So, with Rivendell bikes are you supposed to get...

[Michael]

a more stable, more predictable handling, safer feeling, with less road vibration, bike than a modern geometry race bike?

 

Because this is what I experience on the Bleriot vs. my race type bike.

Not sure if the frame or 40mm tires at low pressures contributes more to this.

 

But was wondering if this was the intended effect of the designers at Rivbike.

 

 

[dougP]

Rivs are stable, predictable & comfortable.  IMHO, they are the way a bike should ride.  So Grant has hit the mark on those issues.  Whether he gave any consideration to how his design would compare to a modern racing bike is a question only he can answer.  My uneducated guess is that both frame and tires contribute to these qualities.  I've ridden my Atlantis a couple of times with narrow, high pressure tires.  It "goes quicker" but the ride is awful & the handling twitchy, as may be expected of a bike designed for a minimum 35 mm width tire. 

dougP

[Michael]

I really enjoy the stability alot. I feel much safer on it than on the race bike.

I wonder if this is the way steel bikes feel in general, or is this the signature Rivendell "ride".

 

[Steve Palincsar]

the latter

[Matthew J]

Race geometry has a lot to do with the 'nervous' handling of a race bike. 

 

If someone were to make a modern race bike with steel tubing, the experience would not be much different than riding a carbon fiber offering. 

 

On the other hand, a CF bike with Riv geometry would have similar ride characteristics to the Riv.  Arguably a CF Riv would damp vibrations less.  But this could be managed with thicker CF tubing.  Of course then the bike would weigh in close to a steel Riv, obviating the primary reason for going CF.

On Monday, January 7, 2013 11:57:05 PM UTC-6, Michael wrote:

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Vibration damping has more to do with tire size/construction/pressure. It's probably true that the frame plays a bigger part in vibration damping for extremely high-pressure tires. Put some 700x23 at 120psi on your Atlantis, and the ride will be HARSH.

[Cyclofiend Jim]

Yep.

And it's a combination of awareness of variables.

To call out a couple:  Normal volume tires require clearance.  They also require you think about where you put the bottom bracket, as if you just slap a set of 44 cm tires onto frame designed for 23's (well, if you actually _could_ do so...) alluva sudden your bb has jumped a centimeter higher.  That changes how the bike enters and exits turns.  (Have to go way back into the archives to find the specific RR, but recall GP writing about how higher bb designs felt like they were in a trough. Probably paraphrasing and don't hold him responsible for my imprecise recollections...)

- J / cyclofiend.com

[Jeremy Till]

Although we don't like to talk about it here in our little world of lugs and quill stems, many mainstream CF bike manufacturers have started to realize the advantages of something closer to the Riv geometry. Many of them have "endurance" road models right up through the fanciest carbon fiber and component spec that feature taller headtubes and slacker angles than the full-on race-spec team machines.  Of course, there's still the matter of fit--these bikes are often fit a couple of sizes smaller than the Rivendell fitting philosophy, and riding a smaller bike is liable to feel squirrely and unstable when compared to a Riv with Riv geometry and Riv sizing. 

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:32:59 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:

[PATRICK MOORE]

Stable, predictable, comfortable, but by no means sluggish: my Rivs (all roads) turn in "intuitively" with no hesitation. In fact, they handle quicker than other road bikes I've ridden. But the last one was built in '03, so perhaps Grant's designs have moved toward slower turning? Certainly the Sam Hill didn't turn in like my roads.

It will be interesting to ride the Ram and compare it to the roads. I expect it will fall somewhere in between, which is probably good since I just discovered it accepts 35 mm tires (34 mm actual -- Kojaks, on 27mm rims with very possible room for flattish fenders if carefully installed. 30 mm tubulars ....!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/5sMm5BK63_IJ.

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.

--

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[Ryan Ray]

I like my riv because I know all reasonable precautions have been taken for safety and comfort over trivial improvements on speed or weight or price.

Oh and yes, it looks great too.

- Ryan

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:32:59 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:

[Joe Bernard]

Rivs have an almost magical ability to float and swoop and dive over just about any surface. Don't kid yourselves about comparisons to other bikes: There's something special in them tubes :-)

 

Joe Bernard

Vallejo, CA.

[Joe K]

I had had two modest steel bikes before, both low-to-mid-level
Raleighs from the 70s; also had borrowed a few bikes. When I learned
about Rivendell, I decided it was time I found out what that vaunted
"good steel ride" feels like, and ordered a custom, circa 2000.
It's true, nothing else felt like this, Could be partly because I
was riding the wrong size just before, but my first Raleigh was
roughly the correct size. Tire size and type were fairly consistent
across all bikes (28 mm or 1-1/4")..

