|
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9665781)
Thats much easier for me to understand...
|
If we want to discuss "Value" . . . it would take 'till the rest of time!
Isn't it funny the ones who don't spend less on bikes and other goods often think the ones that spend more are being "extravagant" and "wasteful" . . . while those that spend more thing those who spend less are being "cheap" and "tight arsed" :lol: In reality . . . we don't know anything. Ride what you ride and enjoy the moment :) |
Originally Posted by AlanK
(Post 9665299)
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my two cents:
Riv makes great frames, but like all other limited-production builders they aren't a very good value. While Surly frames might not be built with absolute attention to every detail, does that really matter as far as riding experience goes? No one has been able to convince me that the Atlantis or other gourmet frame is worth the $2K you'll pay for it vs the $400 you'll be for a LHT frame. In practical terms the latter will work just as well as the former, and for about $1500 you can put together a complete LHT with nice, durable components that will take you around the world just as well as a complete Atlantis that will set you back at least $3500 :rolleyes: And I know I'll catch lots of s**t for those, but I'll say it anyway... To me paying more than about $2K+ for a complete bike is just an extravagant waste. To me one of the most appealing things about cycling is that it's an efficient, healthy, and inexpensive form of transportation. When you're getting to the point of spending as much for a bike as you would for a decent used car you've completely lost sight of what cycling is all about. $3-4K+ for a bike just seems silly to me. |
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9665781)
... However, if you're living car free, I can certainly see the draw to new technologies that represent advances in utility such as the Rohloff hub, SON HUB dynamo plus integrated LED lights, hydraulic disk brakes, etc. etc. Thats much easier for me to understand...
Originally Posted by sa2405
(Post 9667617)
I have a couple of Rivs and I don't feel like I wasted my money, after all it is my money. If I wanted a LHT I would have bought one. My best advice is don't buy a Riv if you think they are over priced. I don't know why people worry how other people spend their money, maybe jealousy I guess. I bet you secretly covet a Riv, why else would you feel compelled to make such a comment.
And just for arguement's sake... I could afford to drop $3K+ for a bike if I wanted, but again, don't see the point when it's totally unnecessary as far as I can tell. Even if I ever became affluent I would probably never buy a Rolex because spending thousands on an f-in' watch just seems silly to me. |
Originally Posted by sa2405
(Post 9667617)
I have a couple of Rivs and I don't feel like I wasted my money, after all it is my money. If I wanted a LHT I would have bought one. My best advice is don't buy a Riv if you think they are over priced. I don't know why people worry how other people spend their money, maybe jealousy I guess. I bet you secretly covet a Riv, why else would you feel compelled to make such a comment.
Although truthfully, I'd just as well take a LHT frame, add a nice looking powdercoat (I'm to hard on paint) and add some of the nicer Rivendell components. |
Originally Posted by fuzz2050
(Post 9668540)
I don't think it's so secret, in fact I'm pretty sure I admited to it.
Although truthfully, I'd just as well take a LHT frame, add a nice looking powdercoat (I'm to hard on paint) and add some of the nicer Rivendell components. I subscribe to Vintage Bike Quarterly. They test a lot of rando bikes. Most good rando frames cost $2K and up. There's a lot of work that goes into getting a bike just right. Rivendell sweats the details. Having ridden a bunch of cheap frames and a few expensive ones, I can tell you that many of the expensive ones had something special about them. When I first test rode the bike I have now it put a goofy grin on my face. |
Originally Posted by AlanK
(Post 9668328)
I whole-heartedly subscribe to the 'keep it simple, smart' philosophy because generally the simpler something is the more reliable and easy to maintain/repair it is (it's usually less-expensive as well). While I can see an argument for mechanical disc brakes b/c they function better in wet weather and are easier on rims, hydraulic discs seem totally unnecessary to me. Straight mechanical discs work very well, why make them so much more complicated by incorporating hydraulics just so you can have better 'modulation' :rolleyes: ?
Its only the cyclists that are afraid of such a well-tested technology! Have you ever had hydraulic disks? in addition to the fact that you only ever have to touch them once every two years for about 15 mins of maintenance, they are stronger, never have to be adjusted, and have two or four piston braking, meaning the pads on both sides move. This is a better design than mechanical disks, where only one side moves and deflects the disk into the other pad... The ONLY downside is the lack of road levers for hydraulics. but i digress. |
Originally Posted by late
(Post 9668804)
Let you in on a little secret. Grant isn't 'into' components. He sells a lot of mid-grade stuff. Nothing wrong with it at all. But his bread and butter is frames.
