If I’m being generous, then I’d say he’s trying to get people to question their understanding about how a bike should function, and the kinds of technological gizmos that we all think we need. On less generous day, yeah, I think that he just picks a subject at random, and takes the most reactionary stance he can about it.

Mostly it’s a very subtle kind of “anti marketing” marketing that appeals to some. I think he understands his market segment very well.

Look at the number of people on here who are constantly changing, upgrading and swapping their bikes, or parts thereon.

What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with wanting your bike the way you want it? It all depends on whether or not it’s a considered decision about a technical piece of kit that, let’s face it, can and if you care about it should be tuned to what you do and how you like to do it; or if it’s just because the mags tell you that it’s cool. To be honest, you can’t really make a sweeping generalisation one way or the other. It’s just not giving fair dues to people.

Read your average bike mag, and the comments along the lines of “if you’re still running X, you might as well be filling your tyres with builder’s sand and oiling your chain with glue”

Never read anything like that. If you don’t care about how your bike rides then fine, do that. I like to fettle with all things technical (cars, bikes, computers etc) and I don’t often read mags, so I don’t think they’re brainwashing me.

Nowt “wrong” with it. There’s just different approaches, coming from slightly different value systems. He cares passionnately about how bikes ride, he’s just deeply sceptical that what the mainstream sells achieves what many people want.

I buy in to a certain extent. I am still happily using square taper cranks and top-pull cantis on a couple of bikes. I am an absolute convert to full mudguards for most things. My most used bikes are without indexed shifters. My most-used road bike runs 32mm tyres. I’ve played gently with riding on the road on his grip-king flat pedals and hiking shoes. etc etc. It’s a market position. There’s some right-ness in it.

Of course, it is massively less convincing the more genuinely technical off-road riding becomes, and clearly no-one is really riding sick north shore gap jumps on a Rivendell Atlantis. But it remains an observable fact at trail centres, in Surrey and listening to willy-waving on here that there are a huge number of expensive, high-tech short life-span modern mountain bikes being used by people who are not adrenaline-fuelled extreme-sportsmen but are really slightly swifter cycling ramblers. Seriously query whether those guys (I’m probably one of them!) would really be better off on a 1980s Stumpjumper, a Rivendell Bombadil, something elegant by Matt Chester, a nice pink Solitude or whatnot depending on means and preference.

🙂

Mostly it’s a very subtle kind of “anti marketing” marketing

That captures it. The bit I found really odd was the complicated explanation of distance between shoulders and handlebars as the handlebars were moved. At first, I thought “WTF?”, then I realised, it was just taking the p*ss, and effectively saying “Listen, the bike needs to fit you. I am a custom builder, and will make a bike to fit you irrespective of what a separate one-off meausrement might say”.

I guess, given that Rivi must be a reasonably busy organisation, it must take a lot of time and effort to come up with a PDF magazine as lengthy as that. It is, as BD rightly points out, ultimately more interesting than MBR and its “please buy this sh*t you don’t need – it’s the only way we can sell advertising” (I don’t buy MBR, BTW).

If I remember, I’ll look up the next edition.

This forum seems to be a pretty open-minded place, but if you look at most cycling magazines and websites there is a really sneery attitude to perfectly functional technology. The prevailing opinion is that v-brakes = certain death, square taper BB = 19th C. technology, >30lb hardtail = lead donkey, and rigid forks = wacko.

I don’t really move in the right circles but I gather this sort of mentality is even more pronounced amongst our road-riding brethren. If Petersen’s point of view is pretty extreme then it just mirrors this, and at least he seems to have a sense of humour about it all.

there is a really sneery attitude to perfectly functional technology.

I think that exists in abundance here, too. Only it’s lessened by the fact that there is a noisy enough minority who don’t (always) follow that mindset.

The road world is an odd one – on one hand, it reveres and lauds its history; riders are praised for their legs and lungs and heroism more than their machinery. And yet, there is an amazing technological march that seems to have enveloped the bikes – I ride with people who are obsessed with having carbon everything, even where (say stems, for example) the technology is worse than whgat went before.