[ted]

> If someone were to make a modern race bike with steel tubing, the
> experience would not be much different than riding a carbon fiber
> offering.

I have an old race bike (Gios Torrino) that is built with steel tubing
(old standard diameter main tubes). It is very quick and responsive. A
lot of folks would call it harsh and twitchy, though when I was racing
crits with it I thought it was great (right tool for the task).

I don't believe the material you build a bike out of drives the kind
of ride and handling you get. It does affect how you spec the tubes
etc. to get the result you want.

[Brewster Fong]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:47:13 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Till wrote:

Although we don't like to talk about it here in our little world of lugs and quill stems, many mainstream CF bike manufacturers have started to realize the advantages of something closer to the Riv geometry. Many of them have "endurance" road models right up through the fanciest carbon fiber and component spec that feature taller headtubes and slacker angles than the full-on race-spec team machines. 

Yup, there are two CF mfrs that have these exact specs - About 5 years or so  ago, Hampsten came out with its CF tournesol built by Don Parlee. It was designed for fenders and I believe could fit 700x30 or 32 mm tires. It wasn't a big seller (sold about 50 or so CF bikes) and discontinued to focus on steel and ti.

More recently, Calfee now offers its Adventure geometry optino that was designed for 700x32 tires AND fenders. It was reviewed, and liked, by Jan H.:

http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/BQCalfeeTest.pdf

 

Of course, there's still the matter of fit--these bikes are often fit a couple of sizes smaller than the Rivendell fitting philosophy, and riding a smaller bike is liable to feel squirrely and unstable when compared to a Riv with Riv geometry and Riv sizing. 

Yup, what makes Rivendell's different is its unique geometry and fit.  If you want Grant's philosophy, then that is what you should get! Good Luck!

[Jeremy Till]

I was actually referring to things like the Spec. Roubaix/Secteur, Cervelo RS, Trek Domane, Felt Z series, etc. --mass produced MCRB's that feature taller heatubes, slacker head angles, longer chainstays, etc.  I should think that with a custom builder like Parlee or Calfee you could get as close to Rivendell geo's, fit, and clearance/functionality as is possible but with carbon instead of steel.  Jan definitely liked that Calfee.

[ted]

Yes, however do the mass produced CF bikes you'r referencing take what
RBW calls wide tires? How about fenders.
My quick look for Specialized Roubaix specs didn't turn up a max tire
size but it looked like they are sold with 25s.
The tightest riv (the Rodeao) takes 33s with full fenders, the others
allow significantly larger tires than that.

[William]

Brewster wrote:

"More recently, Calfee now offers its Adventure geometry optino that was designed for 700x32 tires AND fenders. It was reviewed, and liked, by Jan H.:

http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/BQCalfeeTest.pdf "

That's not entirely true.  The bike was delivered with skinnier tires and fenders.  Jan had to remove the fenders in order to make room for the 32s, and only then did the bike "come into its own".  He loved the bike.  He loved it so much that he didn't mind the fact that the Calfee was not a low-trail bike.  

So, that $6400 Calfee was designed for 700x32  OR  fenders and 700x28, but not both at the same time.  It's a splendid bike, all the same.  

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:39:47 AM UTC-8, Brewster Fong wrote:

[Jeremy Till]

I wasn't endorsing those bikes or comparing them to the overall ride and functionality of Rivendells.  I only ride steel bikes that have decent clearance.  I was simply pointing out that aspects of the Rivendell geometry have been adopted by mainstream manufacturers of CF bikes.  

[ted]

I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just noting an important
aspect that I don't think the mainstream is picking up yet.

[Brewster Fong]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:54:01 PM UTC-8, William wrote:

Brewster wrote:

"More recently, Calfee now offers its Adventure geometry optino that was designed for 700x32 tires AND fenders. It was reviewed, and liked, by Jan H.:

http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/BQCalfeeTest.pdf "

That's not entirely true.  The bike was delivered with skinnier tires and fenders.  Jan had to remove the fenders in order to make room for the 32s, and only then did the bike "come into its own".  He loved the bike.  He loved it so much that he didn't mind the fact that the Calfee was not a low-trail bike.  

So, that $6400 Calfee was designed for 700x32  OR  fenders and 700x28, but not both at the same time.  It's a splendid bike, all the same.  

That's true. But after the article, Calfee now offers the Adventure with a 57mm brake option to fit 700x32 or a disc brake option to fit 700x35!  And, both options now come with eyelets for racks/fenders.  The one thing about Calfee is if you want something specific, he is pretty accommodating and can do pretty much anything. For more go here:

http://www.calfeedesign.com/product/single-frames-pricing/

Good Luck!