anatomic.

woodcycl

I just bought one of these site-unseen. I also received the same/similar response from the owner as you all did. My Titanico LD should be here any day. I normally ride a 143 or smaller width saddle ... so this too may be too wide as a few others have said. They offer a 30-day money back guarantee minus shipping. So, I'm going to give it an honest go ... and stay in touch with the owner to try and dial it in as much as possible. If not, I'll return and it and get my money back. I'll write more here soon.

visitordesign

welcome to the internet.

visitordesign

gouging people with disposable income but without the imagination to get something unique built for them.

charles vail

Thats an interesting comment since Rivendell employs two of the best custom frame builders in the business to build their custom frames for their customers. As far as the semi production models, they are in fact more ornate than many other custom frame builders products. Their investment in lug designs and multiple bike styles is fairly large considering the size of the company. If you knew the costs involved you would probably realize that their margins are not that high. $1600 for a Waterford or Toyo built production frame is not out of line IMHO. Can one be had for less? Yes....maybe $200-$300 for a simular product if you look hard enough. If you want a welded frame, you can buy a Surly and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, for a utilitarian frame, that you can ride hard and put away wet! But its not lugged, nor does it have the same attention to detail.

Somebody sounds like they might be harboring some resentment!

visitordesign

uh... no.

i have gorgeous custom frames that don't come from a company that charges extra for retro-grouch mystique.

charles vail

Then perhaps an elitist, with a touch of pessimist and general grouchiness!

Seriously, Grant is merely marketing his bikes, products and bike philosophy in order to maintain a very small piece of the market. Probably in order to take care of his family and provide some folks with a job. Plus, maybe even retire with a choice not to have to eat cat food at the end of the month.

LóFarkas

Here's one for you charles vail: https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/185763-riding-clipless.html
I may have to partially retract the bit about rack eyelets, but that's a side issue.

late

Few people have documented their life as well as Grant. If you want to know why you are wrong, read the
first two years of the Rivendell Reader.

charles vail

I read all that .......had my fastest time on my bike without any attachment and riding my Teva sandals. I couldn't make the power grips work with my sandals so I rode sans attachment. My feet didn't hurt, finally no hot spots, no feeling the cleat through the shoe, no more being locked into one spot on the pedals, no more numb toes. Love my sandals for riding a bicycle and my double sided MKS pedals. I rode this way for my entire youth up until I was 22 or so and never found any real performance advantage to being clipped in. Most of the gains are the result of getting serious with your riding and not the tricky pedals. I still have my Spanish made real leather cycling shoes with straight slotted cleats and they always made my toes numb. Probably not wide enough, those stinkin narrow toed Spaniards ( just jokin)

As to the rest of Grants bike philosophy......he rides every day (he says) about 60 miles a week to work. Apparently he does weekend overniters camping and using his bike to get where he camps. Most of the employees ride bikes regularly. He is a middle aged bike nut that has a business designing and selling complete bicycles, accessories and a newsletter. I think the point he is making about clip in shoes is that he believes that there is not much performance advantage for non racing cyclists. You've got to admit it is far less of a hassle to ride a bike without strapping on special shoes with special pedals to go to the local sandwich shop. I think he is rebelling against all the emphasis on "efficiency" in cycling. He has stated that bicycles are efficient enough already and there is one point to consider and that is that millions and probably billions of cyclists worldwide don't wear any special shoes in order to ride their bicycles and they do just fine.

I think that Grants statements threaten some people who don't wish to appear foolish having bought into the hype that riding with clipin shoes and pedals makes a huge difference in their performance. The fact is , we get used to whatever we use and our leg muscles get lazy being attached, when we pedal. We didn't do this as children and our feet somehow managed to stay on the pedals. Riding un-attached is a great way to ride and I plan to explore it and make more comparisons with my times on previous routes to see if in fact I am slower or less comfortable. I suspect I might be a few seconds slower but a whole lot more comfortable and I'll be a happier cyclist.

Not a TDF competitor but most here aren't either!

charles vail

Enlighten me....I do not have the first two years of the reader. I can't see what other reason he is doing what he does, other than to provide a decent living for his family and run a successfull business. The fact that he enjoys "old school" bikes and riding without the emphasis on racing and efficiency and all the new fangeled stuff on the market is pure genious. Since this is what many of us over 40's grew up riding and those old lugged bikes were/are great. I think he has found a niche market that appeals to people like me and I don't even own a Rivendell bicycle. I ride an old Raleigh and a Centurion plus a Modern LWB Recumbent.

woodcycl

How did this thread get off topic??

Here's my post on the Road Cycling subforum
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=1#post4377247

late

"Then perhaps an elitist"

If he was, he wouldn't be selling frames under $1K.

"with a touch of pessimist and general grouchiness!"

Age will do that to ya.

"Seriously, Grant is merely marketing his bikes, products and bike philosophy in order to maintain a very small piece of the market."

Umm, no. Grant is a true believer. That's why he started the company, perservered when a pragmatist would have thrown in the towel; and why people buy into it.

"Probably in order to take care of his family and provide some folks with a job. Plus, maybe even retire with a choice not to have to eat cat food at the end of the month."

We all want that.

charles vail

The ellitist, pessimist and grouch comment were in response to a previous poster who complained that Grant sells to people with money and no imagination......... I had mentioned that the poster might be harboring some resentment, to which he replied, uh, no! and stated that he had gorgeous custom frames that come from a company that doesn't charge extra for retro grouch mystique! To which, I made the statement that the poster might be an elitist,pessimist and generally grouchy!

I always figured Grant to be a "true believer" since nobody bucks the system that much and for that long, if they don't truly hold some serious convictions born out of experience.

vobopl

According to Grant, I need a 24T front and 28T rear as I live in a hilly country, I am over 30 (way over) and I weigh more than 150 pounds.

He is offending the intelligence of readers by putting these things one next to the other (from the description of the Quickbeam):

...Even if you have a flip-flop hub and another cog on the other side, unless it's really close--like, maybe 4 teeth difference, maximum, the gear change isn't going to make that much difference.

... Two chainrings. A 40t and a 32t. The 8t difference gives you a wide range of gearing for a pedaling wide range of topography.

I could go on but why bother.

LóFarkas

Sorry for bringing up the Petersen thing and helping totally derail this... Although it's perhaps more interesting than the original topic.

Edit: haha, the quickbeam cog wizardry is so ****ed up I don't even know what he may have possibly meant to say but what he said in the end is certainly BS.
He should have written "really far, 4 teeth min..." But then why is changing at the chainring better? E.g. 8 teeth there is less change than 4 in the back (supposing normal ratios) and obviously you'll need a hell of a dropout to work with an 8-tooth change.

late

Ahhh, crap, sorry about that.