kingston 

It will be there forever at that price.

velojym

I've often been tempted to try a Rivendell bike, but with my LHT, the only thing I'd really be getting (with a non-custom frame that I could afford) is the name and maybe a few more lugs.
One day, though, especially if I run across a screamin' deal.

Edward1066

I've owned two Long Haul Truckers, a 700c wheeled 62cm and a 26" wheeled 60cm. Got really lucky and am doing some work for Rivendell. Ended up with an Appaloosa. Somethings about it are familiar, but there are a world of differences. The longer wheelbase of the Appaloosa is definitely more stable at speed, but a little slower in the steering department. The weight difference is the big thing. It's substantial. Climbing my local hills, it's immediately apparent.

Kapusta

Is it heavier or lighter than the LHT?

Road Fan

yes, totally!

greatscott

Rivendell changed? They've gotten weirder if you ask me. What the heck did they do the once extremely good looking Atlantis? They added a second top bar for the larger bikes? For what reason? the only reason it serves is to add more weight in the wrong area, the forks are too spindly for real loaded touring as are the stays, but Grant never cared much for how much a bike weighs. Grant, as Grant does, charges too much money for the Atlantis that isn't even as stout for touring as my Masi is, and for what I paid for a fully equipped Masi Giramondo 700c I only get a frame and fork from Grant, and I guarantee that my bike will hold up better...oh wait, that's right, Grant thinks we should be riding pretty bikes while touring, like we are snotty English gents, the problem is touring is rough on the paint of a bike, so why would someone who wants a decorative bike to ride ruin that fancy paint? All of those Atlantis bikes are now made in Taiwan...so is my Masi.

The only bikes Rivendell now has that's halfway good is the Rodeo which is made in the USA which is cool, and the A Holmer Hilsen which is made in Taiwan. But if you look at both can you really tell which bike was made in Taiwan and which was made in the USA if no one told you and the price wasn't a clue? I think whatever the place they use in Taiwan does a fantastic job though.

Edward1066

Lighter, and the tubing has a little more give. In all the right places.

greatscott

As far as I can tell you're wrong, this quote was taken out of Wiki: "A threadless headset and fork is marginally lighter than an equivalent threaded headset and fork." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headse...icycle_part%29

And this discussion: https://www.******.com/r/BicycleEngi..._the_standard/

mstateglfr 

Its been over a year since I responded to your post. You were wrong then and you are still wrong.
You are doubly wrong now, since you are still wrong on the first comment and have now attempted to move the goalposts to be correct.

The comment I said was wrong wasn't about whether or not threadless is lighter, yet you waited over a year to reply and cited weight as the reason I am wrong.

Here is what you posted-
I think the only reason threadless came out was because of aluminum and carbon fiber frames, a bike company couldn't make the headtube light enough in the case of aluminum because the headtube would have to be thicker to prevent the quill's wedge from damaging the headtube as you tighten it down to secure it; and in the case of carbon fiber you would have to use a thick steel or aluminum insert to prevent damaging the CF again defeating the purpose of trying to get the bike frame lighter.

You said the only reason for threadless was because aluminum and carbon frames couldn't handle threaded stems due to head headtubes.

1- a quill doesn't attach to the head tube. It attaches inside the steerer tube. Your entire claim is based on a misunderstanding of how a quill stems work.
2- aluminum and carbon bikes existed with quill stems. Klein, cannondale, trek, giant, centurion, miyata, etc etc etc all made aluminum and carbon frame bikes with quill stems.

Now that your claim and reasons for it being wrong are laid out do you see that the post was incorrect? Hopefully you also see that your response over a year later has 0 to do with refuting my comment.

The threadless headset and stem changed a lot- lighter, stiffer, less chance of failure on mtb, etc etc etc. But it wasn't created due to a quill stem not being able to be used on an aluminum or carbon frame.

Here is some history on the thrradless stem.
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/08/orig...bikes-forever/

I recognize this isn't a kind post. Its blunt, I know.

Snacks

Any thoughts?

veganbikes

You do realize you responded to a post from 07-24-18 at 12:05 AM from a member who is no longer part of these forums? I would suggest finding threads that are currently active and if you really need to re-hash an old topic you create a new thread maybe with some new ideas or at least ideas of your own. Be active in the forums, it is a lot of fun but just searching for old threads to refight old fights is not as fun.

indyfabz

In his defense, he was asking about a 5 year prediction that was made in 2018. But you are correct, the member who made that prediction is “no longer with us.” However, that doesn’t show up on my mobile device, so maybe he didn’t realize the ban.

curbtender

So the question should have been, "Who will be around in five years?"

Kapusta

IMO, his 5-year delayed reply was appropriate, seeing as he was responding to a 5-year prediction.

Maelochs

Actually, bigger head tubes and bigger bearings are a definite improvement because they have a lot more bearing surface and the whole tube is a lot more rigid ...

