RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Rivendell Reader and Catalogue(15 posts)

Rivendell Reader and CatalogueChainstay
Oct 15, 2003 2:53 PM
One of my favourite pieces of mail to receive is the Rivendell Reader. I just got mine today. It is totally unlike anything else you will see on cycling. You can't possibly agree with all of it, but the perspectives are refreshing. It's 54 pages of all reading, no ads and no quicky articles on the top 5 new videos (really ads in disguise).

Check out http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/
Been there, rode the bike, bought the T-shirt...Cory
Oct 15, 2003 3:59 PM
FWIW, I second the recommendation. It's fun to read and they're a good company to deal with.
They think we shift too often...Lon Norder
Oct 15, 2003 4:19 PM
I got one of there catalogs at a ride. One of their rants was about STI shifters. They claimed that non-indexed bar end and downtube shifters (which they sell) are superior because it's less convenient to shift gears. They think we shift too often and it's ruining our enjoyment of the ride. They note the increased popularity of singlespeeding as proof that less shifting is more fun.

I agree that their perspectives are refreshing, but I too don't agree with a lot of it.
They think we shift too often...gtx
Oct 15, 2003 5:34 PM
I've noticed a lot of people DO shift too often. On basically flat stretches I'll see/hear people shifting around like a nervous habit or something. I've also noticed a lot of people now shift too soon as they transition into a hill and lose rythem/momentum. On rolling terrain I'll get gaps on people I'm riding with by accident, just cause I don't shift as much (and yes I ride with downtubes).
'They?' 'We?' Who's 'they' and 'we?' nmOldEdScott
Oct 16, 2003 4:48 AM
I think Grant was try to makelonebikeroftheapocalypse
Oct 16, 2003 5:12 AM
the point that if you were to spin a little faster and grunt a little harder on occasion that it would make you a stronger cyclist in the long run. The reason given for the need for 9 or 10 cogs out back is so that you can always spin in your optimum zone. That's probably great for racing. All he's saying is that if you never go outside this zone you never learn to spin faster and you never get stronger.
I suppose that's right, but IMO bar-ends are a screwydjg
Oct 16, 2003 6:08 AM
solution if THAT'S your problem. First off, I don't know anybody who ALWAYS spins in an optimum zone. Second, it seems easy enough to tell yourself, e.g., "hey, now I'm going to spin in an easy gear" or "now I'm going to do a big gear drill." Third, why the heck would you think that you'd get a good (better? optimum?) training variety just by making shifting a little less convenient? Fourth, rollers and fixies may be much better for some of these needs. Fifth, why the heck have a bunch of gears and then opt for a less-convenient means of using them? Sixth ...

People should ride what they want. I used down-tube shifters for a couple of decades before moving to STI and then Ergo--never really cared for bar-ends, but to each his or her own.
yikes, who took the jam out of your donut?lonebikeroftheapocalypse
Oct 16, 2003 7:34 AM
Its just another way to ride a bike THAT'S all. Not EVERYBODY here rides a bike for training purposes.
Sure, ride what you want.djg
Oct 16, 2003 4:22 PM
If somebody wants to ride a bike with bar-end shifters than more power to him (or her). You are absolutely right that riding doesn't have to be for training. For that matter, I don't see why somebody couldn't train on a Rivendell (or 19 year old Fuji touring bike) with bar-ends. Ride, train, cruise, whatever.

I just thought the argument about the superior training potential of bar-ends was . . . well, the word "screwy" seemed ok then and it seems ok now.

Frankly, I don't think your question is very good. The real question is: who took my donut?
Bar-ends "screwy"? Them's fightin' words, you varmint!Dale Brigham
Oct 16, 2003 7:46 AM
Well, at least indexed bar-ends are not "screwy," IMO. Like you said, each to his/her own. I got my nubby hands on bar-ends 4 years ago, and I ain't looked back. Won me a state CX crown (age group = geezers), rode me a Nat'l Champ CX race (did not win), and rode me a PBP with aforementioned bar-end shifters. Cheap, dependable, bullet-proof -- what's not to love?

The concept of making oneself ride outside of optimal pedaling cadence as a training method is well-established. One of the key reasons to ride a fixed gear is to "enforce" non-optimal cadence riding. Limited gearing/shifting would have similar effects. Coaches (like me) call this developing a "wide power-band," i.e., the ability to produce power across a greater range of cadences.

This, of course, is more than you (or anyone) care to know.

Dale
You are one savvy dude!OldEdScott
Oct 16, 2003 9:48 AM
Don't know about no 'wide power band,' but I DO know I've always been a little baffled by the constant-cadence fetish so many riders have. Seems like you'd want to be effective on them pedals no matter HOW fast you feel like pedaling at a given moment.

And another damn thing: 'Modern' bikes DO have too many gears. Maybe I got insensitive legs or something, but I can barely even tell the difference when I click that godforsaken STI shifter just once. I come from the REAL 10-speed era. For me to notice a difference in gears, I gotta click three, four times!
even your offhanded casual remarks areJS Haiku Shop
Oct 16, 2003 12:40 PM
humourous and enjoyable. first time i've had my cellmates, er, fellow cube prisoners wondering why i'm snickering across the hall from their identical carpeted box.

hey, where's the PBP payoff article (/pics?)?
Now you are being unfair to yourself.djg
Oct 16, 2003 4:33 PM
Although I cannot truthfully say that I woke up this morning wondering whether you'd ever won a state masters CX title, it is not necessarily more than I care to know. I'm feeling generous at the moment, despite your "fightin' words" comment, so let's just say that I'm pleased to know it. It is, in my opinion, good news.

And I believe you when you say you like your bar-ends. But really, do you think that indexed bar-end shifters--say tied to an 8 speed system--is the way to design a training tool to limit gearing and hence develop a wide power band? The best way? The best economically viable way? If so, more power to you.
They think we shift too often...Steve_0
Oct 16, 2003 5:23 AM
"They claimed that non-indexed bar end and downtube shifters (which they sell) are superior because it's less convenient to shift gears"

Actually, Riv. is usually pretty careful in expressing their preferences in equipment, not unequivocal superiority. I think you're actually confusing two of their philosphies; one on friction shifters, the other on shifting.

Riv. prefers friction because it is more versatile as equipment. no upgrades. no matching parts. no adjusting ever.

Likewise, Riv. feels the modern trend of 18-30 gears doest provide much use for todays average rider.

I happen to agree with them on both counts (at least, I presume I would if I had shifters).

The note about singlespeeding, If I recall, was not about being 'more fun', it was about rebelling against the planned obsolescense of shimano and campy marketing. Fun is the result, not the stimulus.
No Advertising?Ray Sachs
Oct 16, 2003 4:09 AM
I too love getting the Reader, I currently ride three different Grant Peterson designed frames, and even have friction shifting on one bike. I tend to agree with Grant on almost everything he has to say about frames and almost nothing he has to say about parts (except for 110 bcd cranks and long reach brake calipers, both of which I think should be on the vast majority of bikes, instead of the ever so small minority).

But the Reader is FULL of advertising for Rivendell's stuff. Not that I mind - I like the ads, but I'd hate to pull someone in by saying there's no advertising only to have them find loads of the stuff.

-Ray