Rivendell Road Frames
Zonmail
Any information regarding these bikes would be appreciated?
Jason Jimenez
Zonmail (zon...@aol.com) wrote:
: Any information regarding these bikes would be appreciated?
The best information is gotten off their web page, any search
engine and use rivendel or Grant Peterson. They give a lot of info there.
They are very classic and well thought out bikes. Kinda like a handmade
Bridgestone (although they never really existed). Good choice.
Jason "I wish I had an all-arounder" Jimenez
cog...@aol.com
The web page is a good start. I don't remember the exact address but
do a search on RIVENDELL BICYCLE WORKS.
I have maybe 2,000 miles on my 57.5cm Rivendell road and recommend
it highly. I'm a firm believer in proper sizing and for me, the standard
Riv road's longer top tube is perfect (they now have a shorter top tube
option too)... the 57.5 has a 58 top tube with a 56.5 top tube on the short
version. I noticed the lower bottom bracket first time out.... hard for me to describe but it is great descending and corning... probably a big part of the 'feel' of it.
No, I haven't noticed any problems with pedal clearance but
I haven't raced it in any 4-corner crits either. The steering is quite quick, but
not too squirrelly. It has somewhat longer chain stays (43cm) which may cause
it to transmit less rear wheel hit to the rider's seat... my guess only... but it
is a comfortable bike.
The workmanship is immaculate and the lugs are gorgeous (if you care about those things). The paint job is also superb.
It is not meant to be a 'superlight' steel bike like the 3.5 to 3.8 pound
steel frames you can find now (Ritchey, Waterford, others...) but you will
find that where strength vs weight becomes a trade off, the Rivendell tends
to prefer strength (longer butts, slightly thicker tube here or there... the web
page has all that). What you gain is a steel bike that rides great and will
really last ...the 'drawback' is probably an extra 1/2 pound (my guess).
Regards,
Peter Guyton
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <5ipnr2$jnb$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez05...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu
(Jason Jimenez) wrote:
> Zonmail (zon...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Any information regarding these bikes would be appreciated?
>
>
> The best information is gotten off their web page, any search
> engine and use rivendel or Grant Peterson. They give a lot of info there.
> They are very classic and well thought out bikes. Kinda like a handmade
> Bridgestone (although they never really existed). Good choice.
Or you could just go diectly to: http://www.veloworks.com/rivendell/
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven L. Sheffield (BOB #1765/IBOB #3) Disclaimer? What's that? |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| E-mail: ste...@veloworks.com / ste...@winterland.com |
| WWW: http://www.veloworks.com/rivendell/ |
| Voice: +1 415 296-9893 / Fax: +1 415 597-9849 / Ride yer bike! |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
nbce...@delphi.com
<cog...@aol.com> writes:
>page has all that). What you gain is a steel bike that rides great and will
>really last ...the 'drawback' is probably an extra 1/2 pound (my guess).
Brian Lafferty
John A. Lee
In a previous article, cog...@aol.com () says:
>It is not meant to be a 'superlight' steel bike like the 3.5 to 3.8 pound
>steel frames you can find now (Ritchey, Waterford, others...) but you will
>find that where strength vs weight becomes a trade off, the Rivendell tends
>to prefer strength (longer butts, slightly thicker tube here or there...
If one didn't know better, one might interprete this comment to
mean that Waterford 'superlight' frames aren't as durable as
Rivendells. This is ridiculous, and Grant Peterson's custom
specifications take a state-of-the-art Waterford 753/853 a step
backwards. This is not so say that the ones they braze for
Rivendell are not excellent frames-- it's just that the regular
Waterfords are better. We've sold hundreds of them, and they are
outstanding in every respect.
cog...@aol.com
Wow... I wasn't "dis"ing Waterfords... I too think they are fantastic frames.
My sole intent was to say that there exists a trade off between weight and
strength and that Rivendells reflect a slightly different design approach - it is
not an 'apples-to-apples' comparison. Perhaps this is wrong but I don't
believe you can avoid the trade off (at least when both bikes are made of the
same material - 753 - and connected the same way - lugs - and built by the
same people in the same factory). That said, a Waterford is plenty strong
enough for me and just about everyone. However, Grant decided purposefully
to spec his frames with custom tubes that are a bit beefier/heavier than
Waterford's and thus the increase in overall frame weight... and I still believe...
strength.
