Thursday, February 9, 2012

A Custom Rivendell Roadbike

Rivendell Custom Road
Some time ago I got the chance to try a custom Rivendell, built for local cyclist and bicycle mechanic Jim A. I had been eying this beautiful bicycle in Jim's corner at Harris Cyclery for a couple of years now and did not have the nerve to ride it. But as my curiosity grew and my bike handling skills improved, the stars finally aligned and it all culminated in a test ride.

Rivendell Custom Road
As far as Rivendells go, this one is both iconic and unique. The lugwork and color scheme look quintessentially Rivendellian, but the frame was built by Roland Della Santa in 2000, whereas today their custom frames are usually built by Mark Nobilette. Of course being custom it was also built according to Jim's proportions and specifications, in particular to accommodate his long legs and a short torso.

Rivendell Custom Road
As far as lugwork, there are some special touches such as the double-plated fork crown,

Rivendell Custom Road
the elegant seat cluster,

Rivendell Custom Road
and the filigreed lugs framing the contrasting head tube panel. Of course I love the sage green and cream color scheme. If I were to get a custom Rivendell this is pretty much what it would look like.

Rivendell Custom Road
Jim has this bicycle set up with Nitto Noodle handlebars, bar-end shifters, a compact drivetrain, Panaracer Pasela 28mm tires, and a green Brooks B17 saddle. The frame was built for short reach brakes, and will fit a 28mm tire with fender.

Rivendell Custom Road
The frame size is 54cm x 53.5cm. With its standard diameter tubing, level top tube, and road geometry, this bicycle resembles a classic roadbike more so than Rivendell's currently produced models - which was one reason I was interested in trying it.

Rivendell Custom Road
I rode the bicycle for a 5-8 mile loop through the suburbs with some hills. While I did not put the bike "through the paces" (I was still pretty nervous about marring its pristine condition), I did get a basic sense for its handling and speed. And... my main impression was that it handled similarly to my Mercian -  to a freewheel, geared version of it, that is. The acceleration, the turning, and just the general feel of the Rivendell felt so similar that it was as if I was riding a different version of my own bike. With the handlebars set up for Jim but the saddle lowered for me, I was more upright than I wanted to be, and also there was some toe overlap with the front wheel, so on my own bike the specs would be a little different. But otherwise it felt comfortable, while also being lighter and more responsive than the stock Rivendell Sam Hillborne I own.  

Rivendell Custom Road
It is hard to believe that 2000 was 12 years ago, but time does fly. Since they opened shop in 1994, Rivendell's philosophy has been shifting consistently in the direction of wider tires, hardier tubing, upright handlebars, greater off-road capacity, and reinforced frames (double top tubes, diagonal tubes, etc.). But in the past they did offer more roadish models that were essentially classic lugged steel road-to-trail bikes with decent tire clearances - nothing fancier or more eccentric than that. Trying a custom bicycle from this period was a treat, and has helped me understand the company's history. Many thanks to Jim A. for allowing me to ride his bike and to share these pictures. 

60 comments:

  1. Nice! Looks very similar to my 2001 custom All Rounder except mine has cantis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very pretty! Do you know what tubing Rivendell uses by any chance? I can never find it listed, but have to assume it is good quality. I drool over rivendells, but I do not like the current oversized tubing and worry it would not work for me if I were to buy one. Any I have seen in the real world have been beautiful though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grant once wrote Tange (Prestige?) but I wouldn't doubt it changes based upon a builder's supply chain.

      Delete
    2. Riv is doing a great job reviving the Klunker. Now, with original weight.

      Delete
    3. My understanding that the tubing depends on the bike and year, and also that they don't publicly state what it is. I remember something about Reynolds forks on one of their current models, but can't recall where I read this.

      Of the currently made production models, the Homer Hilsen is not too far from this bike, so could be worth a try.

