I bought a one of those 100 dollar hatchets. LOL, I live in Manhattan, nothing to chop here, ****, I'm a sucka...oh well, lol

From another blog, but I think the reply is bang on!

BTW: I own a Riv Atlantis, have taken it out for a good 8-10 hrs
(26 rims/ 1.25 tires) and am amazed at how snappy/responsive
that baby is thus far...and on all sorts of road/trail conditions, too.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Allan Desmond <reserva120(AT)hotmail.com>

"Well I think you make prefect sense and your right it's very hard for
Rivendell as they are a very narrow minded bicycle company( aye that's not
a judgment they just are) so it's makes it a great deal harder for them to
sell as they are not responding to a market place but trying create(or
some might truthfully say Re-crate one)...which of course is what the
Reader was all about..."


Allan,
I don't consider "narrow-minded" as a judgment, but I respectfully and
wholeheartedly disagree with it as a way to describe Rivendell. I recently
had this conversation with a friend, and this is what I wrote. (It's
really long.):

Rivendell is an innovative company that offers real benefits to the
customers it serves, the non-competitive cycling enthusiast (which
includes tourists of many varieties.) The list of advancements in the
technology of cycling that Rivendell supports could go on and on for quite
a while. The following are just a few examples:

Here's a new idea that Rivendell embraces that didn't exist in the past.
132.5 mm rear spacing. It lets you use your steel frame with either a 130
mm rear hub or a 135. I exploited this when I wanted a light bike for
touring. I took the Rambouillet, but still need a stout wheel, so I was
able to put in my 36-spoke 135 mm beefy wheel for the ride. (The
Rambouillet usually has a 130 mm lighter wheel.) This was so well thought
out, and I really appreciated it.

Very small racks that don't weigh a lot, but are useful. Clever, modular
attachment methods.

The long reach dual pivot brake: the long reaches existed in the past.
Great for clearance, but old brakes were not as good for stopping compared
to newer dual pivots. But in the 90's dual pivots meant short reach and
bad clearance. Thanks to companies like Rivendell who clamored for better,
we now (since the early 2000's) have graduated to Shimano long reach
brakes in dual pivot fashion. This is advancement, progress, high tech.

Tires: Rivendell's commitment to good tires with a lot of variety has
served the touring world and road-riding world really well. Nothing
narrow-minded here.

Support of good quality 110 mm cranks for road bikes - Rivendell was for
this, including doubles, long before Tyler Hamilton. This crank size
serves the MOST different types of riding. Nothing narrow here.

Shifting: yes, they are "guilty" of promoting friction. But it is only one
option. Did you know that you can get a Rivendell bike with STI? It seems
to me that that makes Rivendell the company with the MOST shifting
options: STI, Ergo, bar-end friction, bar-end index, downtube friction,
downtube index. 8-speed, 9-speed. Thumb shifters on road bikes!

I really could keep going. The point is that Rivendell supports the
advancement of bicycle technology in more ways than anyone I can think of.
I think they deserve a reputation as an innovation leader, and the old
retro joke should make people wonder why it would ever be applied to
Rivendell. In continuing to innovate, they constantly have an open mind.

Whenever I go to a bike shop or look at catalogs, I think it's the
majority of the mainstream that is narrow-minded. For example, have you
ever tried to change the stock gearing on an inadequately-geared road
triple? I tried to give my sister the gearing she wanted as opposed to
50-40-30 and 12-25 in the rear. It wasn't so easy, incompatibility
problems where there should not have been. I came away thinking that the
people who spec mainstream bikes are narrow-minded and unimaginative.

Thanks for sticking with it this far,
Jim

+1
Canali!

Very well written Canali, thanks!

Thanks, Canali!

Honestly, I see no harm in what Rivendell's doing. They make somewhat quirky bikes that some people really like to ride, and that's a good thing!

I may not be sold on the superiority of threaded stems, but on some of the frames they've started supporting threadless. As far as versatility goes, it's easy to get a converter to go from threaded to threadless.