Rivi isn’t a luddite brand, but it likes to give the impression of a being a bit retarded so that only those curious enough will look a bit closer. Of course, it may be a bit King Canute to fight the tide of change, but someone’s got to have a go.

He’s still mental, though.

There’s just different approaches, coming from slightly different value systems.

Of course, that’s what I’m trying to defend.

I think that exists in abundance here, too.

I don’t. I get slightly exasperated sometimes with the singlespeed/weird bar brigade because they seem to be self-consciously adopting it as a reaction to this perceived obsession with pointless shiny technology. Seems like people are creating a myth for the purposes of defining themselves against it.

The prevailing opinion is that v-brakes = certain death, square taper BB = 19th C. technology, >30lb hardtail = lead donkey, and rigid forks = wacko.

Again, I’m not aware of this, haven’t seen it in any of the mags I’ve read. Mostly, people seem to be against a certain technology for a reason that’s explained.

something elegant by Matt Chester

Well that’s just it, there’s the ultimate subjectivity. Some might think a lugged brazed frame is elegant, I happen to think a nicely executed full sus is elegant. Or a simple hardtail that has the geometry and ride subtly tweaked to transform it into a brilliant ride, a la Ti456 for instance, which is one of the most raved about bikes I have read a review of lately. And it’s just a hardtail after all, not the latest whizzy technology….

it’s just a hardtail after all, not the latest whizzy technology….

Yes of course, but no-one’s going to be building one up with v-brakes and a set of P2s now, are they?

I currently have two mountain bikes that are festooned with some really nice kit, yet my fitness, riding skills and enjoyment aren’t coming on in leaps and bounds. I spent a winter riding a 20 year old road bike and noticed a big improvement in my fitness. And another winter where I took the gears off my mountain bike had a similar effect. I’m currently faced with the prospect of lashing out £600 to replace some top-of-the-range coil Pikes that have only lasted a couple of years and are now bin fodder. I think I’m going to go home and shellac some bar tape…

Molgrips, Rivi’s reaction isn’t to the concept of different types bikes for different purposes, it’s not even about “technology” per say. What they react to is the perception that because something is “New” it is “Better”. They re-act against the fact that XTR (for instance) gets “improved” each year, when in reality the difference between a rear mech of 5 years vintage and this years top of the range version is actually not much at all, and certainly won’t make the difference between going for a ride and enjoying it, and not.

I’m with BigDummy on a lot of this.

You may not agree with everything that Grant has to say, but he is pretty consistent in his views and opinions on the type of bike that would suit your ‘average’* rider for most purposes, and it is something that he believes is not well served by products directly derived from what professionals race on. I happen to share his view on this in some respects.

* the fact that we all spend time on places like STW probably means we are significantly more interested in bikes and bicycle technology than the average rider

I don’t. I get slightly exasperated sometimes with the singlespeed/weird bar brigade because they seem to be self-consciously adopting it as a reaction to this perceived obsession with pointless shiny technology. Seems like people are creating a myth for the purposes of defining themselves against it.

Really? Even when people ask questions like this, apparently straight outta WMB/MBR/MBUK…?

What they react to is the perception that because something is “New” it is “Better”

I dunno how prevalant that is. I’ve never heard of anyone who ditched an old XTR mech for a newer one just because it was new.

the type of bike that would suit your ‘average’* rider for most purposes, and it is something that he believes is not well served by products directly derived from what professionals race on.

I’d recommend for an ‘average’ rider something like an Orange 5 or Specialized Pitch for somewhere rocky, or a Soul/Geared Inbred or some such for the rigid option. Those bikes and their ilk are nothing to do with racing, as racing means DH/XC/4x as far as I know, and those bikes fit none of those categories. Taking the Orange 5 as an example, it’s been designed specifically for ‘general’ UK mountain biking, it’s stayed the same for many years bar a few tweaks (as have Specialized bikes tbh) and is fit for purpose.

That’s an interesting link omitn, seems to me though that it’s just an overkeen newbie. They have those in any area. I was one once.

I still feel though that people like the Rivi chap are reacting against something that they perceive to be bigger than it is.

I still feel though that people like the Rivi chap are reacting against something that they perceive to be bigger than it is.

