FS: Waterford Rivendell Road Standard/Custom

[rw1911]

For Sale: 61cm Waterford USA built Rivendell Road Standard, maybe a custom, but I have not been able to validate either way so let's call it a Road Standard. I believe from 1996/97.  Built with Reynolds 753 tubing with a 531 fork.  The frameset can accommodate up to a 30mm Grand Bois Cypress tire. (shown)

Wonderful condition with only minor marks.  Absolutely no dents or rust.  The photo shows a complete bike, but I am looking to sell as a frame and fork with a period Shimano headset.  The price is $1350 plus shipping.

Here is some information on the Road Standard from Cyclofiend:

http://www.cyclofiend.com/Images/rbw/gen1/rivcat05_roadstandard.jpg

http://www.cyclofiend.com/Images/rbw/gen1/rivcat05_framespecs.jpg

If a complete bike is desired, I can accommodate that with a very nice Rivendell build.  Just let me know and we can work out some options and price.  I'm not looking for any trades, but could *possibly* be enticed by a Hunqapillar or Bombadil.  Please contact direct/off-list.

Best,

Ron

[Patrick Moore]

Ron -- very nice, and thanks for posting the old catalogue page: blast from the past! If I'd had one of these instead of the Rambouillet, I might have kept it!

Why are you selling it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

*************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on the rim of which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. Carthusian motto

 

[Ron Wilson]

Hi Patrick,

Thank you, it is a very nice bike. I purchased it in hopes of a more
lively bike than my Rambouillet, which it certainly is, but I found at
my weight (6'2", 235ish) that it's a little too light. Riding both
back to back I actually prefer the stiffness and stability of the Ram.
If I was 200 or less, I would choose the Road over the Ram.

Best,

Ron

> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the

> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/85ZPfPsvNak/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

[Fullylugged]

Nice looking bike. You can date it by the serial # on the bottom bracket. The usual Waterford dating method is used. Yours has no head tube extension and appears to have a level TT, so an earlier date might be right. Possibly repainted along the way, because it has later DT decals.

[Ryan Fleming]

I think it is a 1996/1997 and the $1350 asking price is about the same as it was then  (1.2-1.35K). Nice as the frame is,I don't believe it's a custom and  $1350 might be a big ask... 

[Mark in Beacon]

Well, I don't think it can be a stock Road Standard, at least not from the catalog year posted, because those apparently had clearance for a 700x35, whereas this frame does not go wider than 30. Unless one or the other fact is incorrect. Or it changed year to year and this is a different year than the catalog.

In terms of price, I think there was a discussion recently about a Wilbury that was actually listed over the old price, and that was not, as this one is, an almost 20-year old frame. Don't forget that in addition to possible intrinsic value, and collectability/rareness, there is inflation--a similar frame today goes for at least a grand more. Then there is simple desirability: Try buying a Schwinn Paramount for the listed catalog price.

[Mark in Beacon]

Forgot to add, if it did actually clear 35mm tires, like the one in the posted catalog, or a current Rodeo, I suspect it would be sold already. 30mm is pretty skinny for most Rivnicks.

[Eric Daume]

700x35 clearance in 1996 is likely different than 700x35 clearance today. It seems like all tires were overstated for width back then, whereas just some are today.

Eric

--

[Bruce Herbitter]

If you switch it to 650B, you can get 38mm pari motos in there! 😎

Sent from my iPad

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/85ZPfPsvNak/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Joe Bernard]

My experience with used Riv prices over the years is that they fluctuate much more than, say, Bridgestones. This is especially true with "Rivendell" branded frames because there's a good bit of confusion between standard Waterfords and the later customs. Plus A/Rs seem to have a particular cult following, and only a few Mountains were ever made. In other words, a Riv is worth something you think is reasonable/possible, minus whatever folks will actually pay.

[Tim Gavin]

My Road Standard, a '97 Waterford build, can barely clear a 700 x 28.  Tire clearance doesn't seem to be as standard as you think.  Mine has an extended head tube, but I can't tell if the top tube is sloped 1.5 degrees or not.

Pictured with 650 x 38 Pari Motos, with Paul Racer calipers, and 45 mm VO "hammered" fenders.