As a side note, I'm spec'ing out a Bleriot build for myself. After years of dealing with frame geometry compromises to fit 700C tires, I'm ready for something that doesn't crack at the head tube due to a ridiculous angle or have a wheel hitting my toes. Smaller frames with 700C also don't seem to fit a lot of other standard components like racks (the sort that attach to the brakes) and fenders. The LHT uses 26", but my riding style doesn't require something THAT sturdy. I looked at 650C bikes, but those are even more restricted by being exclusively racing bikes. Taller riders might not see a reason for a nonstandard wheel size like 650B, but smaller riders like me tend to be pretty happy that someone helped popularize a viable alternative to 700C.

Also, I'm going to LOVE putting my set of mismatched Ultegra brifters on it. It feels so naughty that it's oh so nice.

Me too.

To call Rivendell narrow minded is pretty misguided. They have a small customer base because they DON'T subscribe to the narrow minded, racing influenced style of the majority of bike companies and their customers. Rivendell bikes are far more versatile than most bikes on sale today so I think they attract tinkerers who like to swap cranks, change tyres and put different handlebars on every so often. My Ram has a mix of MTB and road components and a crank that makes most people do a double take.

Also most riders seem very reluctant to deviate from the standard Shimano/Campy groupset that is offered with built up bikes. Every so often they might want to go to a compact crank becuase they've heard its better, but I'm amazed how often they don't know how it differs from their original crank, but I'm getting off the point, Rivendell's are practical, versatile bikes that are better for day to day riding than most bikes being sold today.

I LOVE my Rivendell. It was made perfectly for ME - and it's absolutely beautiful.

I like Riv also, but I don't see anything all that innovative on that list. They do innovative stuff like pushing 7 speed FW based wheels, and Phil product at the center of that. To me they aren't so much innovative as just taste mavens, not always reliable, but very much worth considering their opinion as part of one's mix. I rechecked your list, all that stuff is out there in spades, from the likes of Mariposa, Sakkit, amd many others.

I think Mariposa, Sakkit etc (including Riv) are pretty far out on the "bicycle company bell curve" in that they
are not catering to a mass market and are probably developing stuff far more in response to the comments of customers that the big bike firms who push stuff onto cyclists because its what the marketing department wants.

PS an exception might be Rivs plaid bags, I carn't imagine anyone asking for something like them

I've been a Riv fan for about four years now and I see the company as innovative in certain areas such as the Quickbeam derailleurless two speed and their emphasis on returning to the almost forgotten 650 B wheel size. I'd say they are more of a resurrectionist company, for lack of a better word. They take time proven materials and methods and make beautifull machines, then pair them with a philosophy of riding that works for many people, who are not racers but want to use their bikes to get around. I like the baggage, since its practical, durable, easy to use and sure beats lumpy pockets or black nylon. The promotion of quality wool and non racer clothing is refreshing, especially to those of us that don't have the body of a greek god and want to maintain some modesty. I'm totally hip on the cycling philosophy, lower gearing, ability to carry stuff, clothing, overnight camping, wide tires and comfortable positioning. The beautifull lugged bicycles just make it all the more a enjoyable pastime.

Doubtless there is a scale difference in some respects. But If I am aware of someone's designs, not to mention all the stuff in vintage bike mags, it's not innovation, it's back to marketing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a style leader, or marketer, but it's what it is.

The one disadvantage the Riv type shop has it it really isn't based on the performance of the people running it, or one doesn't hear much about that if it is. Other shops doing similar stuff are based on racing or touring achievements of the owners, and that's where the innovation comes from.

Riv tries to select components that have a proven track record for reliability; having said that no bike is always reliable, so making a statement that Riv's components are not always reliable is just plain ignorance. Their made to be practical and easy to work on and find parts for when needed.

A Riv bike is more for the person who wants an artistic flare to their bikes most companies just plain lack, and a Riv will hold it's value better...if there is such a thing as a bike holding it's value! then most bikes on the market.

Though I believe that the Sakkit that PeterPan mentioned is probably the best long distance/duration touring bike on the market today; if you go to their website and compare their features with any other company you will quickly discover this to be true. It's a well thought out bike with reduntant backup features along with space and bosses for 4 water bottles (all other companies give you a max of 3 due to their limited space). Though their downfall may be the sketchy customer service you receive when ordering a bike...at least that's according to a couple of forum members that posted here sometime ago, not a personal experience.

