What's the Difference?

While the Randonneur collaboration bike was in my possession (it has now been shipped to its owner), for about a month I alternated between riding it and my own Rivendell in attempts to compare them.

When I mention the very idea of comparing these bikes I tend to get completely polarised reactions. To some they look identical: lugged frames, 650B wheels, wide tires, fenders, dynamo lighting, dropbars and classic handlebar bags. Can there possibly be significant differences in how they ride? To others, the bicycles are so obviously different in terms of geometry and tubing, that a comparison seems equally absurd: Of course they will be radically different!

So first, let me explain the two bicycles in a way that I hope does not get too technical. The green one on the left is the Rivendell Sam Hillborne. The frame has relaxed angles, long chainstays, and classic (mid/high) trail. The tubing is oversized to support heavy loads. The top tube is unusually long for the frame size and slightly sloped, for reasons to do with Rivendell's approach to bike fit. It is fundamentally a touring bike, but with some quirky qualities thrown in.

The blueish bike is a one-off collaboration between Royal H. Cycles and myself. Built as a classic randonneuring frame, it is made using skinny, somewhat flexible tubing with fairly steep angles, moderate length chainstays, and low trail. The Randonneur is supposed to be lighter, faster and more responsive than a touring bike, yet still comfortable. The low trail geometry is considered to be optimal for carrying a front load, but overall the bike is not meant to be heavily loaded.

Fully built up with similar components, the Randonneur indeed came out lighter than the Rivendell. Unfortunately I do not have a scale to weigh them - but I estimate maybe 4-5lb (when comparing with handlebar bags attached and everything else shown here). [Edited to add: The difference between these bicycles as shown is 6lb. The Randonneur weighs 26lb and the Sam Hillborne 31lb.]

The difference in tubing is immediately apparent, both when looking at the bikes in person and when picking them up by the top tubes - I can close my hand around the Randonneur's top tube much easier. This made the Randonneur easier for me to pick up, carry around when necessary, and take in and out of the house. As for how the tubing and other differences translate into ride quality, it is difficult to say. The Randonneur is a faster bike, though modestly so. It is also less fatiguing and perhaps a wee bit cushier over bumps. I can feel the frame and fork flex as I ride, but not too much. And I would certainly not attempt to do this on the Randonneur - I think the frame might bend in half.

Regarding the low trail geometry, I have yet to organise my thoughts on that topic. Suffice to say that I expected a "weirdness" in the bicycle's handling that, for me, just wasn't there (though an acquaintance who test rode the bike disagrees). Yes, it handled differently under some conditions - but the same can be said of almost every bike in comparison to almost every other bike.

And perhaps the biggest surprise of all, was that I did not feel a significant difference in the way the two bicycles behaved with a front load. Yes, the Randonneur is spectacular at carrying weight in the handlebar bag... but then so is the Rivendell. Maybe I am not as sensitive to this specific aspect of bicycle handling as others, but I am not sure I could feel a difference. I also did not think the Randonneur was at all "unridable" without a front load, as some warned me about. Again, it is possible that I simply lack the sophistication and experience to sense the difference, but there you have it.

When I initially planned to compare the low trail Randonneur to my Rivendell, I assumed that I would prefer one type of bicycle over the other. Instead, it became clear that the two bikes are simply optimised for different types of cycling. Both are versatile in that they can be ridden on and off road equally comfortably, are fully equipped, and can carry at least some of the cyclist's belongings. The Randonneur is a somewhat faster, lighter and more "precise" ride, but it would not work in a fully loaded capacity. The Rivendell can haul great quantities of stuff unflinchingly, but at the expense of that extra bit of speed and maneuverability. The Randonneur is, of course, a custom bike with all the attention to fit and craftsmanship that implies, so I am not comparing on that level.  But as far as the ride quality goes both bikes are great, just for different, albeit overlapping, uses. As for what role low trail geometry plays in all of this, I am honestly still not sure. Despite my pages of elaborate notes about the Randonneur's handling, I cannot say it is "better" or "worse" than typical mid/high trail geometry. My impressions of the handling are vivid, but oddly devoid of a value judgment. Vive la différence?