No, they are reacting against a trend in marketing, by marketing a different way. Hence Big Dummy’s correct assessment at the start of the thread. He’s on a wind up. that’s Rivendells marketing angle….See?

I still feel though that people like the Rivi chap are reacting against something that they perceive to be bigger than it is.

I don’t think it numbers molgrips, I think they are reacting against a very vocal and persuasive group of riders/kit manufacturers.

Now whether they are reacting in a clam logical manner, or overreacting a little here and there is interesting, but hardly world shattering.

Me, I like dicking about on bikes. Its fun. I’ll use what I have kicking about to do it on. I obsess over certain things, due to my nature and temperament, sounds like the Rivi guys are doing much the same …

I think Sheldon brown has a concise discussion of kit monkeys on his site somewhere. Creatures that bin something perfectly functional for something new and shiny do exist. Its their obsession.

Molgrips, you need to remember that Rivendell primarily make road and touring bikes. I think a lot of his sentiments don’t necessarily apply to mountain bikes, but some definitely do.

Fair play one and all.

But, is Mr Rivi more concerned with what something is, rather than how it rides? (Real non-rhetorical question)

Good question. No idea.

I think he is concerned about how the bikes ride, but from a longevity, practicality and comfort point of view rather than performance (in the sense of acceleration, handling etc). There are shed loads of articles on his site about bike fit, riding position, what clothes are most comfortable, how to carry loads and other things that you wouldn’t get on most manufacturers’ websites.

I think he is concerned about how the bikes ride, but from a longevity, practicality and comfort point of view rather than performance (in the sense of acceleration, handling etc).

Bike fit is one of the most neglected parts of buying / owning a bike. More people should experiment with different set ups, grips, saddles, handlebars etc… Forget “KoPS” and other “plug in numbers here <special, secret and expensive equation> = perfect fit” “fit systems” Just try stuff out and ride more.

I would say that many other performance improvments (like endurance and handling) are improved by better bike fit.

BigDummy was spot on I think.

SSP

Just try stuff out and ride more

A lot of people need to be shown what’s good, they won’t get there themselves. Something that at first feels weird might then seem good after you get used to it – and a lot is subjective depending on what bike you’ve been riding recently.

It’s more complicated than just try stuff out. But as mentioned before (on this or the other thread!) I reckon a great many people’s bikes could be majorly improved by setting them up right.

A lot of people need to be shown what’s good

That’s not a million miles away from Rivendell’s position

Molgrips,

People can be shown what to adjust but its up to them to try stuff and make adjustments unless bike fitters are available as a “live in” option!

Too many people tend to flock to “experts” like the deluded disciples in The Life of Brian and demand to be told what to do at every step. Like people have said its a bike, not rocket science.

Bike fit – You have to work it out for your selves!

I can’t wait to get back to work and pick up my Powergrips and give them a go as I guess for multi-day trips / lots of bike-n-hike being able to wear the Merrels all the time (and not carry extra shoes for the pub) will be great.

SSP

SSP – sure. Thing is, how many people do you see riding about with their saddle down by their knees? They say ‘oh I didn’t like it high’ but really, if they really tried it and got used to it they’d find it much much easier – like I did. I trusted accepted long standing wisdom and it worked for me. Of course, it’s there perogative to set up their bikes how they like, but not many people really want to make their riding much harder (apart from SSers 😉 )

At the second Mountain Mayhem me and a mate were there as mechanics. The team would come back after a lap and ask to have their shifting adjusted or something. We’d do it and then tweak and readjust the rest of the bike and they were chuffed to bits at how much better it was. We did stuff like put the brake levers and saddles at the right angle.. Some people do sometimes need guidance as to what might be good for them. Problem is, most marketing’s not like that – it is trying to sell you their thing whatever.

That’s why the much-derided Charge vid that was up yesterday was what I’d call good marketing. Not trying to tell you something but just showing something positive involving their bikes. By positive I mean people having fun – the type of positive thing was selected to appeal to those at whom the bike is aimed, presumably.

SSP – powergrips and Merrells is an ace combo. Try (if you can be bothered to order them) Rivendell’s Grip King pedals as well. Really, really comfy things.

😉