--

[Bruce Herbitter]

The earliest ones were not yet called "standard".  They are circa 1995. Old decal style, level TT and no HT extension. Shimano dropouts.  Later bikes have Technociclo dropouts, sloped TT, extended HT and later decals.   Tire size is always a function of available brakes. As reach improved, GP was able to design around bigger rubber.  I'm not alone in converting mine to 650B to get more air space in my tires.  My bike is from 1995. Also repainted, but my painter was able to source a NOS set of correct decals.  

Sent from my iPad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/85ZPfPsvNak/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark in Beacon]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:52:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Daume wrote:700x35 clearance in 1996 is likely different than 700x35 clearance today. It seems like all tires were overstated for width back then, whereas just some are today.

I suspect the catalog above is slightly newer than the bicycle for sale. You are right, a lot of tires were mismarked and now things are more accurate. But I still doubt Rivendell was advertising frame clearance specs based on a sidewall claim of tire x or y. Also, copy reads "it's designed for modern sidepulls, yet it accommodates tires up to a 700 x 35."

Tim Gavin wrote: Tire clearance doesn't seem to be as standard as you think.

This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that the specs would be off by as much as 7mm. Again, I suspect the catalog refers to a different model year than this bicycle. I could be wrong though--I don't seem to be right as often as I think;^)

Fully lugged wrote: Tire size is always a function of available brakes.

I don't think there were many years in which a sidepull of one brand or another was not produced that could clear a 35mm tire. (Sorry about the awkward construction, need coffee.)

[Tim Gavin]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM, 'Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Tim Gavin wrote: Tire clearance doesn't seem to be as standard as you think.

This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that the specs would be off by as much as 7mm. Again, I suspect the catalog refers to a different model year than this bicycle. I could be wrong though--I don't seem to be right as often as I think;^)

Fully lugged wrote: Tire size is always a function of available brakes.

I don't think there were many years in which a sidepull of one brand or another was not produced that could clear a 35mm tire. (Sorry about the awkward construction, need coffee.)

I understand that Grant always tried to max out the clearance available of short-reach brakes. Still, the fact remains that my Riv Road Standard won't clear 700 x 29 (actual measurement, not manufacturer's size) without rubbing on the fork crown and brake bridge.

(lousy picture but it shows the limited clearance.  700 x 28 (actual measurement) Kenda Qwest shown)

​

I purchased my Riv used, so I don't know the circumstances of its creation.  It's a Waterford, July '97 build.  Maybe they did a Road Standard with semi-custom geometry?

I thank the Reader articles on 650b conversion for helping me fit fatter tires (with 650b) and enjoy my Riv much more.  I have another 90s lugged steel road bike (Giordana XL-Eco) that can't even fit a 700 x 28 (actual) tire, and the skinny tires limit my enjoyment of it.  I'm a big guy and I like gravel and dirt, so I vastly prefer a wider tire.

Cheers,

Tim

[Steve Palincsar]

On 11/25/2015 07:50 AM, 'Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch wrote:

Fully lugged wrote: Tire size is always a function of available brakes.

I don't think there were many years in which a sidepull of one brand or another was not produced that could clear a 35mm tire. (Sorry about the awkward construction, need coffee.)

Actually, I think this is way wrong.  My 1991 George Longstaff was built for cantilever brakes because in 1991 only cantilevers would clear a 28mm tire.  There wasn't a centerpull or long reach sidepull on the market that would. 

Also, when the Rambouillet was introduced in 2002, much was made of the fact that the then newly introduced Shimano long reach dual pivot sidepull made this frame possible -- and that brake on that frame will only accommodate a 28mm tire with fenders (and even then you have to play games with the cable tension to get the pads far enough apart to clear a Roly Poly 28mm tire). 

[WETH]

My frame is similar to Tim's. Attached photo shows clearance under rear brake bridge with a 700 x 28 Rolly Polly. Following Tim's lead, I too successfully converted to a 650b.

