Grant Petersen’s Rivendell Roadini

[MikeDee]

found these in about five minutes



FWIW most bars have flat drops. If I understand it correctly, what you are after is probably better termed ' flat hooks'

cheers

Nice bar. Probably didn't exist when I was looking for a bar about 5 years ago. Hard to find in the US and costs about $150 from SOMA, and they don't carry it in black. I paid about $40 for the Easton EA-50 bar I'm currently using.

[Bmblbzzz]

Ah gotcha, the squared bends variety or ergo bars. The Deda piega comes in a variant very similar to that and 26.0 IIRC

That may work, but I forgot to mention that I prefer a compact bar. These are standard drop and reach.

Deda Piega are compact. Drop is 120mm and reach 80mm, measured very roughly over bartape.

[Brucey]

Nice bar. Probably didn't exist when I was looking for a bar about 5 years ago. Hard to find in the US and costs about $150 from SOMA, and they don't carry it in black. I paid about $40 for the Easton EA-50 bar I'm currently using.

IIRC nitto designed this to work with original shimano STIs; if so, the design may well be many years old. £49.99 here in the UK from planet x (but probably not all the options available); they may have the same deal via their US website too.

There are others too; I recently pulled a set of no-name ones out my bits box and they were identical specification (which came OE on something or other, I forget what exactly) and passed them on to one of my chums who is equally keen on that shape (for some reason...)

cheers

[MikeDee]

Nice bar. Probably didn't exist when I was looking for a bar about 5 years ago. Hard to find in the US and costs about $150 from SOMA, and they don't carry it in black. I paid about $40 for the Easton EA-50 bar I'm currently using.

IIRC nitto designed this to work with original shimano STIs; if so, the design may well be about 25 years old. £49.99 here in the UK from planet x (but probably not all the options available); they may have the same deal via their US website too.

There are others too; I recently pulled a set of no-name ones out my bits box and they were identical specification (which came OE on something or other, I forget what exactly) and passed them on to one of my chums who is equally keen on that shape (for some reason...)

cheers

I'm beginning to realize that you in the UK have access to a lot more bicycle parts than we do in the US. It seems like we have all the new stuff and older parts are hard to get.

When I did a Google search for the Deda bar a few posts up, I couldn't find it sold in the US.

[Bmblbzzz]

That might be true for some components, but equally there are various interesting frames available in the US (eg Soma) which are hard or impossible to find here (and which are much more expensive if you do find them).

[Samuel D]

Another example: the Rivendell Roadini.

…..I thought all of that would make the Roadini’s 190 mm head tube work out, but maybe I’m forgetting to account for something about quill stems...…

Here's the comparison.
Spa 54 Audax; Fork 375; head tube 135; spacers 50 I think you said? total = 560
Rivendell; fork 378 ; head tube 190; total = 568
But then, your saddle will be 12mm lower, because the BB is 12mm lower, and you have got to find room for the extra stack height of a threaded headset against an Ahead. I think you'd struggle.

I’ve just done the sums with the precise stack heights of the FSA Duron and my threadless headset, accounting also for the upward angle of my current stem (even flipped down). Looks like you’re right. The 54 cm Roadini would be about an inch higher, which is too much – especially since I might want to put it down in the future (or up, but that’s easy with a quill stem).

That’s awkward, because the 50 cm Roadini is too short in the top tube and starts to look a bit silly with my saddle height.

I’m not likely to import a frame from the USA anyway, if that’s what would have to be done. The VAT and all would add up to custom British builder prices.

Thing is, I have no great faith that the affordable custom builders would make me a finely finished product in faultless accordance with my long list of minor instructions that they might not even agree with. And all that freedom might be enough rope to hang myself.

[Brucey]

one way of getting exactly what you want is to build it yourself. There are (week long) framebuilding courses you can go on.... not sure if Dave Yates still does them or not.

cheers

[JakobW]

When I inquired about them last year, I was told he's winding down towards retirement but will probably still keep doing the framebuilding courses for a little while longer as he enjoys them. I've heard good things about the Bicycle Academy courses, as well as ones run by one of the Roberts clan somewhere on the south coast.

[pedalsheep]

When I inquired about them last year, I was told he's winding down towards retirement but will probably still keep doing the framebuilding courses for a little while longer as he enjoys them. I've heard good things about the Bicycle Academy courses, as well as ones run by one of the Roberts clan somewhere on the south coast.