To say that the regular Waterfords are 'better' or that a Rivendell is a 'step
backward' is completely unfair. The difference in the bikes is simply the
difference in the designers choices and perhaps the typical customer for
whom they are trying to reach. I believe the Waterford is more of a strict
racing frame (and an absolutely splendid one at that) and that a Rivendell
is a race-able all purpose road frame. The Rivendell has clearance for 35c
tires and has rear seat stay rack bosses for mounting a rack plus drop out
bosses for mounting fenders... I think that exemplifies the difference in target
audience right there.
How does that make one better than the other? How are Grant's choices
a step backward? What choices are you refering to?
From the Rivendell catalog:
====================
"the tubes are heavier than stock Reynolds 753 tubes and other modern
superlight steel tubes. But the extra material is well-placed: The upper
down tube butt is 100mm, because the most vulnerable part of any tube on
a bike is the underside of the upper portion of the down tube, and the long
butt protects this vulnerable area. A tube won't buckle there without without
you running into something, but accidents happen, and the long butt makes
sense for a frame built to ride hard in all conditions for a long time."
Regards,
Peter "I still love Waterford's" Guyton
P.S. The Rivendells lugs are prettier.
Tim McNamara
> If one didn't know better, one might interprete this comment to
> mean that Waterford 'superlight' frames aren't as durable as
> Rivendells. This is ridiculous, and Grant Peterson's custom
> specifications take a state-of-the-art Waterford 753/853 a step
> backwards. This is not so say that the ones they braze for
> Rivendell are not excellent frames-- it's just that the regular
> Waterfords are better. We've sold hundreds of them, and they are
> outstanding in every respect.
Hang on there, chief. As an owner of a Rivendell and as someone who
seriously considered a Waterford as an option, I'd have to say that the
Waterfords are *not* better frames, not by a long shot. "Better" is a
purpose-specific term. If you mean "better for USCF or NORBA racing,"
then I'd agree you'd probably be better off with a Waterford. But
USCF/NORBA suitability is not the ultimate arbiter of bicycle
"betterness." And since I don't race the Riv its suitability for those
uses is irrelevent (I race a relatively easily replaced Bianchi Reparto
Corsa frame).
As far as durability goes, well, we'll have to wait 15 to 20 years to see,
won't we? I suspect bikes of both marques will still be going strong.
But if I had to bet, I'd place a bet on the Rivendell simply because the
envelope of the material isn't being pushed as much. And what difference
does a half a pound make? I dare you to do a blind test and feel
diffeence that small. Ride a century and lose it in body fat, if you're
that worried.
Rivendell and Waterford frames fit different niches of the market. Both
are extremely well-made and seem to be well thought out frames. The rides
are very different; the Waterfords are a very standard modern geometry
whereas the Rivendells are... different. Personally, I didn't need just
another bike with standard handling and a standard ride. I wanted
something different, so I got the Riv. It suits me, and is the "better"
bike for me and my needs. I can ride it on the road in a fast group ride,
I can ride it off road just fine, I can load it up and tour with it. All
on the same bike!
Don't get me wrong, I think Waterfords are *fine* bicycles in every sense
of the word. Their construction, finish and design are first rate. They
are very flexible and wil adapt the design to meet your specific needs, if
they can. Waterford seems to be an honorable company, talking to the bike
shops I know that carry them. I just don't buy that they are *better*
than Rivendell frames (especially if if your criteria is purely weight and
a tenth of a millimeter of steel here and there!).
Tim
--
Tell me all that you know- I'll show you
snow and rain.
-Robert Hunter
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <19970414115...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<cog...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wow... I wasn't "dis"ing Waterfords... I too think they are fantastic frames.
>My sole intent was to say that there exists a trade off between weight and
>strength and that Rivendells reflect a slightly different design approach - it is
>not an 'apples-to-apples' comparison.
Waterford and Rivendell are playing to completely different audiences.