I don't own any Rivendells and think they are a bit overpriced but they are wonderful looking bikes and they pique my interest. It's a good thing there options; I could go lugged Bleriot or TIG welded Kogswell P/R. When I was interested in getting a fixed gear bike, I really liked the versatility of the QB. The price was a bit steep; like diving into the deep end instead of dipping the toe. So I got a Bianchi San Jose. The SJ is a VERY versatile bike and I don't feel the need to stop and flip the wheel over; I just pedal harder to get up that hill.

I was wondering why nobody suggested the mountain bike 29" wheels for a tourer? Same diameter as a 700c with the width of a 26" mtb. wheel. Surely strong enough if mountain bike riders are using them to bomb down hills and jumps, yes?

I will recommend the Surly LHT for your application, particularly if you fit a 54cm frame (which is what I have) or smaller. At 54cm and below they are designed for 26" wheels.

I have 26", 36 spoke Velocity Aeroheat rims on mine and once hit a bridge joint at the bottom of a hill at speed with enough force to break the belts on the rear Continental Travel Contact tire. The rim was okay.

The Travel Contacts that I use come in 26" x 1.75" and are smooth on the highway (cause they have a smooth center to contact hard tarmac) and are great in loose gravel because they have knobbies on the side. They are heavy, though. I also use SKS fenders and there is no clearance problem (26" remember).

All-in-all, the 26"-wheeled LHT brings to mind the tough little ponies one sees on the plains of western China.

BTW, I think you should edit your original comments about the 520 being flimsy...It just ain't so.

Um sorry, but this is not wholly true.

Pretty much all Rivendell have done is picked up a copy of the Cycling (UK Publication) yearbook from the 50's/60's and reintroduced a style of bicycle to a market oblivious to the fact they ever existed.

Full length mudguards, saddlebags, (comparitively) large frames, fancy lugs, all these things are at least 60 years old.

Whilst I can't agree that Rivendell are innovative, they are certainly inventive. Taking something that seems "innovative" and because they are in a field of (almost) 1, slapping a boutique price on is certainly shrewd.

If you wanted to be as shrewd, you could do worse than pick up a 50's/60's frame off ebay uk for a few hundred of your US dollars. Fancy lugs, room for 32c's/mudguards etc made by some old hand who probably churned out 10 frames a year.

Rivendell is just emperor's new clothes, which isn't that bad in itself, but why pay through the nose?.

650B wheels are NOT an "alternative" to 700C wheels, unless you know you will always want to ride on wide pillowy tires and you know you will never want to ride that bike fast. They end up pretty much the same overall diameter as 700c with narrow tires anyway, so you don't really gain anything if you're a short person - at least not if that's your reason for going 650B. You would need 650c for that, or 26 inch mtn bike sized wheels.

Why some people are promoting 650B is beyond my understanding. We've been through all the sizes over the decades of the 20th century. We came to where we are because it was practical, and I see no reason for anyone to still be monkeying around with returns to obsolete wheel sizes, nor for anyone to buy one unless they just have too much money to spend on frivolities. It's one of those minor fashions that wouldn't exist without the internet, I think, like fixed gear bikes.

650B wheels are NOT an "alternative" to 700C wheels, unless you know you will always want to ride on wide pillowy tires and you know you will never want to ride that bike fast.

<><> 650b is about riding for pleasure, not pretending to be Lance <><>

They end up pretty much the same overall diameter as 700c with narrow tires anyway,

<><> no, they don't <><>

so you don't really gain anything if you're a short person - at least not if that's your reason for going 650B. You would need 650c for that, or 26 inch mtn bike sized wheels.

<><> Wrong on all counts, my 5'2" wife loves hers. She refused to consider 650c (too hair shirt) and we already did the 26 inch thing with Bridgestone XOs
back in the day. This is better <><>

Why some people are promoting 650B is beyond my understanding.

<><> That I have figured out. Ride one. <><>

We've been through all the sizes over the decades of the 20th century. We came to where we are because it was practical, and I see no reason for anyone to still be monkeying around with returns to obsolete wheel sizes, nor for anyone to buy one unless they just have too much money to spend on frivolities.