I subscribe to Vintage Bike Quarterly. They test a lot of rando bikes. Most good rando frames cost $2K and up. There's a lot of work that goes into getting a bike just right. Rivendell sweats the details. Having ridden a bunch of cheap frames and a few expensive ones, I can tell you that many of the expensive ones had something special about them. When I first test rode the bike I have now it put a goofy grin on my face. |
re: gunnar does make a touring bike
Gunnar/waterford added the 'grand tour' to the lineup earlier this summer:
http://www.gunnarbikes.com/grandtour.php |
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9670438)
to me
while the money would be painful, last time I asked they had a waiting list a couple of years long. At 58, that's not gonna happen. But I would love to have one. I like old school. I also like the new steels, and well made frames. Rivendell wraps all that up in a handsome paint job. What's not to love? |
Originally Posted by adp1
(Post 9670880)
Gunnar/waterford added the 'grand tour' to the lineup earlier this summer:
http://www.gunnarbikes.com/grandtour.php |
I think the Bleriot was one of the coolest Rivendells made :)
|
Originally Posted by late
(Post 9668804)
Rivendell sweats the details. Having ridden a bunch of cheap frames and a few expensive ones, I can tell you that many of the expensive ones had something special about them. When I first test rode the bike I have now it put a goofy grin on my face.
I've ridden Rivendells for a while so my next bike will be racier that their laid back big tyre clearance geometry. |
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9671535)
I think the Bleriot was one of the coolest Rivendells made :)
|
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9670433)
hydraulic systems are simple and robust. This is why they have been used for decades in cars, motorcycles, heavy machinery, manufacturing, tractors, mining, earthmovers, cranes, planes.....
Its only the cyclists that are afraid of such a well-tested technology! Have you ever had hydraulic disks? in addition to the fact that you only ever have to touch them once every two years for about 15 mins of maintenance, they are stronger, never have to be adjusted, and have two or four piston braking, meaning the pads on both sides move. This is a better design than mechanical disks, where only one side moves and deflects the disk into the other pad... The ONLY downside is the lack of road levers for hydraulics. |
Originally Posted by AlanK
(Post 9665299)
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my two cents:
And I know I'll catch lots of s**t for those, but I'll say it anyway... To me paying more than about $2K+ for a complete bike is just an extravagant waste. To me one of the most appealing things about cycling is that it's an efficient, healthy, and inexpensive form of transportation. When you're getting to the point of spending as much for a bike as you would for a decent used car you've completely lost sight of what cycling is all about. $3-4K+ for a bike just seems silly to me. I agree and disagree. On the one hand, one of the great things over the years has been the economy of bicycling entertwined with the athleticism. Last I figured, it has saved me an average of 2K per year over car expenses. I've been riding the same TREK for 25 years and am looking to expand the stable and, although it seems expensive to me, 3-4K for a machine that saves that much money also makes sense. |
If you want your cycling to be inexpensive then yeah it can be, if you don't then the sky is the limit. To each his own....my road bike costs more than my car....shows where my priorities are eh?
|
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9680808)
if you want your cycling to be inexpensive then yeah it can be, if you don't then the sky is the limit. To each his own....my road bike costs more than my car....shows where my priorities are eh?
|
Why is there talk of hydraulic disc brakes (or mechanical for that matter) on a Riv thread? Why is this thread even still going? I love it!
Fact of that matter is, alot of bike frames cost $2k plus, ALOT. I'm not sure why Riv takes the brunt of the criticism when they are just one of who knows how many bike manufactures who make nice bikes that cost a good deal of money. Yes there are cheaper options, but it is this way with everything in life. To some people buying a new $20k car is a waste of money when used ones are available for cheaper. Others can afford a $50k car. All cars will get you to your destination. Some people can afford and enjoy the finer things in life, while others don't feel the need or can't afford those same things. Don't argue the value and reliability of a LHT vs. the Atlantis. They both work great and both do there job well, but they are different. My $60 Eddie Bauer watch tells time just as well as a $500 Seiko, which tells time just as well as a $2500 Tag Heuer. All things being equal, sometimes the higher price tag makes the bike more desirable because less people can afford them, which makes them more rare. |
Don't argue the value and reliability of a LHT vs. the Atlantis. They both work great and both do there job well, but they are different. |
Originally Posted by ajs26
(Post 9684790)
Don't argue the value and reliability of a LHT vs. the Atlantis. They both work great and both do there job well, but they are different.
People often argue that the extra expense of something has a rational/practical purpose. When a particular example of ths argument is shown to be false, people argue that people are free to spend whatever they want. The rational/practical purpose of a thing is an interesting discussion. The fact that people have enough money to be foolish/irrational about what they spend it on is not an interesting discussion.
