1994 Riv
Steve Palincsar
> 1994 Rivendell
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This is the original Rivendell bicycle. The first one offered for sale
> by Grant Peterson and Rivendell Bicycle Works. There was only one
> model, this one. It is from the first batch and was built by
> Waterford. I chose the burnt orange color because it was the closest
> to Molteni orange I could get. My wife says it is her favorite bicycle
> of mine and told me to never sell it.
>
> http://gallery.me.com/rodendahl#100196
>
> Size - 57cm c-t-c, 57cm tt
> Tube set - Reynolds 753 frame, Reynolds 531 forks
> Color - burnt orange, navy blue accent
> Rear derailleur - Campagnolo Record for 8 sp
> Front derailleur - Campagnolo Record for 8 sp
> Crank set - Campagnolo Record for 8 sp, 52x42
> Bottom bracket - Phil Wood 111mm
> Headset - Chris King, 1" threaded, no logo
> Brakes - Campagnolo Cobalto
> Brake levers/Shifters - Campagnolo Ergo Power Titanium for 8 sp
> Hubs - Campagnolo Nuovo/Super Record 127mm (there are other sets of
> wheels)
> Rims - Mavic GP 4
> Tires - Clements Paris Roubaix (fat tubulars)
> Freewheel - Sachs 7 sp (works very well with Campy 8sp shifters)
> Stem - Nitto
> Handlebars - Nitto
> Water bottle cages - titanium from Rivendell (brand unknown)
> Water bottle - Bridgestone Owners' Bunch 1993 (for show)
> Saddle - Brooks B.17 Rivendell Rider
>
> Price - much cheaper than a new Rivendell custom.
>
> How does it ride? Great. The fit and comfort is spot on.
--http://forums.serotta.com/showthread.php?t=93542
See, now /that/ is what a Rivendell is supposed to look like, not no
2TT2 much.
Aaron Thomas
Steve Palincsar
> That's a beautiful bike! I love the Molteni-ish orange (but not crazy
> about the dark head tube). And it has a relatively horizontal TT. Yay!
Yay indeed. Back before the Madness, there were some beautiful
Rivendells for sure.
> Unfortunately (or fortunately for my wallet), it isn't my size...
I don't believe it's for sale anyway.
Joe Bernard
Bruce Herbitter
While the standard does have classically beuatiful lines, more recent bikes with some upslope (like the Ram and Saluki/Hilsen) are beautiful as well. I didn't love the Hillborne in pictures, but a local friend has one and it is strikingly good looking. I'd ride a Diaga-bomba in a heartbeat too (though not a Hunqa unter-tuber)
CycloFiend
>> http://gallery.me.com/rodendahl#100196
> See, now /that/ is what a Rivendell is supposed to look like, not no
> 2TT2 much.
Don't want no undertube, don't buy no undertube - it seems odd to be talking
about this like these don't exist -
http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/3108/mark_s_roadeo.jpg
http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/0987/AHH_61_ff_300.jpg
I'm glad that GP has evolved his design ideas from 1994 - it would be sad if
he had not. The additional clearances he's added back to "road" frames is
one thing I like, which is pretty lacking in that early model.
It's interesting too to look at the amount of seatpost showing on that
setup. That '94 Riv is set up like a race machine - max extension seatpost
to ensure the smallest frame (we'll come back to that idea in a second) and
the bars down low to ensure a nice flat, level back when powering along.
It's a race position paradigm. Which is neither good nor bad - it certainly
isn't where most of us are.
Regarding the frame size -
the idea bandied about back then (and earlier, of course) was that you
wanted a small frame to ensure a stiff _triangle_ . We bought mountain
bikes that way (until the advent of suspension) and we bought our road bikes
that way. This whole idea of compact frames came from mountain bikes to road
bikes (via Giant and their TCR series ridden by the ONCE squad in the pro
peleton). These still had tiny triangles, but much, much longer seat posts
which enabled fewer sizes. Expanded (as practiced by GP) took that idea and
stretched bits of the design (headtubes longer and up-angle reduced) to
allow more real-world rider positioning. And in doing so, moved away from
the triangulation.
Spent most of yesterday's ride counting "race" bike brands (i.e. mainstream)
which use long, tall headtubes, creating a convex polygon. Most of 'em. And
they do look more "wrong" to me than a second tube. Some of that is
aesthetics, possibly, but it does make me understand a bit what Grant might
be pondering as he looks at things.