<><> In that case it is my pleasure to provide you with even more bad news. There will be 650b Mtn bikes soon <><>

It's one of those minor fashions that wouldn't exist without the internet, I think, like fixed gear bikes.

<><> Not really. Grant did just fine before it. <><>

rivendell bikes are ok and they fit a niche

doublespeak and retro grouch/know-it-all attitude from GP is what
torques a lot of attitudes.

---
get a rivendell if U want one

or

get a Surly

they will both ride like...............bikes

I ride a Gunnar.

It's terrific.

It rides like a bike.

A terrific bike.

"doublespeak and retro grouch/know-it-all attitude from GP is what
torques a lot of attitudes."

I think a lot of that is in the eye of the beholder. If anything he said changed the course of the cycling ship of state by a minute of angle I would be stuned. He has his opinion, like everyone else. Why would anything he say torque someone else?

Take something like his advocaccy of wool. I have a friend who sustained extreme burns all over his upper body and his recovery was rendered much more difficult because of all the high tech poly pro stuff he was wearing. Funny really because he used to sell heavy wool hunting garments. Some kind of problems affected the british marines during the falklands war. In ice climbing wool isn't slipery on the surface of the ice, to the extent that at one time they sold wool bottomed shoes, for mountain climbing, sorta like the fishermen use. There are arguments for wool. How many lycra sales are really going to be lost? Why should a discusion of any attribute of a product threaten someone unless their views are rigid to an unhealthy degree.

Every hobby I have looked into I have seen this. People get set on
something, and if you disagree it's apostasy....

Btw, I am pretty sure that Grant has changed cycling. Way back when, I was charmed by his Bridgestone XOs and bought a couple. I admired his guts when he started Rivendell was amazed when it didn't go under. Back then he was a singular voice
and slowly it changed things.

i have a surly karate monkey 29er with a rohloff hub. i haven't toured on it yet, but with touring tires i think it'd be perfect. (i have big ol' schwalbe big apples on it right now).

When I first stumbled onto the Rivendell site, I was pretty well pleased. I equate Grant Peterson to the Garrison Keilor or Tom Bodett of bicycling. He's an entertaining read. Opinionated? Sure. Retro-grouch? Absolutely. Master of marketing? There can be no doubt. All of that and he believes whole-heartedly in what he's producing and selling. I don't see how a person can be villified for that. I think it's admirable. He puts his money where his mouth is.

I don't buy into all he espouses, but heck, I'm an individual as well, with my own set of preferences. I would like to think that we all are. I've been told all my years that variety is the spice of life. And it certainly is.

One area of the GP philosophy that I admire is his thoughts on bicycle graphics. I like the retro look and the fact that he spends some time and effort on the model name typography. It's stylish and classy, though, I disagree that nothing should be on the top tube. You could put a model name on the top tube with no ill effects if your brand name were on the down tube. Nitpicking.

Back to the original question: Are Rivendell frames really that good? I'm led to believe that they are made by Waterford unless otherwise stated. How can that be bad? I mean, really. Is not Waterford one of the premiere (steel) frame builders in the world? The Taiwanese built Bleriot is a fine looking bike (though, I haven't seen one up close and personal) and I don't figure that GP would design, contract for, import and sell an inferior frame. After all, he does have a reputation to maintain. Isn't that what Rivendell lives on?

Think what you wish about Grant and his bicycle philosophy. You can't fault the bikes.

"Btw, I am pretty sure that Grant has changed cycling. Way back when, I was charmed by his Bridgestone XOs and bought a couple. I admired his guts when he started Rivendell was amazed when it didn't go under. Back then he was a singular voice
and slowly it changed things."

That part could be true. I know he had an earlier life, and his function at the time may have moved things somewhat.

"Every hobby I have looked into I have seen this. People get set on
something, and if you disagree it's apostasy...."

Absolutely, but that is pretty infantile.

I personally could care less about expensive watches. I wear a beat up Timex I got for $25.

Anyway, I know a couple guys that do.... one got kicked out of a watch forum
for saying a particular watch was overpriced and not that good looking. He was right, the things are ugly and you'd have to have the taste of a shell shocked soldier just off a pig farm to buy one.

This is pretty mild by comparison.