If you look under a racer you might find a Waterford. If you look at a
Rivendell owner you're going to see some middle aged guy who is looking
for quality in a bike that he can keep for the rest of his life.
Waterford has to make a trade-off between strength and weight while
Rivendell has a lot more latitude.
Doesn't it say something for Waterford that they build them both?
Hmm....Peter.... not the Peter who works at Rivendell?
Steven L. Sheffield
to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>Waterford and Rivendell are playing to completely different audiences.
>If you look under a racer you might find a Waterford. If you look at a
>Rivendell owner you're going to see some middle aged guy who is looking
>for quality in a bike that he can keep for the rest of his life.
Oh my god! At 31 I'm middle aged?
No wonder I'm doing so wretchedly at all the races. Now if only
they'd let me race Masters 5s instead of Senior 5s.
>Hmm....Peter.... not the Peter who works at Rivendell?
That's Peter Kelly .... I didn't catch the last name of this Peter
(was it Guyton??), but it's not the same one.
John A. Lee
In a previous article, tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) says:
>In article <5is9f3$j...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
>Lee) wrote:
>> If one didn't know better, one might interprete this comment to
>> mean that Waterford 'superlight' frames aren't as durable as
>> Rivendells. This is ridiculous, and Grant Peterson's custom
>> specifications take a state-of-the-art Waterford 753/853 a step
>> backwards. This is not so say that the ones they braze for
>> Rivendell are not excellent frames-- it's just that the regular
>> Waterfords are better. We've sold hundreds of them, and they are
>> outstanding in every respect.
>As far as durability goes, well, we'll have to wait 15 to 20 years to see,
>won't we? I suspect bikes of both marques will still be going strong.
>But if I had to bet, I'd place a bet on the Rivendell simply because the
>envelope of the material isn't being pushed as much.
The durabilty issue is a red herring. Any decent steel frame will
last for your lifetime, unless it's abused and/or neglected.
People who buy Rivendells and Waterfords are more likely to take
reasonable care of their machines than they are to let them rot.
>Rivendell and Waterford frames fit different niches of the market. Both
>are extremely well-made and seem to be well thought out frames. The rides
>are very different; the Waterfords are a very standard modern geometry
>whereas the Rivendells are... different.
Waterford offers one of the most reasonably-priced "full-custom"
framesets on the market. We sold a 74cm last year that I wouldn't
have trusted anyone else to build. There was a delay of a few weeks
because Reynolds was drawing a special tubeset just for this frame.
If you only look at their 'stock' geometries, tubing selection,
braze-ons, etc, then you miss the whole idea behind what a true,
hand-crafted CUSTOM bike is all about.
>Don't get me wrong, I think Waterfords are *fine* bicycles in every sense
>of the word. Their construction, finish and design are first rate...
You *DO* understand that Waterford is the company that actually
MAKES the Rivendells, don't you?
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5iurs3$h...@crl7.crl.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <biki...@crl.com> wrote:
>Oh my god! At 31 I'm middle aged?
>
>No wonder I'm doing so wretchedly at all the races. Now if only
>they'd let me race Masters 5s instead of Senior 5s.
>
>>Hmm....Peter.... not the Peter who works at Rivendell?
>
>That's Peter Kelly .... I didn't catch the last name of this Peter
>(was it Guyton??), but it's not the same one.
Do you notice your teeth and hair falling out? You've arrived!
Tim McNamara
In article <5iun2r$i...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
Lee) wrote:
> Waterford offers one of the most reasonably-priced "full-custom"
> framesets on the market. We sold a 74cm last year that I wouldn't
> have trusted anyone else to build. There was a delay of a few weeks
> because Reynolds was drawing a special tubeset just for this frame.
> If you only look at their 'stock' geometries, tubing selection,
> braze-ons, etc, then you miss the whole idea behind what a true,
> hand-crafted CUSTOM bike is all about.
If I wanted a CUSTOM frame I'd have it built by Chris Kvale, since he
lives and works locally and can do all the measurements personally.
Special ordering a frame from a manufacturer through a bike shop is a
little different than getting a "true" custom frame built by somebody like
Chris or Richard Sachs.
> You *DO* understand that Waterford is the company that actually
> MAKES the Rivendells, don't you?