- J
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Gallery updates now appear here - http://cyclofiend.blogspot.com
"'You both ride your bike?' He held his hands out and grabbed imaginary
handlebars, grinning indulgently, eyeing Tom's helmet. Double disbeleif:
not one, but two grown Americans riding bicycles."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Zodiac"
Tim McNamara
Jim Cloud
Road Standard as singularly representative of Grant Peterson's design
philosophy at that time. As you know, there were three original
models of Rivendells that were available initially. These were the
Road Standard, the All Rounder and a Mountain bike.
The Road Standard was oriented as a more competitive, racy model
(similar to the Bridgestone RB-1). It was designed for close to
moderate clearance brakes (the SunTour Cyclone model sidepulls were
available from Rivendell and appeared on a test model in the old
"Bicycle Guide" magazine). Even in this model, however, the extended
head tube was a standard specification in the first catalogs and order
forms that I've seen. The first catalog that I have (Summer 1996)
states "Higher handlebars good!", so this seems have been part of the
Rivendell design philosophy from very early on.
The "All-Rounder" model of the original Rivendell was, in my opinion,
quite similar to the later Atlantis bike and some subsequent Rivendell
bikes (e.g. Saluki) . It was designed for 26" wheels (650B wheels and
tires weren't really available at that time) and cantilever brakes.
The catalog states that the inspiration for this model was based
somewhat on the Bridgestone XO-1 (which was, in turn, "modeled after
the French 650B-wheeled touring and the British 'rough stuff' bikes").
The bike that is the subject of this post is only partially
representative of the original Rivendells, it's not the definitive
example.
Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ
On Jul 17, 9:08 am, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>http://gallery.me.com/rodendahl#100196
> > See, now /that/ is what a Rivendell is supposed to look like, not no
> > 2TT2 much.
>
> Don't want no undertube, don't buy no undertube - it seems odd to be talking
> about this like these don't exist -
>
>
> http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/0987/AHH_61_ff_30...
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com
> Singlespeed - Working Bikes
>
Tim McNamara
On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:08 AM, CycloFiend wrote:
> on 7/16/11 3:17 PM, Steve Palincsar at pali...@his.com wrote:
>>> http://gallery.me.com/rodendahl#100196
>
>> See, now /that/ is what a Rivendell is supposed to look like, not no
>> 2TT2 much.
>
> Don't want no undertube, don't buy no undertube - it seems odd to be talking
> about this like these don't exist -
>
> http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/3108/mark_s_roadeo.jpg
>
> http://assets.rivbike.com/images/products/full/0000/0987/AHH_61_ff_300.jpg
>
> I'm glad that GP has evolved his design ideas from 1994 - it would be sad if
> he had not. The additional clearances he's added back to "road" frames is
> one thing I like, which is pretty lacking in that early model.
It is good that his thinking has gradually changed and evolved- stasis is pretty much death. Look at Campagnolo which didn't change anything other than appearances for years and years at a time- which cost them dearly when Shimano and Sun Tour started pushing development and improved functioning heavily and has relegated them to a boutique maker.
> It's interesting too to look at the amount of seatpost showing on that
> setup. That '94 Riv is set up like a race machine - max extension seatpost
> to ensure the smallest frame (we'll come back to that idea in a second) and
> the bars down low to ensure a nice flat, level back when powering along.
> It's a race position paradigm. Which is neither good nor bad - it certainly
> isn't where most of us are.
Or the seller just bought an undersized bike used. This bike may not reflect what Grant was thinking about sizing back then (in fact I am sure it does not, from my recall of my discussions with him about the All-Rounder I bought shortly after this).
> Regarding the frame size -
> the idea bandied about back then (and earlier, of course) was that you
> wanted a small frame to ensure a stiff _triangle_ . We bought mountain
> bikes that way (until the advent of suspension) and we bought our road bikes
> that way. This whole idea of compact frames came from mountain bikes to road
> bikes (via Giant and their TCR series ridden by the ONCE squad in the pro
> peleton). These still had tiny triangles, but much, much longer seat posts
> which enabled fewer sizes. Expanded (as practiced by GP) took that idea and
> stretched bits of the design (headtubes longer and up-angle reduced) to
> allow more real-world rider positioning. And in doing so, moved away from
> the triangulation.