      Delete
    4. BTW tubing in name alone is a red herring, like geometry. It doesn't tell you the builder's butt profiles, gauge and diameter preferences. The usual blah blah as stated many times before.

      Delete
    5. True of course. But it is also useful to know whether a builder has an exclusive relationship with a specific tubing manufacturer (for instance, as Mercian does with Reynolds) - as that can make certain things impossible if that manufacturer does not produce the tubing for it.

      Delete
    6. Not sure specifically what feature you are referring to, but the builders with the most weight work with suppliers to fab new stuff, even new materials like IF co-developing Reynolds 953.

      Important to note is Ti, in particular, is sourced from no-name mfgs. across the industry. Reason? Traditional steel tubing suppliers like Reynolds, Columbus, Tange, etc. have zero expertise in using it, nor do Ti tubing fabricators have decades of marketing savvy or history to hang their hats on.

      Anybody can do straight gauge; what separates the best is their ability to tie butting in with ride quality and power transfer.

      Delete
  3. My Rivendell custom is from 2001, and I think it might have been among the last built by Joe Starck. I have often wondered why I spent so much for a bicycle when the $15 Miyata from Goodwill rolled just as well. For a while, because of Bicycle Quarterly, I was trying to transform it into a Renee Herse -- mostly with stuff from Velo Orange. I finally returned it to the American touring bike it's supposed to be. I'm glad I have it, in spite of the initial extravagance. It allows me to be carefree and stylish. My Goodwill bikes leave me looking like I should be carrying a 6-pack of Miller on the top tube.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2001 was getting near the end of Joe's builds. My Rivendell was a 2002 and Joe emailed me to find out if it was his last frameset (wasn't).

      Delete
  4. Pretty bike. It does look English to me - but I wonder if thats me with an English bias..?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maybe it's the green and pleasant colour?

      Delete
    2. Nice turn of phrase.

      Delete
    3. I read that as "pheasant" colour and thought "why yes, a dark green with iridescent burgundy might look lovely" <_<

      More coffee needed.

      Delete
  5. It's a fabulous bike and a nice review. There are a couple of incorrect facts about the bike and Rivendell, however. Jim's bike has Grant's road geometry design, not the All-Rounder which had cantilever brakes, slacker angels, and more clearance. The All-Rounder design was similar to, and preceeded, the Atlantis. Current Rivendell Custom frames are built by Mark Nobilette, not Waterford. Waterford makes some of the production models. Jim's handlebars are Nitto Dream bars, not Noodles.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unless I'm mistaken the custom Rivendells are now made by Mark Nobilette not Waterford. Waterford makes some of their production frames but not the customs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that so? I thought there was a variety of builders, but mainly Waterford. Could very well be wrong, will check.

      Delete
    2. Mark Nobilette makes all their customs at this point (AFAIK). Waterford, Toyo and a Taiwanese builder (name?) make their production bikes (AHH, Bombadil, Sam H, etc).

      Delete
    3. Okay, I changed the text. Does Mark Nobilette not have a website I can link to? I can't seem to find one.

      Delete
    4. No, I don't believe Mark has a website. I know Mark personally - great guy and has been building frames longer than most in the business. Does TOP NOTCH work. He also builds the Rene Herse bikes for Mike K. and Jan H.

      Delete
  7. Level top tube, short cage derailleur,double chainrings - this gives it very nice look. Love Sam Hillborne though I do, the long head tube and sloping, long top tube do give it ungainly proportions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Particularly with the smaller sized frames I agree that the SH proportions look a little off.

      Delete
  8. Gorgeous bike. That green has always been a favorite.

    In the Rivendell timeline, this must have been just before they settled on Stark and Goodrich as builders. Previously it was all through Waterford, then a short transition period with several builders like match, Della Santa, and Richard Sachs. Then match (Tim Isaac) for a bit as well (not sure on that part). Then Joe Stark left, Mark Nobilette came on board, Goodrich left, and now it's just Nobilette.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I remember associating all these names with Riv frames, but not the order or the specifics. I keep meaning but forgetting to ask who makes the custom mixtes.

