R900

I'm not trying to bash them, but I know a couple people that "buy" in to the whole Rivendell experience, downtube shifters and all. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" It's just the way it's presented on the web site, like they are enlightened or something. Glad it helps people get out and ride, but the bikes are not cheap, and seems sort of a disservice to try and explain away why they do certain things.

DocRay

Rivendell: bicycles by idiots, for idiots.

brianallan

No kidding. Their catalog is so laughable I read some quotes allowed to some other cyclists.

GuitarWizard

alanbikehouston

matthew_deaner

Grant Petersen is the author of the Rivendell site. I, too, think that the views expressed on the site are one-sided... in a nutshell, Grant believes that the bicycle racing industry has had a negative impact on "recreational" cycling. I think that one could argue that the opposite is true.... racing improves the profile and popularity of cycling.

At the same time... I agree with Grant that not everyone needs racing equipment, and that purely "recreational" cycling is rewarding in its own way, especially for older cyclists that have no interest in racing. But I don't understand his hostility towards racing and his allegiance to obsolete technologies (I mean, come on, friction shifting?).

brianallan

$3k for a Japanese built steel bike with unspecified tubing, downtube shifters, XT hubs, and twine.

Phantoj

How about some examples of what you think are outrageous?

I'm not riding typical Riv-style bikes, but I actually can see the point of a lot of Peterson's opinions.

vjp

Rivendell has it's followers and from my perspective they are no different than the followers on this forum. They discuss wrapping their bars with twine and you argue water bottle cages, both hilarious from my point of view, a few leaders and a lot of sack swingers.

vjp

Campag4life

F-ing hilarious. Seriously...many would be well served to at least understand their philosophy.
They have more of a foggy-ish touring mentality..that's all. Grant is pretty arrogant in his views and in some ways is right. What is wrong however is how much he charges for what you get. I think his bikes are heavy and ugly but some like them. You can build a better bike for about half the price in any geometry you like with better components.

voltman

He writes the songs the whole world sings.

Phantoj

? How about some examples?

I don't agree with him on everything, but what I've read on his website just states his opinions plainly. I don't sense the arrogance.

ryanspeer

+1

Seriously? That statement reeks of ignorance. It's pretty plainly obvious that the bikes aren't built or even remotely meant for the competative racer type. They're quite obviously built and marketed to the long-distance tourer, day-tripper, "I have no desire to ride competatively" crowd. There's nothing "idiotic" about that at all. He didn't design the bike for you (or me).

I don't agree with everything on his site, but do understand that his bikes are built for a special niche in the market that the Trek Madone, Specialized Tarmac, and Giant TCR Series will NEVER fill.

Ironic Mullet

slug89

$1400 seems pretty steep for a production steel frame made in Japan (and no lifetime warranty). Seems like someone would do just as well getting a steel frame from Soma or Surly and paying 1/3 the price.

I understand the argument about tire clearance. I prefer 28c on the crappy road surfaces in my area. But why buy a Rambouillet when you can get a Taiwanese-made Cross-Check, DoubleCross, or Smoothie ES. Heck, even a Gunnar Sport or Crosshairs frameset made in the US with a lifetime warranty, choice of 8-9 colors, and custom geometry is less than $1400.

voltman

Try the Road Bike Racing subforum.

DScott

I imagine him as the pot-smoking, die-hard-hippy older brother of the guy who writes for the Competitive Cyclist website. Seems a little too preachy to be the near-emo, ironic-hipster little brother...

ryanspeer

Quick note on friction shifting in relation to Rivendell, as his bikes are geared toward the long-distance and/or casual rider, they don't especially NEED high-tech. If I'm riding cross-country loaded for bear with racks, panniers, handlebar bags, etc., I want to know that, generally speaking, my gear will pose the least amount of problems for me when I'm 150 miles from nowhere. If I'm on some deserted highway in the mountains of Colorado or somewhere and crash for some reason, I don't want to have to worry about my Dura-Ace STI shifters getting too banged up to work properly, have my RD get bent, etc. If I crash with friction bar-end shifters, my shifting can still be precise - not so with STI.

That being said, friction shifting (and the rest of his gear) isn't directed toward anybody on THIS forum. Bashing him here is like a bunch of snooty sports car owners bashing truck owners because their vehicles aren't sporty enough. Different folks, different strokes.

Campag4life

Exactly. That is where I come down as well. I would have more respect for the guy if he didn't try to bend over his customer base with his inflated prices for the content you get on his bicycles. Sure he is a capitalist but marketing is his strength to protect his niche as was mentioned. His self promotion eclipses the content of what he sells. Those that don't know any better end up paying twice as much for a sturdy bike with comfortable riding position and many of whom will defend this...lol.

matthew_deaner

Regarding friction shifting... I agree that having friction shifting capability is a nice fallback option in the event of mechanical problems... But in this link Grant argues that friction shifting is better than indexed, and lists a number of reasons why he believes this to be the case. I have ridden bikes with indexed shifters and with friction shifters, and I appreciate the convenience and practicality of indexed shifting. Just my opinion. Obviously, other riders feel the same as me, as exclusively friction shifters have almost disappeared from the marketplace.

