Lest my meanderings stray beyond polite list header protocol, I’ll post these meanderings under a new header.
I find discussions such as this one fascinating, though all my opinions come only from modestly adequate “seat of pants” experience over the years; no science was used in these speculations. It’s interesting to see that the lighter frame felt stiffer than much heavier ones. I daresay that the miles-long stays flex more, all equal. No information here about Rivendell weight limits, but some anecdata about how, at least in my experience, the frames that feel “fastest” or that handle heavy loads better don’t always check the expected tubing boxes. I’m ~165 (Down from 170 — Orthodox Great Lent!) but often carry quite heavy rear (and sometimes moderately heavy front) shopping loads; just 10-12 miles return; but — and I’ve said this before, but you’ll keep hearing it — the best = stable-est rear load carrying bike I owned was a very light (compared to my custom Riv framesets) early ‘70s Motobecane Grand Record, a 58 c-c IIRC, with a light Tubus Fly for the panniers. I carried up to 50 lb in the back and that thing was very surprisingly stable; more so than my Ram — much stouter; or even my current normal gauge thinnish-wall 531 Matthews IGH errand road bike, also with a (Bilenky-modified) Tubus stainless steel Fly. The Ram and the Matthews wag much more readily than did the Motobecane — I really don’t know why. Back to Rivendell stiffness. The Ram was very nice (I had a blue one) but it didn’t feel “spritely” as my best Riv custom or certain other and, in fact, stouter-tubed bikes have done — this in acceleration and in handling. The Matthews is a geometrical clone of the 2003 Riv custom road, with OS tubing and conservatively thick walls, that it replaced; over the 17 or so years I rode it the Riv always seemed to be holding me back in subtle ways; getting on the non-OS, thinner-wall tubed Matthews was a revelation. OTOH again — and y’all have heard this before — an old Herse that 2 others had sold on because it felt too stout for them felt for me very spritely indeed and encouraged 1 tooth smaller/1 gear higher in back, consistently over the ~2 years I owned it, this despite non-wonderful wire bead 32 mm Pasela tires. I sold that one on because I don’t like low-trail handling. I rode the 2018 Matthews “road bike for dirt” to and from church today, along the ditchbank roads, with the very light and fast-rolling Soma Supple Vitesse SL 48s (~51 actual) and that thing just flew on the hardpack. Thinwall tubing, but OS with a compact frame. Again, a “1 tooth smaller in back” frame with the right tires. Aside, speaking of excessively oversized and thickwalled tubing and its effect on how a bike rides: I am within 3/16ths of an inch of actually getting around to building up that 2012 Monocog 29er, which I had planned to do on Sat, only I virtuously decided to get ahead on a couple of resume projects instead. So we’ll see if my zeal carries over to tomorrow. Here’s the point about the Monocog: the tubing is so thick that, really, I adjusted seatstay tire clearance with a hammer. And yep, the thick tubing affects the ride. Now, it’s not horrible, but the ride is just “meh,” only with a beater like this I don’t start with high expectations, so the end result is not terribly disappointing. [I squoze 72 mm actual/3" mm labeled tires onto a frame built for 55s, but the within-spec tire/rim runout in the rear had the side knobs rubbing the seat- and chainstays. I took a hammer and a mandrel and beat 1/4” indentations into the seatstays so that at least I’d not have to worry about rub there; the chainstays were factory indented. *That was a lot of work!*] On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 12:22 PM R Olson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Andy, > > Fellow big guy here. I hover between 260-270 lbs. When I got into > biking, I started off with the stout frames - I got an Appaloosa (two, > actually), a Surly, LHT and a Clem L, Surly Ogre. I then decided on a whim > to get a used Roadeo, which, if you read the Riv website, they won't sell > you a new one if you're over 250. It was my favorite bike and it rode > superbly. It was responsive when I wanted to go fast, the amount of flex > was great (my Clem was way more flexy/wiggly than the Roadeo). It was a > little small, so I ended up selling it. I put about 1,800 miles on the > Roadeo and never had one problem. I also owned a 61cm tig'd Roadini. > There are no weight limits on the Riv site for Roadini's that I see, but it > felt more flexy than the Roadeo, but still responsive and super > comfortable. I put about 300 miles on the Roadini before selling that > one. I thought I might be done with road bikes, but ended up missing it, > so I bought a Crust Malocchio. There is no weight limit on Crust's site > for that frame, but the frame and fork together are around 6 pounds, so I > would say with confidence that it has lighter tubing than anything Riv > has. The Malocchio is a delight to ride, flexing the right amount but > still responsive. It's the lightest bike I've ever owned. With Ultegra > components and Hunt Super Dura wheels (which I love) it's just over 22 > pounds (that's everything, pedals and all). I just wish the geometry was > more Riv-like in terms of having more stack and less reach. But as far as > how the frame has held up - it's been great, no problems. I was even hit > by a car on it (glancing blow - I am completely fine) and the frame is > completely straight, the fork is not damaged at all (I removed the fork and > inspected it thoroughly - no cracks, no dents, not bent, nothing). I've > ridden it about 300 miles since then and no problems. Overall, I enjoy > lighter bikes not because I can go faster on them, but because I can go > farther without feeling beat up at the end of a long ride and I, like you, > enjoy the flex of the frame. Living in Colorado, I can climb better on > them too. I ride bigger tires on these frames too - I generally won't ride > anything less than 40's, so there's some cushening effect there too. For > the Malocchio, I had a framebuilder put a new brake bridge on the back so I > could fit 45's on it. I'm just riding on roads and the occasional groomed > aggregate trail between roads/paths, so I'm not riding these bikes on > trails or any rough stuff at all. I also don't put any bags on these > lighter bikes and wouldn't consder them for shopping or touring. > > Atlantis and Appa are more stout of couse, but the frames do flex and are > very comfortable. I owned a first generation Appa in size 62cm. That > frame was heavy but flexed wonderfully. I felt totally in sync with it > when I was riding. I then got a double-top tube 58cm Appa and that was a > tank. There was no flex on that bike and it was heavy. The geometry > matters as well as the tubing. I ended up buying a hardtail mountainbike > for all my singletrack and trail riding. > > In general, I think Riv is conservative in their weight limits, but > understandably so due to liability reasons. Their weight recommendations > used to affect my purchase decisions, but not any more. I just use that > information to inform how it might ride and the best use. I wouldn't ride > the Gallop on any trails, but It's probalby stronger than my Malocchio. It > probably will flex at least the same amount or more because of the longer > top tube and the longer chainstays tho. I think their Roadini, Homer and > Hillborne models are all about the same and would work for me in many > circumstances, even smoothish trails. > > Hope this helps. Best of luck in your furtuer bike decisions! Let me > know if you have any questions. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgt22%2BQEWjJgswijc67%3DkPZuh2XGhpg3PiAV8_v%3DKa7B%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