      Delete
    2. If it's a true custom, it's Nobilette. I don't know if the production mixtes are Taiwan or Japan built, but I think they are now Taiwan.

      Delete
  9. My first thought when I saw the bike is, whoa, short top tube! AWESOME.

    Which proves it can be done. Anybody know of an off-the-shelf touring bike that has a short top tube on a 50cm frame?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Curious ... if, in your opinion, Rivendell doesn't currently offer "roadish" models, then how would you classify the Roadeo?

    If the Roadeo isn't a Rivendell road-oriented bike, then I'm not really sure what would be.

    As for the "heavy" tubing and snarky comment about "...reviving the Klunker. Now, with original weight", all I can say is this:

    There's a reason many of Rivendell's bikes have stout tubing, and that tubing performs its job extremely well. It may not be what you personally like, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for its intended purpose.

    So ... if you don't like Rivendell's bikes or their "heavy" tubing, don't buy one. Get something you like better. But please don't make rude comments about a company or any person who puts their heart and soul into designing and offering products they truly believe in, just because you personally prefer something different.

    Rivendell bikes are what they are, and they're wonderful for their intended purpose ... stop comparing them and critisizing them for not being something they never claimed to be in the first place.

    My apologies to those here who actually do like Rivendell bikes. There are just a couple of people who insist on making nasty comments toward them, as well as other bike companies, and it's getting old. Ride what you like ... no one's stopping you ... but rudeness does not establish you as an "expert", nor does it help anyone who might be looking for a new bike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh I forgot about the Roadeo, my mistake.

      About the stout tubing: I was certainly thankful for it when we went on our "bike vacation" and I loaded up my SH with 2 weeks worth of stuff. Handled nicely. It is obviously a great bike for camping, loaded touring, and heavy riders.

      Personally I think it would be helpful if Rivendell was a bit more clear and realistic in describing what type of bikes they offer and for whom/what they are best suited. On their website they describe the bikes as being ideal for everyone and for practically every kind of riding other than racing, which one could argue is misleading.

      But I agree that the negative comments about Rivendell are unwarranted, and I would not exactly describe any of their bikes as "clunkers."

      Delete
    2. Jeez, this is a pretty weak response with zero defense of Grant's designs, but a whole lot of "heart and soul" that supercedes it. I'm critical of Grant's new designs because they suck, Riv apologist without a name.

      Tell me, what is the purpose of a double down tube frame with irrelevant spars? I'll tell you: to kill the ride quality. I think you don't know what its "intended purpose" is.
      BTW, rudeness is a social trait and applies to people. Last I checked, the internet doesn't have any feelings. Nor do bicycle design theories. So I'll skewer dumb designs till my dying day, but thanks for your callow advice.

      I hope this comment "helps" people in deciding to put aside Tolkien fantasias or not. Ride what you want, but it is what it is.

      V, is a double down tube bike heavier than one with a single? To what end was this added - were they breaking?

      Let's see: higher center of gravity, more weight = Klunkerz. Find a jpeg online of an orignal mtb, see the movie, compare the two, and tell me in all sincerity this is a good design. You still surprise me with your responses some times.

      Delete
    3. Your assessment of Rivendell's description is almost spot-on. However, if you step back a bit and look at the larger picture, it is also both clear and realistic.

      There seems to be some kind of need to label a bike as being a "touring" bike or a "road" bike or a "commuter" bike, etc. It is the need to label that makes describing Rivendell's bikes difficult.

      First, Rivendell designs frames, and some components (handlebars, pedals, etc.). They do not, for the most part, sell pre-fab complete bicycles. For this reason, their frames can be configured in so many different ways that you can't classify them as being any particular kind of bike.

