Something new from Ritchey

[tabasco]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

An XXL SwissCross ... and the bb drop isn't what I would want for road or gravel.

As the name suggests: it´s a cyclocross bike and not a roadie. Pick the right tool for the job.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by tabasco

As the name suggests: it´s a cyclocross bike and not a roadie. Pick the right tool for the job.

The other models aren't big enough or tall enough to be the right tool for any job if you're very tall.

[robertbb]

So what is it, a "Road+" or "endurance" designed around ~35's ?

[sparky33]

The nitpicks aside, I like this new offering...Ritchey tubing and ~road geo with utility/fenders mounts and extra tire clearance.

It will be a great rando or bad-weather frameset option for many.

[Epicus07]

Anyone see geometry yet ?

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by tabasco

As the name suggests: it´s a cyclocross bike and not a roadie. Pick the right tool for the job.

I agree. I was just responding to an earlier mention of Ritchey having an XXL size.
It may work for someone tallish that wants a CX bike with a more traditional bb height.

The real point of my post though was to show how even their XXL stack is...limited.

[slambers3]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

I agree. I was just responding to an earlier mention of Ritchey having an XXL size.
It may work for someone tallish that wants a CX bike with a more traditional bb height.

The real point of my post though was to show how even their XXL stack is...limited.

What are your expectations fit-wise? Are you trying to ride with the handlebars level to the saddle? At 6’4 my 59 road logic was fine with 13cm stem, similar stack and reach to 61cm offerings from other mainstream brands. There was a lot of saddle/bar drop and I ran a -17. I rode an XL Swisscross last year which definitely fit a bit small, but there was still a whole other size above that.
Not trying to be argumentative but a sweeping statement like “these bikes aren’t big enough” might be true for your stack needs but not necessarily for a different but similarly sized rider. perhaps that speaks to intended use of the bike.

I don’t do any rando stuff but very interested in the Montebello when they become widely available. Might be in the minority for Ritchey owners but I wish they’d run the disc lines internally from the downtube.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by slambers3

What are your expectations fit-wise? Are you trying to ride with the handlebars level to the saddle? At 6’4 my 59 road logic was fine with 13cm stem, similar stack and reach to 61cm offerings from other mainstream brands. There was a lot of saddle/bar drop and I ran a -17. I rode an XL Swisscross last year which definitely fit a bit small, but there was still a whole other size above that.
Not trying to be argumentative but a sweeping statement like “these bikes aren’t big enough” might be true for your stack needs but not necessarily for a different but similarly sized rider. perhaps that speaks to intended use of the bike.

I don’t do any rando stuff but very interested in the Montebello when they become widely available. Might be in the minority for Ritchey owners but I wish they’d run the disc lines internally from the downtube.

I dont take your questions or comments as argumentative.
I do want to clarify that I never made a sweeping comment that 'these bikes arent big enough'. I said they wouldnt fit me, and said I have seen others mention they would buy a Ritchey if the stack height was a bit bigger.
And as I posted earlier, the geometry fits someone else. I totally recognize it is unreasonable to think all mass produced bikes will fit every person's individual measurements/fitness/comfort.

At the same time, I would say that its increasingly uncommon for a mass production brand to not offer a drop bar bike with more than 610mm of stack. I would also say that it is increasingly uncommon for a mass production brand to cap their recommended rider height for road and gravel frames at 6'3.
In addition to the Road Logic stack and reach numbers mentioned earlier, Ritchey's Outback, a gravel bike so usually a bit more upright, is only 606mm stack and 395mm reach. Its designed for up to 6'3.


My bikes are set up where my bars are lower than my saddle. I dont know the exact amount for all my bikes off the top of my head, but below are some pics. Its tough to see because of angle, but the top pic is more than 8cm drop and the bottom pic is 8.5cm drop based on measuring a month ago.





I love that there are so many brands and models of bikes right now because it results in a huge variety of geometry and increases the odds of each of us finding something that works really well for our individual measurements and fitness.
Ritchey is clearly sticking to the 80% of the market and that is an understandable approach for a smaller mass production brand(they have said this is why they dont offer a larger size). I dont begrudge em, I just wish reality were different and their geometry was a bit different because I like the brand.

[slambers3]

Big fan of your cannondale there!

[benb]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Ritchey is clearly sticking to the 80% of the market and that is an understandable approach for a smaller mass production brand(they have said this is why they dont offer a larger size). I dont begrudge em, I just wish reality were different and their geometry was a bit different because I like the brand.

I think the fact this is a metal bike makes it more reasonable for you to be disappointed in narrow size ranges.

Metal isn't winning any performance contests any more. One of the best ways for them to provide additional value with alloy or steel bikes and to differentiate them from their carbon competitors is to make more sizes and make them fit a wider array of people well. It's too bad too few do this.

[EB]

Originally Posted by benb

I think the fact this is a metal bike makes it more reasonable for you to be disappointed in narrow size ranges.

Metal isn't winning any performance contests any more. One of the best ways for them to provide additional value with alloy or steel bikes and to differentiate them from their carbon competitors is to make more sizes and make them fit a wider array of people well. It's too bad too few do this.

The extreme ends of the sizing range move a lot fewer units than the middle - that's just the reality of the bell curve in adult human sizing. A builder like Maxway might very well impose a minimum order per size that can place a serious economic constraint on a niche product like this. Mike Varley at Black Mountain Cycles has written a lot about this - this is why he cut his model range.

I get where you are coming from, but I think there are likely real reasons why Ritchey limits its range.

[boomforeal]

xxl sizing -- tall dudes rejoice!?

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/2024-s...-bikes-part-2/

[prototoast]

By Ritchey standards, this geometry isn't bad. I could see myself riding this.

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by boomforeal

xxl sizing -- tall dudes rejoice!?

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/2024-s...-bikes-part-2/

Same fork rake on all sizes with HTA going from 71 to 72.5 seems like a miss.

[sparky33]

Originally Posted by boomforeal

xxl sizing -- tall dudes rejoice!?

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/2024-s...-bikes-part-2/

I would be on the medium Montebello...
the size medium 593 stack & 390 reach sound to me like typical size large numbers, but it is what it is.

fwiw, I can't wait to build up one of these - I've been looking for a stock frameset like this for a while.