[Closed] Rivendell Big Dummy Review

I can't read any of that shit, I know he trolls, and it still winds me up. Tosser...When I'm king.... 👿

a swift email to the Tolkien foundation should sort them out. rivendell? bombadil? they'll have grey suited intellectual property lawyers all over them in a flash!

They'll have grey suited intellectual property lawyers all over them in a flash!

Too late. Rivendall have already had the call and responded...

Got a call today from a lawyer representing the firm that owns the rights to the middle-earth names in the Movie, and we can keep Rivendell (we predate the movie by far, and there are numerous companies with Rivendell in the name); but they have a prob with Legolas, and might squawk some about Bombadil and Quickbeam (but they weren t in the Movie, so maybe not); and Baggins won t fly for sure--. So we may have to rename the Bombadil and Quickbeam. This is a much more pleasant call to get than, Your carbon fork snapped, and my client s family... The lawyer was seemed sincerely normal and friendly, and it s not like BIG news here, just a little things we have to deal with. If our names came before the Movie, we may be off the hook. Legal things, we ll play according to the law and the right standards, but I ll be bummed if Bombadil has to go. How does Yves Gomez sound for a mountain bike?

I don't know, but I suspect J.R.R might have been rather appalled by the idea that the name "Tom Bombadil" was anybody's property.

I wonder if anyone would go after you for using Muzzlehatch instead?...

🙂

Tom Bombadil is/was? the most pointless bit in the whole Ring trilogy. It is entirely fitting that Peterson named one of his bikes after him.

i quite like the bike tho, looks nice.

agree on the tom bombadill part of the rings.
total waste of a fair few pages.

total waste of a fair few pages.

IIRC there's a lot of that going on. "This damn thing is going to be three fat volumes if it kills me!" - J. R. R. Tolkein (maybe)

Still, that bike is a good way of avoiding heel-rub on the panniers.

The Rivendell bloke sometimes verges on being a parody of himself, but he does make me cackle. While his constant digs at carbon fibre, mountain bikes and the like can be a bit tiresome (I really wouldn't ride that Bombadil thing off road, it looks like death on a stick. Quill stems FFS!) I completely agree with the idea that most people don't need the newest, lightest or fanciest thing.

the most pointless bit in the whole Ring trilogy

I cannot agree - part of the attraction of the story is the varied sentient bestiary and the near immortality of many of the characters, with their differing levels of involvement with mortals. Bombadil represents primeval uninvolvement and Nature as a thing apart.

Simon, very well put.

[i]Quill stems FFS![/i]

What's not to like?

[i]Bombadil represents primeval uninvolvement[/i]

Plus he can save you from any lurking Barry Whites.

Yes, I understand what the character of Bombadil represents, and why. But as a piece of writing it is at odds with the rest of the tone of the books. It just doesn't work that well. IMO.

Can you imagine riding that Bombadil on anything tight and/or technical? I've got an 80s rockhopper that has similar geometry and it's a complete disaster on anything tricky. Good for fireroads and going to the shops though!

I suspect it's good for a lot of what those chaps seem to like doing. They [i]appear[/i] to build bikes for the Rough Stuff Fellowship and their ilk. Very nice bikes indeed. The Bombadil is just at the gnarly end of the RSF spectrum, isn't it? It does not look wildly dissimilar to various bikes on here of a CX/crossover variety with a view to light touring. For what they're building for it looks rather smart.

My Kona A'ha is lurking around trying to find a function at present. I rather wonder whether some small racks and a nice upright position for off-road cruising wouldn't give it a new lease of life.

🙂

Oh I quite like the bike and can see how you would ride it (pretty much as my Dad used to ride his rockhopper, sweating along in his hiking boots, farmers coat and slacks - no helmet of course), it's just the way he (trolling as you say) dismisses the evolution of mountain bikes into something different and, for technical riding at least, more capable. I think even popping the front wheel up a curb would be tricky on the Bombadil, not on your Kona though.

most people don't need the newest, lightest or fanciest thing.

We might like it tho.

Seems like the retro kit brigade are under the illusion that everyone apart from them is a slave to the latest shiny new marketing ploy... Still - gotta have something to react against eh, even if it is an illusion 🙂

It's cool that Grant likes to build bikes that he likes to ride, that's fine, it's the constant grind of "I'm right me, and not only am I right, but everyone else is blinded by technology and marketing and they're [u]absolutely[/u] wrong". I dislike absolutists whether they make otherwise nice bikes, or not.

Molgrips, it ain't no illusion. Look at the number of people on here who are constantly changing, upgrading and swapping their bikes, or parts thereon. Look at the threads on here about HT11 BBs! 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". Yes, most people learn to take it with a pinch of salt, but it's still annoying.

What's not to like?

Not having to carry two humungous spanners around in your toolkit, for starters. Have to admit that none of those bikes would look "right" with a threadless stem though.

I do wonder what proportion of his customers are repeat business "upgrading" (?) to the latest and best retro ride from Rivendell which has dispensed with [b]all[/b] innovation and is at the [i]perfect peak[/i] of functional what-work-ism.

😉

I dislike absolutists whether they make otherwise nice bikes, or not.

Absolutely!