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-5, Tim Gavin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM, 'Mark in Beacon' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tim Gavin wrote: Tire clearance doesn't seem to be as standard as you think.
>
> This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that the specs would be off by as much as 7mm. Again, I suspect the catalog refers to a different model year than this bicycle. I could be wrong though--I don't seem to be right as often as I think;^)
>
>
>
> Fully lugged wrote: Tire size is always a function of available brakes.
>
> I don't think there were many years in which a sidepull of one brand or another was not produced that could clear a 35mm tire. (Sorry about the awkward construction, need coffee.)
>
>
>
> I understand that Grant always tried to max out the clearance available of short-reach brakes. Still, the fact remains that my Riv Road Standard won't clear 700 x 29 (actual measurement, not manufacturer's size) without rubbing on the fork crown and brake bridge.
>
>
> (lousy picture but it shows the limited clearance.  700 x 28 (actual measurement) Kenda Qwest shown)
>
> ​
>
>
>

[hsmitham]

That's really cool Erl. Did you notice any pedal strike tendencies with the lower BB height? I figure it's a non issue with road riding.

Tail Winds,

~Hugh

[Tim Gavin]

I can easily scrape a pedal if I'm cranking while leaned over in a turn.  But, it's also quite easy to avoid that by not pedalling when leaned over in a turn.

In exchange, the very low BB makes the bike handle great because my weight is so low.  It also helps with flat-footing when stopped.

In my experience, the drawbacks of 650b conversion (low BB/pedal scrape, non-popular tire and wheel sizes) are vastly outweighed by the positives (38 mm tires, fenders).

Tim

--

[Bruce Herbitter]

Hugh

I never have pedal strike issues on my 54.5 cm conversion.  It's really a good bike to do it on. 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/85ZPfPsvNak/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[WETH]

Hugh,
Thanks. My experiences mirror Tim's. Pedal strike if I lean too far pedaling while turning. I love the 650b wheels/tires and I can fit fenders! A win-win for me. Photos of my build here:
https://flickr.com/photos/86975051@N08/sets/72157646658697853
-Erl

[WETH]

https://flickr.com/photos/86975051@N08/sets/72157646658697853
Oops-a linking fail.
Erl

[WETH]

https://flickr.com/photos/86975051@N08/sets/72157646658697853

[William deRosset]

Dear Mark,

Those are 32's in the frame (GB Cyprès are actual 32-622 tires whatever they're marked). 

A 32-622 ends up being about r = 344mm and a 48mm brake reach yields about exactly that, depending on the bridge/fork crown braze on dimensions. 

The Roads and "road standard" and "long-lows" were all built around short-reach brakes, and went to a 48mm brake reach spec to maximize clearance. Now, that 48mm had 1mm of so of float upward before the brake required modification, and Waterford reserved/reserves a 2mm placement tolerance for bridges, so if you got one that was on the short end of okay, then a 28 or a 29 might be the biggest thing you could stuff in there--and it would still pass QC. The "right" thing to do for 1 1/4" tires + fenders in the late 1990's would have been to go to cantilevers, which I think was available on request for the Long-Lows, but some folks hated/hate them....

Once the BR-600 came back into production, the spec got changed to take advantage of that brake's increased (standard) reach. With them, even with a mid-slot spec, you can get a 32 under the bridges easily, and a 35 fits okay, depending on your braze-ons. 

We're in better shape for real-world tires now than twenty years ago, that is certain, thanks in part to Mr. Petersen's advocacy, for sporting-quality clincher tires in that size thanks to Mr. Heine's efforts, and for wide-ish tubulars, the myth and hoopla surrounding Paris-Roubaix.

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Mark in Beacon]

Thanks, Will, that's informative. I wonder if Jim has the date of the catalog page referenced in the original post. I suspect a claim of 35mm tire clearance would come after the bike was redesigned around the BR-600, and 32mm before, based on what you outline here.

Anyway, if the bike clears 32s with no issues, someone should buy it right away. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Mark in Beacon]

I'm pretty sure the guys at Ibis, talented as they were  (the handlebars were fabricated down the street) did not make the front sidepull on my 1993 Scorcher, which came stock with 41mm Specialized Nimbus tires (and actual or not, they were pretty damn fat). I'm not sure the exact model, but if memory serves it was a Dia Compe, with the lettering in script. Sure, maybe Shimano and Campy did not have grouppo brakesets for anything other than 25mm tires, but I still think the longer sidepulls were available, if you knew where to look. Obviously Scott Nichols and Wes Williams did. (Or, outside chance, it could be that they came across a stash of 100 NOS brakes. More likely it was one of the more staid selections from a BMX catalog). And what about replacement sidepull brakes for all those old Schwinns? Not all of them were CP. And aside from sidepulls, are we certain nobody in the world was making CP brakes in the 1990s?Maybe George L. didn't want to resort to a "second tier" brake? Anyway, the brake cleared those big old tires but only by a hair, and stopped okay, too. But it did get ugly fast with ice build up.

