|does anyone ride a rivendell?||colker|
Aug 18, 2001 4:05 PM
|those guys have different ideas on geometry and sizing. i would like to know how their bikes compare to the "normal" racing road bike.rivendells look classy.|
|re: does anyone ride a rivendell?||Ray Sachs|
Aug 19, 2001 12:58 AM
|I ride a roughly 4 year old Rivendell, which was before they did custom geometry (and when they were well under half of today's prices). A Riv Road is raceable, although as pretty as they are I don't think I'd use it that way - I'd race something I wouldn't mind crashing quite so much. The Riv has more of a comfort bias than the typical racing frame. It has a more laid back seat tube angle, allows you to get the handlebars up higher than on a racing frame, has slightly longer chainstays and lower bottom bracket (more stable than a typical criterium racer, although still far quicker and more responsive than a touring frame). Over all, it moves your butt back (to carry more weight), moves your hands up (to carry less weight) and smoothes out the handling somewhat to make it easier to ride well when you're 90 miles into a century and your pedal stroke has gone south on you. It's also slightly heavier, but you can still build one up in the 19-21 pound range if that's your preference (mine is about 22 pounds and doesn't feel any heavier than my 18 pound ti bike, except for a very slightly noticeable difference on short steep hills, but that could be geometry as much as weight - I ride the Riv about 80% of the time). Oh yeah, it's also more versatile in that you can fit fatter tires than on a racer and you can get fenders in there as well if you ride in the rain.
Overall, I think the Riv is a perfect bike for a recreational rider, even a fast one, but for whom the ultimate go-fast bike isn't as important as a really comfortable bike that you'll ride longer distances on. I'd personally have trouble spending $2300 on a frame and then actually riding it hard and in all conditions. But if you can handle the price, they're wonderful frames and Grant Peterson is a great guy to work with in terms of interpreting your preferences and getting the design right. And they are incredibly classy looking frames, at least to my eye.
Hope this is useful,
|re: does anyone ride a rivendell?||colker|
Aug 19, 2001 6:41 AM
|price is an obstacle. not that i think it's not worth it. |
just got my first road bike.got it cheap, third hand. it's a one size bigger but fits me fine(it's a 54, i should be on a 53. grant says we should ride bigger bikes).it's an old simple pinarello, with horizontal drop outs and a chromed steel fork. i like it but i'm already planning a new one. can't help it. the shop where i bought it wanted to sell me a new aluminum frame. there's only aluminum bikes here right now (i don't live in the us).the lbs owner said they were comfortable but i look at those fat alum. tubes and fear they will beat me up badly. also, i prefer steel to carbon forks. i prefer steel everything including stems.
|re: does anyone ride a rivendell?||Jofa|
Aug 19, 2001 3:57 PM
|I find these bicycles anachronistic and fetishistic, like the Morgan motorcar which makes no sense to anybody but the dewy-eyed. The beauty of the bicycle is rooted in the simplicity of its conception and design: 'curly lugs' and such are embellishments which only dilute this simplicity and ultimately help nobody, though they generate good revenue for the manufacturers I'm sure who can claim for all those hours put into each frame. I'm surprised they don't tie and solder their wheels for exorbitant fees but of course with the most exquisite care, and fit expensive tyre scrapers as standard, which procedures are both as pointless and 'traditional' as other practices they endorse.
Sorry for the apparent bitterness but I reserve special judgement for such travesties of design sense and reason which companies such as Rivendell and Columbine represent to me. In practical fairness there are ideas propogated by the company which I like, such as their insistence that a bike can and should be general-use and durable, rather than special-use and flimsy. Also they are a good source for quality discontinued componentry. I wouldn't waste my money on their frames however any more than I would spend it on carbon stays or whatever esoteric idea is popular this year: I'd go instead to a custom-builder with less lofty expectations of his customers, and have him build a simple and quality bicycle to a design which is the result of a discussion between us. I don't live in the US but people on this board speak well of Steelman, Strong and Serotta, all of which I believe are a deal cheaper than the fancy Rivendells.
|re: does anyone ride a rivendell?||Cliff Oates|
Aug 19, 2001 4:42 PM
|I wouldn't put Columbine in the same category as Rivendell, nor would I call it a travesty of design. Conspicuous consumption maybe, but not a travesty. I have seen precisely one Columbine and I chatted with the owner for a while. His bike had fairly normal geometry and the 60 cm frame weighed an impressive 3.1 pounds. The workmanship was remarkable, of course, but then Columbines are a work of functional art. The price he paid was commensurate with that.
Rivendell's are pretty and distinctive, but they are not works of art. I would agree with your observation that they're anachronistic and fetishistic, but that statement applies at the other end of the spectrum too.
Aug 19, 2001 11:38 AM
|Campy claims 1520 for the Nukes.. Either way - 80gr minus rim strips and you're pretty much even.
Ksyriums are probably more aero and you will never tell the weight dif between the two. I can't say anything about Campy's wheels, but my Ksyriums have been great and pretty much bomb proof (I'm around 175lbs).