Of course I do. I have been following that story since the beginning.
Even if I hadn't, the "Handcrafted in Waterford, WI" sticker on the
chainstay of my All-Rounder would have been a giveaway.
But I don't think you have a clue what Rivendells are about. And if you
has to ask, you ain't never gonna know.
Tim
--
The wheel is turning and you can't slow it down-
you can't let go and you can't hold on.
You can't go back and you can't stand still
and if the thunder don't get you then the lightning will!
-Robert Hunter
Mike Prybell
I'll take my Davidson, thank you very much.
--
>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=
Mike
mikepry...@worldnet.att.net
"A trail is a terrible thing to waste....... Hammer On."
<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=
John Pokladnik
check out the Waterford 1900 - a classic touring frame with custom OS 753,
elegant lugs, and full braze-ons. (And not meaning to "dis" the Rivendell,
but the Waterford lugs and head badge are bit more understated and
classy.)
john "a happy customer"
cog...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970414115...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <5is9f3$j...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
Lee) writes:
>
> Wow... I wasn't "dis"ing Waterfords... (snip) . However, Grant decided
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <tomkE8o...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> Do you notice your teeth and hair falling out?
Teeth are fine ... hair started falling out when I was 23-24.
I've got the Marco Pantani thing going on now ... too bad I
can't climb like him, though.
John A. Lee
John A. Lee
In a previous article, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) says:
>Waterford and Rivendell are playing to completely different audiences.
>If you look under a racer you might find a Waterford. If you look at a
>Rivendell owner you're going to see some middle aged guy who is looking
>for quality in a bike that he can keep for the rest of his life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am assuming that this comment does not refer to the potential
durabilty of the frames, but to the relative 'suitabilty' of
purpose. Why is it that so many people think of Waterfords
ONLY as racing bikes? Those who do are simply mis-informed.
John A. Lee
In a previous article, tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) says:
>I don't think you have a clue what Rivendells are about. And if you
>has to ask, you ain't never gonna know.
Sure I know what Rivendells are all about. They're about one man's
idea of what a great bike should be. In that respect, they are
not that different from a lot of other great bikes that have
been designed by various people over the decades. They are also
somewhat 'elitist' bicycles, designed to not only ride well, but
also to look pretty. In that respect, they are not that different
from a lot of other great bikes designed by various people over
the decades. Hetchins, with the "Vibrant Rear Traingle," Peter
Mooney, Doug Fattic, and even Mondia made frames that were
equally 'distinctive,' just to name a few.
Grant was ostensibly the designer of the 'legendary' Bridgestone
XO-1, and we sold a disproportionately large number of them, as
well as RB-1s. His philosophy certainly does not escape me.
It's just that I don't blindly believe in everything that he
professes. As many XO-1 customers hated the moustashe bar as
liked it.
The differences between the 'standard' Waterfords and the
Rivendells does not seem so dramatic as the differences between
the people who appear to be attracted to each of the two labels--
and that's quite okay. This is America; you're allowed to have
choices. For reference, a Waterford 1150/1250 makes a great
all-rounder.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5j1o4v$8...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
John A. Lee <ja...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
> I am assuming that this comment does not refer to the potential
> durabilty of the frames, but to the relative 'suitabilty' of
> purpose. Why is it that so many people think of Waterfords
> ONLY as racing bikes? Those who do are simply mis-informed.
Why mis-informed? Waterford needs to build bikes that are competitive
with the desires of a large audience. For custom or semi-custom frames
that is mostly an audience that races or believes that they want to
race.
In order to advertise with Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx and the others Waterford
has to be able to quote weighs in the same neighborhood. THat means
that they have to take some of the same shortcuts to light weight
as the others -- larger, thinner tubing; short butts; short lugs.
No matter how you slice the cake, Rivendell (built to difference standards
by Waterford) is a much more rounded frame.
This is not to say that Waterford isn't a BETTER bike than Colnago or
the rest. I think that it is. Waterford suffers from not having some
distinctive thing about their bikes that people can grasp and
recognize even after a re-paint. Like the Gilco tubing on the Master
series of Colnagos or the DeRosa hearts in the lugs.