      I've seen SH's built up as touring rigs, for sure. But I've also seen them as commuter bikes with upright bars. I've seen them with internal gear hubs, as well as classic double and triple chainring drivetrains with 7-10 speed cassettes. Skinny tires and fatter ones. Even single speeds. Many different combinations, with many different riding applications. Each of the owners is completely happy with their bike, even though they're used in vastly different ways. How do you say then that a SH is a bike best suited for "X"?

      The same applies to the Hunqapillar, Bombadill, Atlantis, Betty Foy, and the other frames they offer.

      The more relaxed geometry of their frames makes them more versatile, and therefore not limited to one preferred application. Naturally, some of the frame models are better suited to carrying heavier loads, and the descriptions are clear on that. For the most part, though, they all can (and ARE) used for almost any kind of riding. The exception, as you mentioned, is racing. And the information is quite clear that they aren't designed for that.

      So ... you're exactly right. They are designed to be frames that would be quite at home for almost any kind of riding ... when built up with the proper components for the application. Are they the "ideal" bike for everyone? Surely not. But if you notice, every bicycle manufacturer out there promotes their products as the "best". Why wouldn't they? Why should Rivendell be any different? They believe in their products completely, as should any company who sells the products they design.

      I think Rivendell sees the term "road bike" to simply mean a bike that's set up for use on paved surfaces, whereas most cycling community people use it to describe a lightweight, more aggressively-designed bike intended for speed. Rivendell would call that a "race bike", regardless of whether or not it's actually used for racing. To me, that interpretation makes more sense. There should be some kind of difference between the two. It would go a long way to help describe bicycle "personality" types.

      As for the "Klunker" comment, I do understand the reference to the original mountain bikes, built from modified balloon-tired cruisers by the pioneers of the industry, who lovingly called them "Klunkers". It was the backhanded remark of "Now, with original weight" that was totally uncalled for, as though to say the Rivendell frames are as heavy as an old hi-ten steel cruiser bike. Not cool at all.

      Delete
    4. GR Jim - If I surprise you with my responses, then you must think too highly of me. Lower your expectations!

      "Klunkerz" vs "clunkers"... My head hurts

      I am not even trying to defend Grant's designs; that is not my job. I have lots of questions about the newer designs.

      As for rudeness and the internet, I disagree with you there. Codes of politeness apply to written modes of communication, not just verbal. However, I was not referring to you necessarily with the rudeness comment. People love to bash Rivendell and I think the intensity and tone with which it is done is unwarranted.

      Delete
    5. Ground Round Jim-Bob ... I guess you actually do know EVERYTHING.

      Good luck in your continued quest to skewer others ... merely because YOU think their designs "suck". Meanwhile, countless Rivendell owners are actually out riding their bikes ... I'm guessing because they find them to be enjoyable and comfortable, regardless of what your expert opinion of frame design dictates.

      By the way ... where are YOUR award-winning and successful frame designs? Where are your published technical frame design manuals? Where are your intense scientific studies showing the effect of double top tubes on ride quality? When you present them, perhaps the world will exalt you for all of your expertise, finally giving you the acknowledgement you obviously crave.

      I read this blog often and always notice your constant criticism, as though you are the self-proclaimed supreme being of all things related to bicycles. Were this a technical forum for bicycle design, I might understand to a degree, but it is not. You seem to spend an awful lot of time here making derogatory remarks, and I finally saw one too many, which is why I wrote the tiny little comment that I did prior to this one. No, my response did not include a defense of Grant's designs, but your initial rude comment made no reference to any design specifics, so what was to defend? You couldn't simply accept that you were a bit rude, and had to get even more nasty ... hope that's not how you treat the real people around you.

      And yes, the Internet has no feelings, but obviously you do, since you were so incredibly offended that your comment was met with some resistance. So sorry, dude ... but your comments aren't read by the Internet, they're read by people, and as you mentioned, people posses the "social trait" of having feelings ... just like you.