I own a touring bike with barend shifters (a Surly LHT, whose geometry matches that of the Rivendell Atlantis), and wouldn't consider using them in friction mode unless I had mechanical problems.

When I mentioned Grant's disdain for the "racing" crowd - I was really refering to competetive riding in general. I agree with Grant that the market is saturated with biking gear for the competitive/racing community... and that it would be good to have more balence to make cycling seem like a more inclusive sport. Right now, I am age 30 and I race, so, at this stage in my life, much of Rivendell's philosophy is lost on me. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if I gravitated towards Rivendell-style bikes in middle age. I love the timeless look of their bikes, and they seem more like an investment to me than lightweight, often fad-prone racing bikes. And I really don't think that Riv's pricing is that bad.

Brian_1

You were doing so well until the end of your post.

Grant is a smart marketing person protecting/promoting his little niche in the biz. What do you all do to support your families?

Newsflash! We're all pitched (subtly to blatantly) products that maybe we really shouldn't buy, but all of us "comply-to-buy" (or not) based upon smooth marketing and our ability to make reasoned decisions. Ever wonder how much $ is spent persuading us to buy brand-x?

The option of having a friction mode along with index-shifting is a plus for recreational riding/touring, but for all the category "racers" here on BF, I agree - who needs friction (although on some of his stages Lance did use a friction lever to control one of his derailleurs).

My (other) BF posts reflect my perspective on Rivendell and why less than the latest and greatest maybe isn't such a bad thing.

BTW, I ride an average of 120-150 miles a week (less in winter season) here in Arizona, and I consider myself a recreational cyclist - nothing more.

I'm still waiting to read the race results of the BF posters here with the flashy racing bikes who decry the old bike technology- so far I haven't heard about many BF racers being mentioned in the VeloNews magazine race results - but hope springs eternal.

Brian_1

Understood Matthew. Thanks for clarifying.

Brian_1

About me you're clueless. Try bringing up a hx of my posts as a primer. Go get a piece of banana cream pie at The Apple Pan and enjoy the day.

DocRay

Petersen is FOS. According to him, bikes evolved until the 1940s, then they got perfected. If you believe that, you might as well live in a cave. Petersen neglects that racers do 240km days for a month.
His major marketing point is when his frames break, they can be fixed (at a ridiculous price). Read all the BS you want, but in the end , he's marketing a warehouse of old, heavy, whippy steel frames that no one else can sell, at ridiculous markup. Oh, and gravity? that's a fad.

If you really respect his opinions: buy a Penny Farthing or a hybrid.

I agree, the luddite steelhead retro throw back with more money than brains niche is unique, and Trek will never fill that niche, because Trek plans to still be in business in 5 years.

hoodooguru

So computers are nice but they are too fast and need a perfect operating environment to work correctly and faster typing isn't better. On a manual typewriter you really have to think carefully about every letter. Here you can buy one of ours for 2800.00. We call it a country computer. XTR derailleur is an extra 200.00.

tarwheel 

Personally I think Rivendell is a breath of fresh air in the cycling industry. Most bike companies and marketers seemed to be aimed at emulating racers, whether that makes sense or not. Are most cyclists served well by riding bikes with handlebars so low that their necks aches, their hands go numb, and they can't see the road ahead? Is light weight really the ultimate goal of good frames and equipment? Is speed really the most important factor in enjoying a bike ride?

Many of the so-called improvements in frames and equipment are merely excuses for bike companies to convince cyclists that they need to upgrade -- that is, spend more money. From my experience, most lightweight equipment is also inferior in terms of durability and sometimes function. Ten-speed drivetrains are a perfect example of this -- the chains and cassettes on my 10-speed bike wear out about twice as often as my 9-speed, yet they cost considerably more money. On my newest bike, I installed Dura-Ace downtube shifters and I'm starting to like them better than my STIs in many respects (plus they cost less than 1/5 as much).

I also disagree with your premise Rivendell's frames are overpriced. Have you checked the prices of lugged steel frames lately? It is hard to find one for less than $1,500. Rivendell's Ramboillet can be bought for $1,400 including the headset (Ultegra), and it is a quality lugged frame with a very nice design and finish. It has features that you can't find on many frames unless you order a custom -- such as an extended head tube, eyelets for fenders and racks, and slack seat tube angles.

I, for one, am grateful that Rivendell is around to counterbalance Trek, Giant, Specialized and all of the other bike companies that seem to be designing their bikes more for racers than regular people.