I think that Waterford ought to have some really fancy lugs designed by
Columbine and use them on all of their products. Before, they could
put Schwinn on their bikes and I don't care what anyone says, that
made them very distinctive to a LARGE audience. Now they have to
get their niche before they run out of customers.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <stevens-1504...@bikiebob.vip.best.com>,
Steven L. Sheffield <ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
>Teeth are fine ... hair started falling out when I was 23-24.
>I've got the Marco Pantani thing going on now ... too bad I
>can't climb like him, though.
You don't have to climb like Pantani if you can convince everyone
else that you CAN. Just look really vicious as you approach the climb
and then ride with everyone else and act as if you're doing them a
favor. Works for me.
Patrick McNally
In article <tomkE8q...@netcom.com>, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:
> In order to advertise with Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx and the others Waterford
> has to be able to quote weighs in the same neighborhood. THat means
> that they have to take some of the same shortcuts to light weight
> as the others -- larger, thinner tubing; short butts; short lugs.
Are the weights of Waterford racing frames (1200, 2200) not competitive
with Colnago, Mercks, etc? I'd be surprised if they weren't substantially
lighter than a Merckx or a Colnago. In addition, the tubes are thin,
the lugs short.
> This is not to say that Waterford isn't a BETTER bike than Colnago or
> the rest. I think that it is. Waterford suffers from not having some
> distinctive thing about their bikes that people can grasp and
> recognize even after a re-paint. Like the Gilco tubing on the Master
> series of Colnagos or the DeRosa hearts in the lugs.
They need a gimmick in other words. Probably right, sad to say.
> I think that Waterford ought to have some really fancy lugs designed by
> Columbine and use them on all of their products. Before, they could
> put Schwinn on their bikes and I don't care what anyone says, that
> made them very distinctive to a LARGE audience. Now they have to
> get their niche before they run out of customers.
When you say they need a nich before they run out of customers,
it sounds like there is an idea that Waterford is not doing well
in the sales dept. Is that true? I really don't know. I do know
that I've seen a whole lot more of them at the races the last
couple of years.
--
Patrick McNally
p-mc...@nwu.edu
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <p-mcnally-160...@mac068.physio.nwu.edu>,
Patrick McNally <p-mc...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>Are the weights of Waterford racing frames (1200, 2200) not competitive
>with Colnago, Mercks, etc? I'd be surprised if they weren't substantially
>lighter than a Merckx or a Colnago. In addition, the tubes are thin,
>the lugs short.
The lightest steel frames by all of the manufacturers are about the same.
>When you say they need a nich before they run out of customers,
>it sounds like there is an idea that Waterford is not doing well
>in the sales dept. Is that true? I really don't know. I do know
>that I've seen a whole lot more of them at the races the last
>couple of years.
As far as I know, Waterford is as popular now as Paramount
ever was. But you know how these things go in cycles. This
year Colnago is the hot bike to own and next year it might be
an Eddy Merckx. A couple of years ago it was a DeRosa or a
Medici.
If you don't have a nich market to pull you through the lean times
life can get hard.
cog...@aol.com
This thread is really getting a bit over analyzed ..... but I must re-phrase
a few things already said in various places by me and others which I
HOPE sums this up fairly. I say that because I truly think both Waterford's
and Rivendell's are wonderful bikes directed towards different riders:
RIVENDELL: 753 silver brazed lugged. Eyelets for fenders and bosses
for rear rack, space for 35c tires, slightly heavier tubing, slightly different
geometry (slacker seat tube, longer stays, maybe lower BB - not sure -
longer top tube), fancier lugs. Result: a, by all means, race-able frame,
that is a bit heavier/sturdier and designed for more than just racing.
(Whether the audience is middle-aged or not I don't know - when does
middle age start? - but I would say the audience is less race oriented).
You probably won't see one at the next crit but maybe at the next century.
WATERFORD: 753 silver brazed lugged. State-of-the-art steel frames on
par with any bikes of that type built by anyone, anywhere.... Period.