Disc brakes? Depends on users and uses .... I prefer discs for certain applications and certainly for a bike on which I was planning to carry loads. Are discs Necessary? Of course not. But it is a matter of reductionism ... all you really need are shoes with thick soles to drag on the ground .... but discs are a Lot better. I have rim brakes on most of my bikes, and i used rim brakes on all of my longest tours. I prefer discs for that application in particular.

Maelochs

And there are a cubic ton of such bikes out there which sell for a fraction of what the seat-post of a Rivendell will cost. A whole world of lat-bat bikes with 1x drive trains or practical 3x, all sorts of brakes (more cable disc, which is all the benefits of cables and most of hydro discs) and plenty of places for racks and accessories .... for pretty cheap.

A Rivendell is Not one of these---it is an over-designed, over-thought, over-priced version of bikes which have pretty much always been available---and might use the same running gear.

No one is buying a Rivendell to "just ride around." There are plenty of bikes for a fraction of the price which work just as well for that. People buy Rivendells Very intentionally.

Nothing against the actual bikes---I admit that if you buy into that particular esthetic they are achingly lovely 9some of them) and are certainly unique (for mass-produced) and distinctive luxury machines of their sort. Sort of like buying a restored classic car .... no one is buying a '59 Impala to just get groceries and run to the hardware store, and no one who buys one is pretending that.
This is ridiculous.

If fewer people are biking these days (which is an unproven assumption) it is not because of modern upgrades. most bikes sold ion the US are big-box store bikes ... people don't buy bikes at Walmart to "go faster." Also, while the bikes most posters here ride might be "go faster" bikes we are far from a representative slice of the riding community. There are a lot of hybrids sold to people who just want to ride a bike which is comfortable and versatile. Those folks mostly don't see themselves as "serious cyclists" and don't post on cycling sites ... they ride their bikes and put them away and do something else. They might putter around in the garage repairing and refinishing a piece of furniture---but don't consider them selves to be "carpenters" or "furniture makers" and don't visit those websites. They might take some snaps of the dog running in the yard, but don't call themselves "photographers." They might bowl every Wednesday with a local league but once the shoes come off, they don't consider themselves to be "bowlers," and don't post on bowling websites. They cook dinner each night but don't call themselves 'chefs: or post on cooking sites.

We ignore these people because they don't identify by that certain activity and we aren't reminded of them ... but look at what sells at bike shops and there aren't a lot of really high-end "go fast/be aero" bikes selling compared to cheaper models, many of which have flat bars.

And as for the many "modernizations:" which some Luddites decry: There is a cadre of cyclists which like to compete, just as with golfers, bowlers, home brewers ... in almost every activity there is competition because ... Humans are competitive. No one craps on golfers who buy new putters or drivers with some new tech (when it is finally common enough to be affordable.) No one complains because bowling balls aren't hand-carved from blocks of ebony. Nobody demands craft brewers braze their own pots out of brass sheets they hand hammered .... some of the home-brewers I know use ... <gasp> plastic buckets for some phases of their projects. Nobody sensible craps on them for it. if the resulting brew is tasty ......

Not every development in the bike indfustry ahas been purely race-oriented. I like having more gear ratios, because I can just relax and cruise on a wider variety of terrain and in a wider variety of wind conditions. Disc breaks can be a boon when the weather turns wet.

There is no "Improve your cadence" device that has been developed ... unless you mean cycling computers ... I suppose you hated speedometers, when they were first introduced ... several decades ago?

Thing is, a lot of riders like to know about their rides, whether they race or not. I record every ride (so long as I remember to turn on the app) and I am about as slow as a cyclist can be without being a cyclist who fell over.

Computers are a tool some people really like---the people who really want to go faster and raise their FTP and modulate their cadences for maximum efficiency. But are you trying to say cycling computers are killing bike sales? I'd like to see the data. Particularly since most people who buy bikes don't even know cycling computers exist (again we forget that Most bikes sold in the US are not used for any kind of racing ... and Most come from big-box stores.)

I have a couple friends who ride around in the way described above---they bought what are basically cheap utility bikes from some semi-toney brand, paid about a grand apiece ... for 8-speed basic bikes, swept bars, sprung seats, fat tires .... exactly what Rivendell claims it does best ... but spent a third or a fifth of what a Rivendell would cost, to get exactly the same riding experience. And they think their bikes look cool and are sufficiently fashionable---not that they care a lot, because they bought the bike to Ride. (There are three-speed, 16-speed, and SS versions offered by the same company .... a whole range of bikes for people who are not pretentious but want better quality than a Walmart bike. Lots of companies like this.)