Geoff Roberts in Hastings
http://www.geoffrobertsframes.co.uk

[Bmblbzzz]

Swallow in Telford do frame-building courses. I know two people who've built their own frames with them.

[PH]

Thing is, I have no great faith that the affordable custom builders would make me a finely finished product in faultless accordance with my long list of minor instructions that they might not even agree with.

You're probably right, maybe that's what makes them affordable.
If you go this route, give Lee Cooper a try, only a small proportion of his frames carry his name, yet his work seems to cover a wider spectrum than most builders, without getting into art house prices.

[531colin]

……….Thing is, I have no great faith that the affordable custom builders would make me a finely finished product in faultless accordance with my long list of minor instructions that they might not even agree with. And all that freedom might be enough rope to hang myself.

What are you looking for, Samuel?
I am in the enviable position where I can design a bike and somebody else pays for a prototype to be made, which I can then ride. However, you and I are generations apart and I am only likely to design the sort of bike which I might want to ride and which also might sell, althought those criteria can be poles apart.
So, like looking down the wrong end of a telescope, here are a few random thoughts, gleaned from here and there.
I just love the way this Rivendell is described as a practical bike with clearance for big tyres. It isn't, is it? The long list of people offering different braking solutions just emphasises these clearances won't work with mudguards and big tyres. Then theres the toe overlap...OK not a problem for everybody, but better without than with unless you want to restrict your market.
But you are using downtube levers, so "with one bound" you are free of the tyranny of road STIs and their associated brakes with fag-paper clearances....you could go straight to full-size Vee brakes which are unquestionably the best rim brakes.... or MTB disc brakes with their longer-pull, lower tension cable mechanics.
If you allow yourself to break away from carbon forks, you also escape the tyranny of the "standard" 45mm offset.
Spa's Audax is a pretty standard 45mm offset 72 degree head. If I must use 45mm offset, I personally prefer the extra stability of 71.5 degree head angle which gives you also a slightly shorter reach for the same front centre. For me, the Rivendell is going the wrong way, an extra 5mm offset equates to about half a degree steeper head angle.....I would certainly match that extra offset to a slacker head angle to give quieter steering and more toe room for the same reach. But with a steel fork you can have exactly what you want....a deeply unfashionable 55mm offset will match perfectly with 71 degree head angle......or 60mm offset with 70.5 degrees will provide a short reach frame with a long front centre. 45mm offset and 71 degree head is a bit slow-steering for me, although I could soon get used to it if I needed to manipulate reach and toe clearance.
Jan Heine is an advocate of short trail bikes. I remember reading where he enthused about how his short trail steering allowed him to dodge potholes and yet would bring him safely home when he was shattered. That's a case of having your cake and eating it. Short trail steering makes quick pothole-dodging easier, and you can easily slalom the cats' eyes riding no-hands. However, by the same token short trail steering is upset by random accidental steering inputs; that is anything from a tired rider accidentally leaning when they look away from the road in front, to the effects of sidewinds, road camber, and an unbalanced or shifting load. For a bike to take me home when I'm tired, I want stability, not excitement. Everybody talks about trail like its a one-number explanation of the whole of bike steering. I don't think its as simple as that. To me, a tourer with a 71 degree head is a quieter ride than a bike with the same trail from a steeper head and less offset. Maybe its the bigger tyres, maybe its the longer wheelbase, maybe its just because its what I have ridden for a lifetime. Theres certainly a feeling among traditional framebuilders that a steep head angle is less tolerant of mis-matched fork offset than a shallower head angle. Lots of touring bikes over generations have had 71 degree head angle and fork offset of a bit more than two inches. Just coincidence, maybe.
You mentioned chainstay length in passing..Spa's Elan has 440mm chainstays...longer yet than the Audax, to accommodate the conflicting demands of disc brakes and chainwheel/tyre/crank clearances, and so far nobody has complained! (now they will!). Originally, I resisted disc brakes, at my age I'm quite content with brakes that I understand, where I can get the wheel in or out in the dark with cold hands. But I was deflected by two things....the appeal of a new bike for my seventieth birthday, and also the thing rides so nicely. So now I am a fan of ovalized tubes. A bike frame ideally wants to be stiff laterally to resist pedalling-induced flex, and compliant vertically for comfort. This is a difficulty in a structure which is triangulated vertically and almost two-dimensional laterally. Ovalising the tubing in a couple of places has a definite effect on the lateral stiffness of the structure.