Less multi-purpose however - No eyelets for fenders, no bosses for a
rear rack, probably won't handle 35c tires, slightly different geometry (steeper
seat tube, shorter chain stays, perhaps the BB isn't as low - not sure -
standard top tube is shorter... but custom available). Tubing is lighter gauge,
shorter butts, lighter/smaller lugs. Result: a great steel racing bike, among
the lightest steel bikes around, an par with any 'custom' bike. Much more
likely to see one at the next crit.
COMMON: Both built at the Waterford factories by the same people on the same
machines. Quality of construction is the same - excellent.
As the sign in my Mom's kitchen says: QUITYERBITCHIN.
Regards,
Peter "not the one at Rivendell, which I could afford one of each" Guyton
Mark J Boyd
On 16 Apr 1997 cog...@aol.com wrote:
> This thread is really getting a bit over analyzed ..... but I must re-phrase
i\Indeed!
...
> RIVENDELL: 753 silver brazed lugged. Eyelets for fenders and bosses
...
> You probably won't see one at the next crit but maybe at the next century.
>
> WATERFORD: 753 silver brazed lugged. State-of-the-art steel frames on
> par with any bikes of that type built by anyone, anywhere.... Period.
> Less multi-purpose however - No eyelets for fenders, no bosses for a
> rear rack, probably won't handle 35c tires, slightly different geometry (steeper
My 1200 won't handle real 28 mm tires. Maybe a 25. Fat, short chainstays
don't leave much room for the tire. Not good if you break a spoke either.
I carry a spare spoke and a hypercracker when I'm riding it 8^). Oh dear,
there goes my weight advantage over the Rivendell!
> seat tube, shorter chain stays, perhaps the BB isn't as low - not sure -
> standard top tube is shorter... but custom available). Tubing is lighter gauge,
Mine has 54 cm cc seat tube and a 57 cm cc top tube to fit my odd, short
leg - long torso, body. I still use a 120 mm stem and ride mostly on the
hoods.
> shorter butts, lighter/smaller lugs. Result: a great steel racing bike, among
> the lightest steel bikes around, an par with any 'custom' bike. Much more
> likely to see one at the next crit.
Actually it is a great bike for longer, e.g. century, rides. Very
comfortable, very stable, yet still very responsive. An amazing frame, the
only thing I've discovered that I don't like about its handling is its
sensitivity to cross winds. I almost went off the road the first time I
was hit by a gusty (20 - 30 mph?) cross wind at 35 mph.
From what people say on the net, it doesn't seem like it would be good for
crits, but I have no experience with racing any kind of bike. It is a
very nice recreational bike for enthusiastic riding 8^). I'm sure the
Rivendell road bike set up with the same components would feel much the
same. I bought the Waterford frame because Gary of GVHBikes made it
available to me for a good price. If I could have had a Rivendell road
frame with the same custom top tube for the same price, I would have had a
hard time deciding between them.
> COMMON: Both built at the Waterford factories by the same people on the same
> machines. Quality of construction is the same - excellent.
And, just to refute the elitist/ageist/whatever stuff, I'm a 51 year old
bicycle person who tours (4,000 miles last year, I expect to do more than
5000 miles this year), commutes every day, and will ride the 1200 (I just
built it up in January and only have 600 miles on it currently) a few
thousand miles a year for pleasure. If I had a single bike for all three
kinds of riding I do, it would be a Rivendell road or a Waterford sports
tourer. With three bikes, I can enjoy having a bike set up for and suited
to each purpose. It still saves a lot of room in my garage and a lot of
money compared to using a car to get to work.
Mark <bo...@cs.unca.edu>
sam
On 13 Apr 1997 03:27:19 GMT, zon...@aol.com (Zonmail) wrote:
>Any information regarding these bikes would be appreciated?
Dallas J Bednarczyk
On 16 Apr 1997, Patrick McNally wrote:
>
> When you say they need a nich before they run out of customers,
> it sounds like there is an idea that Waterford is not doing well
> in the sales dept. Is that true? I really don't know. I do know
> that I've seen a whole lot more of them at the races the last
> couple of years.
They must be doing O.K.. I had a seven or eight week wait before my frame
arrived. I assumed they were busy making frames for other people during
that time and when my name came up they built it. Of course they may have
sat around drinking coffee for seven weeks and talking about building it,
then finally got around to doing it (probably not).
