Rivendell Bombadil

[sevencyclist]

Has anyone ridden the Rivendell montainbike Bombadil? I wonder how it compares to the old Bridgestone. I missed the beautiful MB3 that started my fascination with cycling.

[gdw]

It looks like Grant intends the Bombidil to be more of an urban commuter/rough touring bike than a true mtb like the old Bridgestones judging from the geometry. http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/79/original_bomba-Geometry.pdf
The top tube is short, the head angle more relaxed, and he's going with the funky big frame fit system that he pushes on his road bikes. The frame is also heavier than most cross country full suspension frames and built with a 1 inch headtube so a suspension fork isn't an option.

Here's a review from someone who has ridden a prototype.
http://chicogino.blogspot.com/2008/05/rivendell-bombadil-my-two-week-fling.html

[Ray]

It looks like Grant intends the Bombidil to be more of an urban commuter/rough touring bike than a true mtb like the old Bridgestones judging from the geometry. http://www.rivbike.com/assets/payloads/79/original_bomba-Geometry.pdf
The top tube is short, the head angle more relaxed, and he's going with the funky big frame fit system that he pushes on his road bikes. The frame is also heavier than most cross country full suspension frames and built with a 1 inch headtube so a suspension fork isn't an option.

Here's a review from someone who has ridden a prototype.
http://chicogino.blogspot.com/2008/05/rivendell-bombadil-my-two-week-fling.html
My initial impression was the same as yours, but the review makes it sound like a pretty nice mtb as well. Who knows though. I once had a Riv All-Rounder that all sorts of people called "all the mountain bike you'd ever want" or something to that effect. It was a great bike for lots of things, but if you were really into mountain biking, you'd want a pure mountain bike too. I rode a bunch of single track with it and it coped, but it wasn't the ideal tool for that application.

I'm intrigued by the Bombadil. I currently have a Bleriot that I use as a town bike. I could conceivably replace it with the Bombadil and get a second set of wheels for mountain biking. Nah, the last couple of mtb's I've had were culled for lack of use, so there wouldn't be much point in getting another one.

-Ray

[palincss]

You'll find lots of discussion of the Bombadil in the RBW Owners Group on googlegroups:

http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch/search?group=rbw-owners-bunch&q=bombadil&qt_g=Search+this+group

[Ken Robb]

Has anyone ridden the Rivendell montainbike Bombadil? I wonder how it compares to the old Bridgestone. I missed the beautiful MB3 that started my fascination with cycling.

I still have the 1989 MB3 that I bought new. Great urban assault vehicle and a dandy grocery-getter too.

[goonster]

he's going with the funky big frame fit system that he pushes on his road bikes.

Mind you, it works on his bikes.

IIRC, the Bombadil exists as a protoype only, so far, so noone has ridden a proper production Bombadil yet.

[SpeedyChix]

The Bombadils are out. Folks have posted to the RBW forum about their rides. The frame tubes are stouter than any of the other bikes and then add on that second top tube for all but the smallest frame. They are very much like the early mtbs. Stout and rideable. Practical. My own experience of Riv bikes I've had is that in the small sizes they aren't as lively as I like a bike to feel. Doesn't make em bad in any way. Just a bit overbuilt for my own personal pref.

Grant designs some well thought out frames. I really like the Quickbeam, just was a bit big for me even in the smallest size. An Atalantis seems like the all round rider or the 650B Bleriot.

Link to comments on the bike (http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch/search?hl=en&group=rbw-owners-bunch&q=bomb&qt_g=Search+this+group)

[goonster]

The Bombadils are out.
I stand corrected.

My own experience of Riv bikes I've had is that in the small sizes they aren't as lively as I like a bike to feel.
Agreed that the current Riv production lineup is not ideal for smaller riders.

[gdw]

and definitely would not want to ride a Bombadil on any of the trails that I took my old rigid MB-3's on in Moab. Grant's minimal to no standover geometry combined with technical trails equal severe pain and no children in the future.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/disastro/3412295199/
http://www.cord.edu/faculty/sprunger/bikes/bombadil/
http://picasaweb.google.com/yagenrok/BOMBADILO?feat=directlink#5328985885928589650

[palincss]

I've read Gino's blog entry that you linked to and looked at the photos. That bike doesn't look to me as though it's set up with minimal to no standover clearance. Gino's got a whole lot more than a fistful of post showing. What's more, his review is a great deal more favorable than one would conclude from reading your comments.

[BCS]

The Bombadil is one of the most hideous looking bikes I have ever seen. I own and enjoy riding my Rivendell Rambouillet. I also like Grant Peterson's philosophy on many cycling related topics.

But, the Bombadil is just plain fugly.

[csm]

I have a 92 (I think?) MB-1 that needs a bit of tlc to get back in use. it has been a great bike.