[Samuel D]

……….Thing is, I have no great faith that the affordable custom builders would make me a finely finished product in faultless accordance with my long list of minor instructions that they might not even agree with. And all that freedom might be enough rope to hang myself.

What are you looking for, Samuel?

I saw your question but lacked a chunk of time to reply until now.

If I got to choose everything, something along these lines:

1. 72 degree seat tube (my Spa Audax is fine but on the limit). For 27.2 mm seatpost
2. 72 degree head tube. Most likely 1-1/8" threadless. A bit longer than my Audax’s 135 mm to reduce spacer height (for looks)
3. steel fork with whatever fork crown makes best engineering sense. My Audax’s steering suits me fine, so I’d likely stick with that offset
4. effective top tube a little longer than my 54 cm Audax to give a touch more toe clearance. I thought I didn’t care at all about this, but I’ve since tried 28 mm tyres, guards with clearance for mulch, and a protruding mud flap – all at the same time. But no big deal
5. whatever tubing is dent-resistant and not prone to fatigue after many miles. Not fussy about saving ounces, or esoteric ride qualities, or posh brands of steel. Would like a brazed frame, maybe lugged but maybe not, for classic appearance. Intermediate stiffness: I’m light but haven’t liked the flex when I’ve tried old bicycles
6. threaded bottom bracket. I guess a low bottom bracket has both upsides and downsides. Maybe the Audax’s height is fine
7. chainstays as long as my Audax’s or longer. Not being heavy and strong nor a stiffness fiend, I see no downside to this and some upsides (e.g. chain angle at extremes of cassette). But they can’t be arbitrarily long or the frame won’t fit across the rear footwell of a small car (with wheels removed)
8. straight seat and chain stays if that’s sensible and they allow clearance for 28 mm tyres with guards. I don’t anticipate using tyres wider than that
9. 130 mm rear OLN
10. horizontal top tube, because it seems to me a good idea for the force up the seatstays to be transmitted close to the saddle position to reduce the bending moment in the seat tube or seat post (I know flex there is the new hotness, but I prefer to use tyres for suspension)
11. down-tube shifter bosses
12. only one bottle cage mount, as low on the down tube as will clear a frame pump on the seat tube. The problem with unused bosses on the seat tube is that even domed-head screws (to seal the frame) protrude far enough to hit the pump
13. brake cable routed along top of top tube to make shouldering the bicycle more comfortable (I often carry it up and down stairs. That’s why I don’t want a pump under the top tube, by the way)
14. fittings for 57 mm drop side-pull brakes. Recessed to fit modern brakes, I suppose, even though nutted makes adding and removing mudguards a lot easier – and I do that several times a year. V-brakes brake well but are maintenance heavy as I’ve seen with my girlfriend’s city bike. I go through pads quickly and don’t enjoy fiddling with pad position or giving mindspace to the problem of pads moving up or down the brake track with wear. Don’t want the downsides of disc brakes (repeatable wheel position after removal for travel or puncture, loud honking in wet weather or just fog, hydraulics, weight, overall costs) although they brake even better
15. fittings for mudguards and a rack, not that the latter is often used – but I do want the option for light touring (sub 10 kg load).

Essentially I want a versatile bicycle for 99% tarmac use, capable of being practically a racing machine in the summer and a low-maintenance, dynamo-equipped, reliable plodder for rain and darkness far from home in the winter.

As you see, the Spa Audax gets awfully close to this, and that’s why I have one. I might even get another, this time in 56 cm now that I’m surer about my position.

But why replace my frame at all, you ask. Well, it has several dents, missing paint, a squashed down-tube where I over-tightened a badly made (non-Shimano) braze-on derailleur adaptor, a slipping seatpost (cured for now with an extra clamp on the post), and a couple of other minor problems. I learned a lot by working on it and tweaking my position. Now I’d like to start again with what I’ve learned and build the old frame up for another use by a person who would appreciate it.

The total lack of urgency is why I’ve not jumped yet.

[Brucey]

I can understand why you have chosen each of those things but some of them are things that you could learn to live with and others make relatively little difference. For example if you test ride a bike with different steering geometry or flex, you will feel it for sure but you might in time get used to it. Knowing if the latter applies is tricky. So for example it is easier to get less toe overlap with more fork offset but this also makes the steering different. Many modern frames are designed around a ~45mm offset (carbon) fork and really that restricts the range of head angles that you are likely to find.