Dallas Bednarczyk
Atala Boy
Peter Guyton cog...@aol.com sez:
> I truly think both Waterford's
>and Rivendell's are wonderful bikes directed towards different riders:
I guess that means I'm schizophrenic...
Tom McMahon
NYC
TedHas
In article <19970416230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, cog...@aol.com
writes:
>WATERFORD: 753 silver brazed lugged. State-of-the-art steel frames on
>par with any bikes of that type built by anyone, anywhere.... Period.
>Less multi-purpose however - No eyelets for fenders, no bosses for a
>rear rack, probably won't handle 35c tires, slightly different geometry
>(steeper
>seat tube, shorter chain stays, perhaps the BB isn't as low - not sure -
>standard top tube is shorter... but custom available). Tubing is lighter
>gauge,
>shorter butts, lighter/smaller lugs. Result: a great steel racing bike,
among
>
>the lightest steel bikes around, an par with any 'custom' bike. Much
more
>likely to see one at the next crit.
Waterford makes several models, including touring bikes. They use 853,
753, and 531 in their frames, and their geometries vary considerably
according to purpose. I don't know the details of their touring/sport
models, but this pigeonholing of Waterford as a limited purpose bike
ignores their full range. A comparison of the Rivendell with Waterford
will change as you go from one frame to another. More power to both
companies. They're both on to something(s).
--Ted Haskell
CogSet
In article <19970417205...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ted...@aol.com
(TedHas) writes:
>Waterford makes several models, including touring bikes. They use 853,
>753, and 531 in their frames, and their geometries vary considerably
>according to purpose. I don't know the details of their touring/sport
>models, but this pigeonholing of Waterford as a limited purpose bike
>ignores their full range. A comparison of the Rivendell with Waterford
>will change as you go from one frame to another.
You are absolutely right. This whole thing started when someone asked
about the Rivendell Road... it muted into a Waterford vs Rivendell Road
argument... I think because I stated that I thought Rivendells were a bit
heavier/stronger (a design decision of Grant Petersen's). Anyway, those
turned out to be 'fighting words' and you can read the rest.
Regards,
Peter "time for me to shut up and ride" Guyton
John A. Lee
In a previous article, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) says:
>John A. Lee <ja...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>> ... Why is it that so many people think of Waterfords
>> ONLY as racing bikes? Those who do are simply mis-informed.
>Why mis-informed? Waterford needs to build bikes that are competitive
>with the desires of a large audience. For custom or semi-custom frames
>that is mostly an audience that races or believes that they want to
>race.
Why mis-informed? BECAUSE NOT ALL WATERFORDS ARE RACING BIKES.
Their "production" lines include-- in addition to their 'racing'
1100/1200/2200 series-- a really nice 'sport touring' 1150/1250,
an 'adventure cycle' (all-'rounder) 1900, and a fixed-gear road
machine.
Tim McNamara
In article <5jdfas$d...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
Lee) wrote:
> Why mis-informed? BECAUSE NOT ALL WATERFORDS ARE RACING BIKES.
You really seem kind of touchy on the Waterford issue. What gives? You
seem to want to diss other makes (read: Rivendell) to push the Waterford
theme. I'd say that you should leave it up to Waterford- *they* decided
to make Rivendell frames, after all.
Tim
--
Don't you touch hard liquor- just a cup of cold coffee.
Gonna get up in the morning and go.
-Robert Hunter
John A. Lee
In a previous article, tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) says:
>In article <5jdfas$d...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
>Lee) wrote:
>> Why mis-informed? BECAUSE NOT ALL WATERFORDS ARE RACING BIKES.
>You really seem kind of touchy on the Waterford issue. What gives? You
>seem to want to diss other makes (read: Rivendell) to push the Waterford
>theme.
It's not that I'm dissing Rivendell-- they are obviously very
well-made, as are all of the silver-brazed frames from the
Waterford factory.