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9680808)
If you want your cycling to be inexpensive then yeah it can be, if you don't then the sky is the limit. To each his own....
Originally Posted by HardyWeinberg
(Post 9685344)
We got some additional exposure to the discrepancy between the commodity price of something, the cost of getting the job done, vs the cost of value added, when we had to justify the dollar difference between xmart bike for $80 and a $1000 LBS bike to an insurance adjuster.
What happened to the bike? I don't think BMW owners are required to make a similar justification! |
Originally Posted by positron
(Post 9670433)
The ONLY downside is the lack of road levers for hydraulics.
but i digress. If we were talking about a commuter bike used in town I'd agree because I could just ride to the nearest LBS and get them to fix the problem. I own a LHT, but have spent some time surfing the Riv site. Nice looking bikes. If my GF bought me one for my birthday I'd happily ride it! |
Originally Posted by vik
(Post 9685890)
I own a LHT, but have spent some time surfing the Riv site. Nice looking bikes. If my GF bought me one for my birthday I'd happily ride it!
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 9685860)
But what if you are interested in what things have a practical purpose? "To each his own" provides no knowledge!
And while your zeal for your LHT is admirable remember, other people think differently than you and might have other opinions. |
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9686395)
But you need to understand, I am not interested, as are many others. Some people are, that is one of the joys of being human, we are all allowed to be different :)
And while your zeal for your LHT is admirable remember, other people think differently than you and might have other opinions. I have toured on a Fuji Cross Comp and have a Trek 540. Nope, neither are Rivendell bikes nor LHT. I would love to try some extended riding on the Atlantis though just to compare. The 3 miles I have done just aren't enough to really get a feel for it. How does such steadfast devotion for the LHT end up in the Rivendell thread anyway. Sort of like a Yankee fan at a Tigers or Mets game I suppose. |
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9686395)
But you need to understand, I am not interested, as are many others.
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9686395)
Some people are, that is one of the joys of being human, we are all allowed to be different :)
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9686395)
And while your zeal for your LHT is admirable remember
Originally Posted by mtclifford
(Post 9686395)
other people think differently than you and might have other opinions.
============
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686495)
Have to say... I dont like the LHT. Lots of friends have it. Nothing I can really pin down as wrong with it. Just isnt' my bag, dont like the ride.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 9686504)
It seems odd that you and other people have no interest in what makes a bicycle (any bicycle) better in a practical/rational way.
I don't know that I have ever seen a practical or rational way to define one bike frame style over another. One brake system over another, One rack style over another. I have seen bandwagon and Brand lovers but nothing conclusive as to what makes one "product" better than another. In the touring world the only things I can come up with off hand for sure are.. we covet the simple, the durable, the fixable and if we can throw in some style to boot... heck give me a splash of that too but it ain't all that important overall. If anyone wants to play with the idea of what makes the perfect bike or defines one bike better over all to all others... I am game. Meet me at the virtual coffee shop, first cup is on me... let us break out into velo-tour-philosophy. Just know that any such effort though entertaining doesn't get us an inch further down the lane. |
If somebody can make a rational argument about why the Rivendells are better in a rational/practical way (probably easy to do) or why that advantage is worth the cost, I'd be interested in hearing it.
The difference between a Riv frame and, just for comparisons sake, an LHT, is the same difference between a Chevy and an Acura—materials, craftsmanship and styling. Pretty simple. Note that an Acura costs more than a Chevy of the same type. I forgot to add engineering (not so big a point here) and number of units produced. |
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
I understand the point but isn't this really subjective? Sort of like selecting an old CJ7 or D90. Mozart over MC Hammer...
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
I don't know that I have ever seen a practical or rational way to define one bike frame style over another. One brake system over another, One rack style over another. I have seen bandwagon and Brand lovers but nothing conclusive as to what makes one "product" better than another.
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
we covet the simple, the durable, the fixable
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
and if we can throw in some style to boot... heck give me a splash of that too but it ain't all that important overall.
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
If anyone wants to play with the idea of what makes the perfect bike or defines one bike better over all to all others... I am game.
Originally Posted by alhanson
(Post 9686724)
Just know that any such effort though entertaining doesn't get us an inch further down the lane.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 9686927)
But "to each his own" is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing. It doesn't say anything!
Other than these kinds of subjective arguments are pointless. To some people cycling is utilitarian, to others it is artistic, to others it is spiritual, and to others it is something I can't describe (or even they can't describe), which is why we have so many choices, because we are all different. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.