[Mark in Beacon]

Just for the heck of it, I dug up the copy of my old mag with the Scorcher on the cover, brake in evidence:

[Mark in Beacon]

Just read the review again after...23 years. I thought it was a bit related to the other thread getting lots of attention, the one having to do with saving ourselves from ourselves. Anyway, not the easiest to read in this reproduction, but I thought one or two people might enjoy it. If nothing else, I found out my views regarding bicycles, helmets, cars, and having fun have remained pretty consistent over the years! Happy Thanksgiving!

[rw1911]

Wow.  A lot of unexpected, but lively and good discussion here, but now it's seeming to get a bit off-topic.

Back on topic...  to address a few points that I have received privately and on the list related to this particular frame, or complete bike if you choose:

Model: I'm 99% sure this is a '96/97 Road Standard, but there is 1% of me that wonders if it is a Custom because it doesn't 100% meet the specs I have been able to find.  Probably just a variance in manufacturing though.  As far as I can tell the paint is original, showing great care with a some patina. Truly excellent for a nearly 20 year old frame.

Tire clearance:  I'm currently running Grand Bois Cypress 700x30 which IMHO are pretty large for a 700c *road* bike.  They are a true 30mm wide unlike many tires that measure much smaller than stated. (My 700x35 Marathon Racers are not even 30)  This is the maximum size on this frame due to vertical clearance.  There may be other, wider tires with a lower profile that may fit, but the dimensions of the current tires are the max.  Someone commented that 30's are small for the Riv crowd. Define Riv crowd... Grant has slowly moved from sporty versatile bikes to overbuilt all terrain vehicles and commuter bikes.

Why am I selling:  As stated in my original post, I own a Rambouillet.  It's a great bike but I find it a bit dead feeling.  I acquired the Road Standard in hopes that it would be the same as my Ram but more lively.  What I found is that its much more lively, a little too much so for preference due to my weight.  If I could split the difference between the Ram and the Road, I would be Goldilocks.

Price: A new Waterford US built Rodeo (the most similar current Riv offering) is 2300 plus a few moths wait.  Two similar sized Rambouillets (Toyo built in Japan, super high quality) have recently sold for ~1050 at auction.  I would consider this slightly more desirable than the Rams for being US built and Rivendell branded. That said, I am reasonably negotiable for a serious buyer.  One poster commented that they thought the price was out of line.  That's fine and their opinion, but poor etiquette. If you're honestly interested, PM or email me and we can discuss something that works for both of us.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Best,

Ron

[Fullylugged]

Ron:

I think your Road should go for more than a similar condition Rambouillet. The tubeset is silver brazed Reynolds 753 (heat Treated Manganese Moly) with Reynolds 531 (like 753 but not heat treated) fork tubes, all secured with the Richard Sachs designed lugs. The Ram used nice Japanese Tohouku-Miyata Chrome moly 4130 heat treated for the DT and CS, but not elsewhere. It's a different tube set. 753 is harder to work with, and reynolds only shipped to approved frame makers. Look at the dropouts to confirm if they are Shimano or not. In either case, the Ram dropouts are plainer than the Road. The Build quality of Ram and Road was always stated as equal (Toyo vs Waterford) according to RBW, and I accept their opinion, so no difference there. Waterford paint is better than Uemura/Panasonic who did the Rams. Finally, rarity. Over 1250 Rams were made, and far fewer Roads/Road Standards.

As you note, you have to spend $2,300 for today's roadish version and it still isn't made from 753.

Best wishes on your sale.

[Ryan Fleming]

Hi Ron

I was not intending to be rude but I'm sorry if it came across that way. That's a beautiful bike and I was just thinking that you might not get that price...but then again, you might. I paid about the same as your asking price for my 1997 A/R which came with a headset installed and if I was going to sell it....not...I would expect a  lot of people would balk if I asked for  the price I paid. On the other hand, to a collector, it could easily be worth r more. Whatever happens, the early Rivendells are lovely bikes and I hope it goes to a good home and somebody rides it. 

Again , my apologies...I was not dissing you or your bike. I'm from Winnipeg, where people love a bargain , so I hope you'll excuse me

Regards