      For the record, my name is Scott ... and yes, I do own a Rivendell. It's one of those heavy "dumb-design" models ... the Hunqapillar. Best bike I've ever had the pleasure to ride ... and there have been many, several still in my garage. Of course I couldn't possibly have the vast amount of experience that you do ... but the "ride quality" of this bike seems pretty darn nice to me.

      Happy Skewering!!

      Delete
    6. Anon, Anon & GR Jim - Please, let's not waste our energy on this further. I agree that Jim can be more polite. But then again, no one here complains when someone says that a carbon fiber frame "sucks." So seems to be a bit of a double standard. In any case, please let's not escalate further; there are more interesting topics to discuss.

      Delete
    7. GR Jim, I get where you're coming from re Grant's designs, but allow me to offer a defense.....

      Rivs are something of an antidote to the ever greater level of specialization in bicycle designs. For many of us, there is value in having the fewest possible number of bicycles rather than a whole fleet.

      One versatile, well-made bicycle can be more satisfying than a handful of lessor machines--if for no other reason than having too many things can be akin to indentured servitude. A single very well made and attractive bicycle that is versatile means that it can be ridden most of the time. I think that that is mainly where Grant is coming from on what Rivs are all about.

      Even an Atlantis can be perform reasonably well in fast, aggressive group rides at the speeds ridden by fit non-racers. On the pro circuit one needs the fastest bike possible, but weekend A Group rides in most cities? Maybe it's just as satisfying to have a bike that can double as a commuter.

      Delete
    8. "Even an Atlantis can be perform reasonably well in fast, aggressive group rides at the speeds ridden by fit non-racers."

      Okay, I can't help myself. Have you tried to ride an Atlantis in this context with cyclists who are otherwise well-matched to you in speed? Because I cannot comfortably do a club ride on my Sam Hillborne (a bike lighter and more radish than the Atlantis) with riders whom I can easily keep up with when we are on equivalent bikes. I mean technically it can be done if I really push myself, but I will be half-dead afterward which is certainly not my idea of fun. Maybe if everyone was riding Sam Hillbornes and Atlantises and equivalent it would be a different story, but on typical club rides nowadays that is not the case.

      Delete
    9. Yes, to the bemusement of some of my more fashion-conscious and competitive riding companions. I've done the same a few times with an LHT. The more aggressive the riding, i.e., the greater the number of constant attacks and accelerations the better the workout (smile).

      V, re your Sam Hillborne and fast group rides.....I'm guessing that you probably aren't doing training rides designed to increase speed and reduce your recovery times when you go full gas. Approach to training would probably trump the effect of the heavier bike.

      The other factor when riding a heavy bike in fast group rides is to try to keep your speed more constant than you would when riding a lightweight bike. Accelerations on heavy bikes take a LOT more effort than they do on light racing bikes. At constant speed, heavier bikes aren't much harder to keep rolling at speed. If you adjust your riding technique to the heavier bike, you'll burn less energy and will probably find it easier to stay with the peleton.

      Delete
  11. Yes, as others have pointed out, that can't be an all-rounder because of the short reach brakes and skinny tires, not to mention 700c tires (my AR has 26" wheels). Also, to be clear on some of the manufacturing history, the first Rivendells (which were all custom, effectively) were made by Waterford. This includes my All-Rounder, which is the first one ever made for a customer, for sale (e.g. not counting the prototypes). I have a ton of photos of its original build-up, plus really excellent shots of it with its recent Joe Bell repaint, here:

    http://www.adventurecorps.com/chronicles/bikes/rivendell/index.html

    It's for sale, by the way, as a frame, fork, and headset and has never been built up since the 2008 repaint.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My impression was that the term "all-arounder" loosely described a bike that was comfy enough for an all-day ride, and capable of going on and off road, as opposed to any specific configuration. You mean to tell me that "all-arounder" has a rigid and specific definition?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The "All-Rounder" (not the caps and spelling) was a specific model offered by Rivendell in its early years: It was the Rivendell bike closest to the XO-1 of the Bridgestone era which immediately preceded the founding of Rivendell, so it had 26" wheels on a "roadie" frame. In the next day or two, I will scan and post the flyers and descriptions that Rivendell used in their early years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh, you're kidding! Would love to see those scans, thanks.