Buying a frame for allen key brakes is a no-brainer; having the allen key fittings does not stop you from fitting nutted brakes if you want, you just need some spacers. Nutted brakes -if the bolts are long enough- can be fitted with two nuts. This allows you to remove and refit mudguards without disturbing the brake alignment.

If you reduce the OD of tubes you can keep the same frame weight and make the wall thickness greater and more dent resistant. Smaller OD tubes (even at the same wall thickness) are a bit more dent-resistant too. The frame will however be more flexy. IMHO this (in the main triangle) feels worse than it really is, if you are used to stiff frame. Stiffness in the back of the frame is far more important from an efficency standpoint. Carrying loads safely is always trickier with a more flexible frame. Going up even 2cm in frame size will also have a big effect on frame stiffness.

I'd advocate 132.5mm rear spacing; this allows you to use 130mm or (stronger or lighter-built) 135mm wheels. Either type of hub can be respaced to 132.5 if you want a perfect fit.

I note that cantilever brakes didn't even warrant a mention; if well chosen these are powerful and efficient brakes. If you use the right type of brake blocks you can avoid having to adjust the height of the brake blocks as they wear. Obviously with cantis there is no inherent issue with mudguard clearance compromises etc. BITD one reason for selecting cantis was that they were a bit lighter than most caliper brakes.

If you are open to the idea of cantis maybe something like a surly cross-check might suit you? This frameset will also give you a chance to experiment with various new things.

cheers

[slowster]

5. whatever tubing is dent-resistant and not prone to fatigue after many miles.

My understanding is that it is the tube thickness/profile that determines flex, not the grade of steel. So all other things being equal an 853 frame and a 631 frame with the same tube thicknesses and geometry etc. will largely feel the same to ride. The main difference is that the higher grade grade steels like 853 are stronger and thus more dent resistant and also will resist fatigue more. That is what allows them to be used in much thinner thicknesses than 525 and 631 etc. to produce frames which are a bit lighter and will flex more, but you could specify 853 in the same tube thicknesses that would be used in a 525 or 631 frame to get the benefit of the extra dent and fatigue resistance.

12. The problem with unused bosses on the seat tube is that even domed-head screws (to seal the frame) protrude far enough to hit the pump

This irritates me as well. My experience is that it's particularly a problem with the Topeak Road Blaster, e.g. compared with the Zefal HPX, because the Topeak Road Blaster has a relatively slim handle and head which do not hold the barrel far enough away from the seat tube bosses.

Problem Solvers sell these products, https://problemsolversbike.com/products/shifters-derailleurs/bubs_-_k5431, which look like they have a slightly lower profile than most dome headed bolts (and could easily be filed down even flatter). They look to me like the sort of caps that are sometimes used to blank holes in some types of flat pack and self assembly furniture.

13. brake cable routed along top of top tube to make shouldering the bicycle more comfortable (I often carry it up and down stairs. That’s why I don’t want a pump under the top tube, by the way)

I dislike brake cables on the top of the top tube for various reasons (aesthetics, the likelihood that the cable will be repeatedly pushed and rubbed against the frame by the weight of the crotch pressing against it [especially on a horizontal top tubed bike with its inherently high standover], the rattle of the cable on the frame when riding over bumps because the cable doughnuts never stay in place, and my experience of the cable guides and cable being more prone to holding water and promoting rust [albeit that was with fully enclosed cables as opposed to cable stops and bare cable]).

I think this is where a good custom builder comes into their own. It should be possible to braze cable stops in the 8 o'clock position (viewed from the front), such that the cable and cable stops do not get in the way when shouldering the bike from the non-drive side.

Similarly a custom builder can add a pump peg to the top of the non-drive side seat stay (the bottom of the pump being held by in the corner formed by the rear drop out). This used to be a feature of Thorn's original audax frames.

14. Recessed to fit modern brakes, I suppose, even though nutted makes adding and removing mudguards a lot easier – and I do that several times a year.

Shedon fender nuts or their cheaper equivalent from Gilles Berthoud might suit (although I prefer braze-ons to bolt the mudguard directly to the fork crown and seat and chain stay bridges):

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/search/?term=sheldon

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brakes/9-gilles-berthoud-brake-spindle-screw-for-mudguards/

The other thing I would want from a custom builder for such a bike as you describe ('dynamo-equipped, reliable plodder for rain and darkness far from home in the winter') is Son's connectorless dynamo system, with cabling routed inside the fork leg and no fiddly spade connectors to pull apart and re-fit when removing the front wheel to fix a puncture etc.