My Kona A'ha is lurking around trying to find a function at present. I rather wonder whether some small racks and a nice upright position for off-road cruising wouldn't give it a new lease of life.

My Lavadome is going to become an Xtracycle. Just as soon as I can unseize the 17 year-old bottom bracket.... 😯

Well, my A'ha's been an Xtracycle already, it needs a new challenge!

😀

Bigdummy I like the idea of a negatively proportional upgrade cycle, very funny.

Threaded headsets and me were a bad combo - either bound tight or loose and wobbly - threadless is a huge improvement.

Although this one's quite nice:
[img] [/img]

Modern stems are ugly. The quill Cinelli on my track bike (that goes with the matching Cinelli bars) is just perfect. Slim and elegant, which matches the tubing of the frame (531).

Shame the same can't be said for the rider....

But as a piece of writing it is at odds with the rest of the tone of the books

couldn't you level the same criticism at "The Hobbit" ? - which is clearly part of the same story.

There's a lot going on in this thread isn't there?

😉

There is.

However, can't engage on JRRT's novels. I tried reading TLoTR when I was a child, but its awfulness made me feel physically sick.

I have printed off the Rivendell Reader PDF (thanks work!), and will read it later. There's a lot to be said for questioning reletenless progress, and there's something to be said for wearing a hair shirt naw and again, but not both at the same time to the exclusion of all else.

[i]I do wonder what proportion of his customers are repeat business "upgrading" (?) to the latest and best retro ride from Rivendell which has dispensed with all innovation and is at the perfect peak of functional what-work-ism. [/i]

I like BikeSnob's theory that one day they are going to produce a bike made entirely out of lugs, which will be the retro-grouch equivalent of a carbon monocoque.

If you want to talk about functional what-work-ism, surely that honour goes to Surly? Most of their bikes are as about as glamourous as a pair of beige socks. 😉

[img] [/img]

but look at the pedals on that Surly, new fangled nonsense I tell you.

And we're back at JRR.

I suppose so Si. But Tom Bombadil was first introduced as a children's character in a Poem (I could have my dates wrong about this, so this may very well blow my theory right under the waterline), and the Hobbit is also a children's book. So, to mind they belong together. Although the characters in the Ring are essentially the same thing, they're from a different perspective, more real (obviously these are all fantastical creatures; more fleshed out, is probably better), whereas Tom just isn't, he's still a children's storybook character.

There's nowt wrong with utilitarianism, but to the exclusion of all else? wool makes me itch, anyway... 🙂

whereas Tom just isn't, he's still a children's storybook character.

OK, I'll accept that. I suppose I take the episode as an amusing diversion. Even if it doesn't exactly fit, I don't think the story is improved by removing it - and I missed it in the film.

but its awfulness made me feel physically sick.

I wouldn't class it as great literature, just an involving read (for some of us). It started off as a fairy tale for his own kids, and I think later it became a vehicle onto which Tolkien attached made up languages and histories

I think Jackson removed it as it wasn't an "essential" bit of the story, and as it's a longish film anyway.

I remember reading it as a teenager just thinking "Eh? what's this all about" Perhaps I need to re-visit it.

but look at the pedals on that Surly, new fangled nonsense I tell you.

If it had a hand-polished set of those MKS jobbies with the [url= ]ridiculously baroque design[/url], and toe-clips accessorised with calf-hide straps, then it would tick the retro box, but might be a tad impractical. I have to stop looking at that bike now actually, it's making me feel a bit depressed...

[i]two humungous spanners[/i]

I'm a Bontrager rider and all my clocks stopped in 1995. 1" Bonty quill stem, King threaded headset and - the horror! - Rock Shox Judys... 8)

[i]If you want to talk about functional what-work-ism, surely that honour goes to Surly? Most of their bikes are as about as glamourous as a pair of beige socks. [/i]

Yep, I'd agree with that. However, as a company Surly are also prepared to do slightly crazy things like build and sell Pugsley or Big Dummy frames so there is a reasonable amount of innovation at work. Maybe not innovation in the sense of ideas being brand new, but they are bring these ideas to the market at a price point that other companies are not.

I have to say I am a bit of a Surly fan. No, their products aren't flashy, but they're well built, not too expensive, they work and they should last for ever (unless you crash them into something hard at speed!). And some of their staff are complete nutters, which is nice.

Er, I read that Rivendell Reader last night whilst sitting on the sofa and letting the TV drvel pass me by.

WTF is he on? Or is it all just trolling?

I've likewise read a couple and been mildly bemused. He's interested in stuff, and likes to refine ideas BUT the ideas that he is refining are very self-consciously not mainstream.

It's an extreme example of singlespeeders in merino wool shirts drinking 24 year old single malt while discussing the benefits of 853 tubing.

My guess is after reading a fair few of them, and not touching MBR at all, over a few years it would all make a lot more sense...

😉

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 [i]should[/i] 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 [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/what-tyres-are-best-for-freerideagressive-all-mountain ]people ask questions like this[/url], 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]I still feel though that people like the Rivi chap are reacting against something that they perceive to be bigger than it is. [/i]

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.

[i]A lot of people need to be shown what's good[/i]

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.

[img] [/img]
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.

😉