[fiamme red]

Here's Rivendell's frame model chart (http://www.rivbike.com/assets/full/0000/0012/framecompJan.pdf). Too bad that they no longer make a road bike like the Rambouillet/Romulus/Redwood.

I don't think I've ever ridden a "fire trail" in my life. Do they even exist here in the Northeast?

[billrick]

When I first heard of the Bombadil, I was hoping for something that would fit 650B x 2.3 tires, twin top tube, very dirt worthy. Apparently the Bombadil won't fit the new Pacenti 650B mountain bike tires, which rules it out for me. I ordered a Rock Lobster instead. (I've had three Rivs in the past, so I'm not one to knock Grant or RBW.)

Here is a Bombadil killer, in my book:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3469487416_48c28aae9a.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3472849373_995e302eb0.jpg?v=0

(Not my bike. See http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=512608 )

:)

[Ken Robb]

Hey Bill, In the review linked above the tires used were the big Pacenti tires.

[goonster]

Hey Bill, In the review linked above the tires used were the big Pacenti tires.
Depends what you mean by big, but the review I saw ran the 2" Quasi-Motos and not the 2.3" Neo-Motos.

Unless we're talking about two different reviews . . .

[gdw]

"That bike doesn't look to me as though it's set up with minimal to no standover clearance. Gino's got a whole lot more than a fistful of post showing."

Steve
That's a review of a prototype and we don't know how tall Gino is. I'm 5'10 and have a 31in inseam and the smallest Bombadil, 49cm, is too large. I'd have less than an inch of standover clearance with that design. Would you feel comfortable riding semi-technical rocky trails on a bike with little to no standover? Bridgestone catalogues from Grant's days suggest 3 to 4in. of clearance* and preferably 4 for technical terrain. I've used 46cm Bridgestones, which offer an extra inch of clearance, since the early 90's and survived but would not ride a frame with less than an inch of clearance.

The other thing I find bizarre about the Bombadil is the description on the Rivendell website. "It is a modern mountain bike in the spirit of a 1983 model. Maybe '84." Grant started working at Bridgestone in December of 84 and one of his claims to fame is that he helped introduce modern MTB geometry to the production marketplace. His designs with steeper frame angles, shorter chainstays, and longer top tubes are what established Bridgestone's reputation with mountain bikers. The Bombadil is a step back in time and has slack angles, and a short top tube and will not handle the same as a latter production MB-3. So there's the answer the original question, the Bombadil is a unique design and not intended to perform like a classic MB-3.


Check out the Soma B-Side id you want a versatile production 650B frame for real mountain biking.
http://www.somafab.com/bside.html




*http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1992/1992.pdf - page 6

[palincss]

"That bike doesn't look to me as though it's set up with minimal to no standover clearance. Gino's got a whole lot more than a fistful of post showing."

Steve
That's a review of a prototype and we don't know how tall Gino is. I'm 5'10 and have a 31in inseam and the smallest Bombadil, 49cm, is too large. I'd have less than an inch of standover clearance with that design. Would you feel comfortable riding semi-technical rocky trails on a bike with little to no standover?


You must have a math error. The Bombadil is not intended as a MTB for Redwood owners (i.e., really tall people). I'm guessing with your inseam you probably can manage a standover height of around 83-84cm (extrapolating from my height, inseam, and sizing on a Rambouillet); the standover height on the smallest size Bombadil is 77.1. That's 7 cm, a lot more than an inch.

However, it's really irrelevant, as the bike is clearly not for you. It's OK to not get it. I don't get any mountain biking.

[Wayne77]

With all due respects to the designer, that aint no mountain bike. It may be good for little grassy hills, nicely groomed gravel trails, or rides around the RV park, but that thing, as nice and sentimental for the past as it may be, would never be suited for typical mountain single-track. Just my opinion...

The IF posted earlier in the thread would own this thing. I like Riv bikes, but this one is off mark - it should be marketed for what it is, not for what it isn't.

Yes, I'm spouting off, but it's a Friday, so it's ok :)

I do agree it is fuuugly though...

[gdw]

Steve,
My point is simple. The Bombadil isn't anything close to an Bridgestone MB-3 and Grant didn't intend it to be similar. It's a mountain/road hybrid and is probably an excellent heavy duty rough country touring bike.

"I'm guessing with your inseam you probably can manage a standover height of around 83-84cm"
No way. For me grand to crotch is just about 79cm. I haven't owned a road bike for several years and think Grant's latest system is dangerous for real off road use and certainly contradicts the 2-4 inches of clearance that he promoted when he designed MTB's for Bridgestone. Of course that's my opinion and riders like myself are not his intended market.

[fiamme red]

So there's the answer the original question, the Bombadil is a unique design and not intended to perform like a classic MB-3.That's true. The Bombadil, unlike the MB-3, isn't meant to be a mountain bike for riding single track. It's meant to be a more heavy-duty and rugged version of the Atlantis. It's the type of bike that one would take for touring the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (mainly dirt and gravel roads), for example.