      Definitely did not know that, as I've heard the term used for bikes that are not Rivendells. Looks like I need to change the title of this post.

      Delete
    2. Scan of Riv catalog for AR.

      http://www.cyclofiend.com/Images/rbw/gen1/rivcat05_allrounder.jpg

      Delete
  14. Velouria, I'd be interested in hearing your take on double top tubes. I was at Rivendell over the summer as part of a bike tour down the coast, and while I loved almost all their bikes (I spent the afternoon testing them all) I was really disappointed to see that they've standardized the double top tube for the Sam, which was essentially the only bike I saw myself as ever being able to afford. I know there are arguments in favor of it from an engineering point of view, but isn't modern steel already strong enough for most riders?

    -duran

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, my take on it is really not very meaningful, as I am no expert on bike design. Nonetheless I do of course have a take on it. The double TT thing is not new. It has been used on large Dutch bike and English roadster frames since forever, as well as on some variations of work bikes. This was done for strength, because those frames need extra support. Does a 56cm Sam Hillborne frame need that extra support? I don't see how, unless the cyclist intends to use the bike to haul bricks on a daily basis. Keeping in mind that the way the Sam Hillborne was originally described was as a versatile bike suitable for long rides, club rides, and light touring, the change to 2TT is particularly perplexing to me.

      Delete
    2. The extra top tube is ostensibly for better triangulation, which will make a frame stiffer as well as stronger. I suspect that, in regards to the touring bikes, Grant was hoping to keep the larger framed bikes better triangulated to better handle heavy loads and possibly heavy riders. I also suspect that, like much of Riv's designs, the twin top-tube provides an aesthetic "benefit", depending on who you ask. I've read a lot more negative responses to the look than positive, but they wouldn't persist in offering them if someone wasn't buying them.

      The Klunkerz connection mentioned above makes some sense to me, as the Bombadil always resembled (to my eye) a lugged, 650B update of the Breezer Series 1. Joe Breeze figured that, when building the first purpose-built mtb frames, twin lateral stays, in conjunction with the conventional top-tube of a diamond frame, would do a lot to keep the frame stiff. Breezer Series 2 bikes lack the stays, so I guess he found out that whatever stiffness benefits were offered, the weight penalty negated them. For a s'posed offroad touring bike, the stays might make sense, except that 90% of the off-road tour guys I know use one-wheeled trailers, and the other 10% use paniers but complain that they bounce off whenever you hit serious off-road bumps.

      I agree that Riv's attempts to build versatile bikes is commendable and appealing. I think the main mistake being made is that there are is too much overlap among the models. Seems as though he's got the nice, domestic versions (HH, Bombadil) to go with the slightly more affordable taiwan versions of the same thing (SH, Hunqa). Renaming the mixte depending on color scheme is a weird marketing move, too, imo.

      -rob

      Delete
    3. "the twin top-tube ...I've read a lot more negative responses to the look than positive, but they wouldn't persist in offering them if someone wasn't buying them."

      Well, it hasn't been that long, so I think the data re who is buying them is still pending. Frankly, I do not see the diagotube & 2TT thing ending well for Rivendell. I hope I am wrong.

      I agree re the overlap in models. On the flip side of that, I also don't like the fact that some models are altered profoundly and still presented as the same model. The first run of the Bombadil was essentially a different bike than the second run, and same with the SH once the 2TT was introduced.

      Delete
  15. I have a 2000 Curt Goodrich-built A-R. At the time, A-R was a specific model with a certain style similar to an Atlantis, but was custom built for the purchaser (whereas an Atlantis is "off the rack").