Stiffness and triangulation etc. tend to be over-emphasized. The "double diamond" frame is only approximately triangulated at best (and then only in the smallest sizes) but the stiffness of the materials used more than make up for this. As a guy who fits a 63 cm frame, I've never ridden a truly triangulated bike and it's never mattered. Nor has having an upsloping TT or "compact" frame made any difference in the riding experience or durability of the frame. This sort of discussion tends to end up splitting frog's hairs IMHO.
CycloFiend
> Stiffness and triangulation etc. tend to be over-emphasized. The "double
> diamond" frame is only approximately triangulated at best (and then only in
> the smallest sizes) but the stiffness of the materials used more than make up
> for this. As a guy who fits a 63 cm frame, I've never ridden a truly
> triangulated bike and it's never mattered. Nor has having an upsloping TT or
> "compact" frame made any difference in the riding experience or durability of
> the frame. This sort of discussion tends to end up splitting frog's hairs
> IMHO.
Wasn't pushing the argument - just trying to articulate how things have
changed over the years. Being in and around bike shops at that time, I
recall the small triangle argument repeated a lot. After that, it was the
heyday of "vertically compliant and laterally stiff" which seems to be
fading as a buzzword (buzz-phrase?) but gave rise to those wonky Colnago
chainstays, as an example.
- J
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
³Velvet pillows, safari parks, sunglasses: people have become woolly mice.
They still have bodies that can walk for five days and four nights through a
desert of snow, without food, but they accept praise for having taken a
one-hour bicycle ride.² - Tim Krabbe, "The Rider"
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
Joe Bernard
charlie
and up sloping head tubes minimize the whole triangle thing and the
second top tube restores that. This of course keeps the bar position
high at same time keeping the frame stronger plus the frame also fits
more variable sized riders ( the real reason) and allows a bit more
clearance over the top tube. On the other hand.....The level top tube
and low head tube is the traditional look but those dang bars end up
too low for most of us aging bicyclers for rides longer than five
miles. I figure there's more than one way to skin a cat and they are
just bicycles so......go Grant, you make some fine machines !
On Jul 17, 11:37 am, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> on 7/17/11 10:15 AM, Tim McNamara at tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
>
> > Stiffness and triangulation etc. tend to be over-emphasized. The "double
> > diamond" frame is only approximately triangulated at best (and then only in
> > the smallest sizes) but the stiffness of the materials used more than make up
> > for this. As a guy who fits a 63 cm frame, I've never ridden a truly
> > triangulated bike and it's never mattered. Nor has having an upsloping TT or
> > "compact" frame made any difference in the riding experience or durability of
> > the frame. This sort of discussion tends to end up splitting frog's hairs
> > IMHO.
>
> Wasn't pushing the argument - just trying to articulate how things have
> changed over the years. Being in and around bike shops at that time, I
> recall the small triangle argument repeated a lot. After that, it was the
> heyday of "vertically compliant and laterally stiff" which seems to be
> fading as a buzzword (buzz-phrase?) but gave rise to those wonky Colnago
> chainstays, as an example.
>
> - J
>
> --
> Jim Edgar
> ³Velvet pillows, safari parks, sunglasses: people have become woolly mice.
> They still have bodies that can walk for five days and four nights through a
> desert of snow, without food, but they accept praise for having taken a
> one-hour bicycle ride.² - Tim Krabbe, "The Rider"
>
charlie
jamison brosseau
Michael_S
jinxed
Here is the mock up I did.
William
jinxed
If I close my eyes and picture the perfect Rivendell bikes/colors...1. Kostman's All Rounder ala orange/dark h.t. 2. David's (cyclotourist) Custom in "traditional" Imron blue/cream h.t.
Digressing, If those two bikes were ever pictured together, I would have to send a letter of apologies to Monica Bellucci notifying her she had been unseated from "the most beautiful thing photographed" throne.
When/if my bike ever gets new color, it will be one of those 2 schemes. Even if I have to go outside RBW to get the Orange/Navy combo.
At the end of the day though, I just ride my bike and dont really give a thought to it's color. That happens when it's snowing and I'm staring at pictures of the Cali Contingent riding Mt. Diablo.
erik jensen
cyclotourist
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/_d0L7WLNEKAJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from
improving their taste than from improving their performance. - RTMS