It's more that the type of cyclist who is attracted to T.A.
steel waterbottle cages, beeswax, and obsolete Simplex
derailleurs is often the most vocal about his/her (invariably)
strong opinions; this is fine-- unless the opinion is patently
unsupported by readily obtainable facts. The fact is, that
Waterford is not limited to only racing bikes, as so many Riv
advocates seemed to imply.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5jmr50$f...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> steel waterbottle cages, beeswax, and obsolete Simplex
> derailleurs is often the most vocal about his/her (invariably)
> strong opinions; this is fine-- unless the opinion is patently
> unsupported by readily obtainable facts. The fact is, that
> Waterford is not limited to only racing bikes, as so many Riv
> advocates seemed to imply.
TA cranks are still as light or lighter than anything on the market.
Moreover they are typically stronger. Stronglight was the best.
Steel waterbottle cages are better than aluminum, weigh a couple of
grams more and don't let your bottle bounce out on every RR crossing.
Granted, good plastic cages (like cateye) are better.
Beeswax is a bit strange.
But I just finished building a cyclocross bike out of an old Gitane
Tour de France and through some communications problems it didn't
get some of the braze-ons before being painted. One of the things I
could have done was to grind the Simplex derailleur mount to fit a
modern derailleur, but it was just as easy to order a Simplex
rear derailleur from Rivendell.
When I got it I was surprised at the extremely high quality of the
Simplex derailleur. It is easily the quality of the XTR on my tandem.
Wateford builds anything that you are likely to want. But Grant Peterson
has shown that he has a better idea of a certain type of customer
than Waterford has.
If I wanted a touring bike or an all around bike I would go to
Rivendell to get it and at the same time the quality construction
that Waterford is rightfully famous for.
But just look at a Waterford! Could there be a more boring bike
to look at? I don't know what it is about Waterford ne' Paramount
but they really know how to dull a bike down.
Steven L. Sheffield
In article <5jmr50$f...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
Lee) wrote:
> In a previous article, tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) says:
> >In article <5jdfas$d...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ja...@po.CWRU.Edu (John A.
> >Lee) wrote:
>
> >> Why mis-informed? BECAUSE NOT ALL WATERFORDS ARE RACING BIKES.
>
> >You really seem kind of touchy on the Waterford issue. What gives? You
> >seem to want to diss other makes (read: Rivendell) to push the Waterford
> >theme.
>
> It's not that I'm dissing Rivendell-- they are obviously very
> well-made, as are all of the silver-brazed frames from the
> Waterford factory.
> It's more that the type of cyclist who is attracted to T.A.
> steel waterbottle cages, beeswax, and obsolete Simplex
> derailleurs is often the most vocal about his/her (invariably)
> strong opinions; this is fine-- unless the opinion is patently
> unsupported by readily obtainable facts. The fact is, that
> Waterford is not limited to only racing bikes, as so many Riv
> advocates seemed to imply.
And not all Rivendells are purchased by retro-types. I have three
Rivendell frames. One is my all-Campy Ergo race bike, one is my
Ultegra/105 equipped commute bike, and one is my fixed-gear. The
oldest part on any of them is my 1980s era Suntour Superbe track
crank on the fixed-gear. Nothing on any of the others is older
than 1993.
Robert M. Odendahl
My understanding is that according to Richard Sachs,
Waterford is one of the best kept secrets in the frame
building business.
For the price, they make excellent crafted frames.
The quality of the frame, the fit and the ride are
far more important than the appearance.
--
Robert M. Odendahl
New Orleans bicycle touring:
http://www.netcom.com/~bob889/
John A. Lee
In a previous article, to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) says:
>But just look at a Waterford! Could there be a more boring bike
>to look at? I don't know what it is about Waterford ne' Paramount
>but they really know how to dull a bike down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<chuckles>
I guess the aesthetics of the Waterfords are simply a reflection
of Richard Schwinn's sense of style.... :-)
John Pokladnik
Your're right. Richard is a pretty classy guy. So are his frames.
john
John A. Lee <ja...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote in article
<5joq7v$s...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <01bc51b6$8f8ecf10$11f978c7@jap1>,
I think that when you finally admit to yourself that you aren't going
to be anything but a middle-of-the-packer that you will start looking at
Rivendells as great bikes. They are everything a real racing bike
needs to be and little other things, like pretty lugs etc.
When you want a real racing bike and no other frills you go to
Waterford.
Me? I'm a back-of-the-packer that is just trying not to get dropped.