Rivendell has repeatedly been on the brink of bankruptcy because they guy sells art and philosophy and people who aren't excited by his versions of both, don't buy them. There are plenty of ways to ride bikes---Grant Peterson seems to believe he has discerned and defined the "Best" way, which is really stupid. I don't care if he sells the bike he wants to sell (though it seems that is getting harder and harder) and I don't care about his philosophy. I don't care if he stops making, assembling or marketing bikes.

They are just bikes, friends.

What I found both sad and amusing is the case of the guy who wanted to finally buy a Rivendell and was told "You can't get that here any more."

If you know that precisely what you want ... well, you do you, but there are frame builders all over the country. You could tell one, "Build me a copy of this Rivendell frame with these chainstays and this stack and reach" and get Exactly the frame you wanted ... with whatever steerer, seat tube, brake options .... plenty of people would be pleased as can be to make a bike for you ... and not charge you any more than Rivendell would. Then maybe you could buy some Rivenedell name badges online somewhere ... or some knock-offs on ali-express.

To me the name on the down tube (or the lost-wax-cast intricate head badge) is not a concern. I Ride bikes. I cannot see what my bike looks like while I am riding it. if the riding experience is good, the bike is good ... that is my "philosophy." I have vintage Cannondale and Raleight, and newish Chinabomb CF, and an Al frame/CF fork disc bike which is actually the kind of "everything" bike Rivendell claims to make ... I like them all very much ... because they serve me well.

If Rivendell shuts down because of changing tastes in art and philosophy ..... to me that is no different than a band losing followers. If the musicians love the music they make, who cares if they are topping the charts or playing at backyard parties? If people like the music they make, who cares if it is only a dozen people?

As for the ongoing fiction that modernization is ruining (insert product, genre, society, whatever) that is an old refrain which was never true. There has always been development, and smart people have always chosen the developments which are actually improvements for their uses, and rejected or ignored the rest ... and smart people have always adapted when changes forced adaptation.

For all you folks who will stop riding when you can no longer get rim-brake bikes ... sayonara. Suit yourselves.

seypat

I think Rivendell is still around. It's just a to(l)ken company though.

Trakhak

Adding one more to Maeloch's irrefutable points made above:

Look around almost any good-sized town or city in the U.S. or elsewhere---the majority of bikes being ridden every day are likely to be hybrids. It's an uncomfortable truth for the Rivendell bikes-for-the-people-right-on! stance that hybrids are the perfect bikes for everyday use, with most costing 1/3 to 1/4 what one of the bikes sold by Rivendell costs.

In fairness, Grant Petersen being an honest guy, I'm sure there's an acknowledgment of that fact somewhere on the Rivendell site. I've never come across it, though.

The funny thing is that both Rivendell proponents and the "full Lycra fools" (copyright RubeRad, if I remember correctly) look down on hybrid bikes, seeing them as at best tolerable and at worst beneath contempt.

In fact, if you want a laugh, go to the page list of the Hybrids sub-forum, click "Last," and look at the "Hybrid Forum" poll thread at the bottom of that page. The comments from the people who were horrified at the suggestion that hybrids might deserve their own sub-forum are hilarious.

phughes

I wouldn't sake token, but definitely a niche product company. They offer some really nice products. I used to buy from them a lot, and still will, but something they did a few years a go left a really bad taste in my mouth, so I am not loyal to them anymore. If I need something and they are the only one who offers it, I will buy from them, but they aren''t the first place I look as before. I truly like what they sell though, and they have always been great to deal with.

Maelochs

https://www.bikeforums.net/hybrid-bi...te-poll-2.html
This is well ... "hilarious" if you are already resigned to the fact that humanity has no future, and most people can only reject anything which does not strongly reinforce their prejudices. Otherwise it is sort of depressing.

We here who are so much wiser, prove that by fighting over chain-lube and jerseys .... but seriously, many people there were vehemently opposed to hybrid riders having a Hybrid forum. Not enough room on the Internet, they said. It will cause us to fragment, said the people who were already dividing hybrid riders into a sub-cyclist class.

I will read more of the thread if I ever find myself having hope for the future.

ofajen

In the discussion in his bike catalog document, I think I recall him saying that most of his bikes are about the same as a vintage MTB. Clearly, he’s designing many of his bikes to fill the same uses that vintage MTBs are now filling.

Otto

PeteHski

Rivendell bikes are clearly marketed at the well heeled retrogrouch. Probably a (literally) dying breed.

2old

From my perspective (IMO), if you want a Rivendell, go to CL, look at 80's - 90's steel applications and save mucho dinero, plus you won't donate to some liberal cause that's GP's current passion (I realize the Riv toadies won't agree with this). 1985 Mt Fuji with mid-drive.

Lamont Cobb

I would like to have a Sam Hillborne, that's for sure.

jaxgtr

I have several bikes that let me go fast and be a serious rider. I also have my Trek FX that I use to ride to the grocery store or tool around with my wife, whom is not a "serious cyclist" ,