    It was a bit of a splurge, but I had received an insurance settlement after an accident & decided to treat myself. I'm so glad I did.

    The tubing/geometry was selected/designed by Curt and Grant, based on my size, riding style, etc., while keeping within the A-R "design". I had input, but the final design was theirs. They told me that the tubing could be a mix of tubes, depending on the need. I don't remember if they told me what they actually used - I'd have to dig out the bill.

    Because I'm fairly short, I wound up with a 46cm frame. Grant told me mine was the first one that they built so small. I specified 26" hoops, canti brakes and no toe overlap. And it's built up with a mix of vintage Mavic & Campy. I put their lugged stem on it with Noodles. Just wish I could get my butt used to a Brooks.

    Yep, it's what most people would call heavy. But it fits like my favorite jeans and rides beautifully. Faster than you would think and very comfortable. Definitely an all-day ride. Like an earlier reader, I can't believe it's 12 years old now.

    I also have steel, lugged Bianchi & Colnago and a Bridgestone XO-1, but I ride my A-R the most. And the Joe Bell paint is gorgeous - mine is a soft sea-foam green with just a hint of blue mixed in.

    Yes, there are things about Riv that rub some people the wrong way. And I don't agree with everything they do, either. In fact, I think they've drifted a bit from their original vision lately with the non-custom bikes. But the custom lugged steel bikes? That they do - and do well.

    Just my opinion - YMMV.

    Maryk
    Philly, PA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS Let me know if you want an image. You can post it on the blog, if you want.

      Maryk

      Delete
    2. Thanks, would love to see some pictures! filigreevelo[at]yahoo[dot]com

      Did they succeed at making a 46cm frame with no TCO? How long is the TT? and what size tires on the 26" wheels?

      Delete
    3. No TCO - TT is 51. Tires are Schwalbe Marathon 1.5s. Pics to follow later today (just gotta download them out of the camera)

      Delete
  16. Can't afford one now, but when I eventually (hopefully get to) retire, I'd like to get a Hunqapillar. Looks like just the thing for my rides which include mixes of asphalt, gravel, and dirt.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you are ever in the Atlanta area, you are always welcome to test ride my Belle!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! Though I hope I don't crush the tiny frame : )

      Delete
    2. It's not that tiny... 54.5 cm. I'm 5'7". I think you'd fit just fine...

      Delete
    3. Oh I have it all wrong! For some reason I remembered you as being 5'1" and the frame 49cm. Must have gotten confused.

      On a separate topic, do you know who made your frame?

      Delete
    4. Ah, no worries! I have a tiny MB-3 mixte in my custody--maybe that's why.

      Mark Nobilette built my frame and Joe Bell painted it.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the info. Would love to see your bike in person some day!

      Delete
  18. Blogger sucks...

    Scott-bob, Nah. I actually like some Rivs, like the one above, and would never tell someone their bike sucks. I take back what I said since you have a name. If you love your Hunqa ride it often and consciously. That's all that matters. Sorry if I offended.

    msrw - I understand and have adhered to the do-all philosphy and there's a can of worms I don't want to open further wrt double tts. And I do like the classical Rivs of yore. Ah, but the A rides here are pro rides, and there are lots of talented kids who can kick my ass. Ultimately I can dig deeper on my fast bike but versatile bikes do have their place.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Personally, the reason I would never own a Rivendell is simple: I would spend more time looking at the beautiful frame than I would riding the bike. Rather like having a Bugotti in the garage. Velouria's nervousness on her test ride would be a constant state of mind for me. I do own a solid red lugged Bridgestone mountain bike and a forest green RBT touring model. No such worries about those two! Not that I would ever part with them, as they are well made, useful and practical bikes. I have always admired Grant's approach to bicycles, leather baseball gloves, beeswax et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I would not hesitate to ride it if it were my own bike, I am only afraid of messing up somebody else's!

      Delete