New Ritchey Road

[lexlion]

https://ritcheylogic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/7/image/1000x750/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/o/road-logic-frameset-skyline-blue.jpg

$1,179.95 for the frameset (https://ritcheylogic.com/road-logic-frameset-skyline-blue)
New:
Fork
Clearance for 30c
Paint

Wish they would adopt replaceable derailleur hangers. All-in-all pretty similar to the Mr. Pink.

Thoughts?

[adampaiva]

I like! I am a Road Logic fan boy though. Clearance for 30 is pretty great. I hope that fork is available separately.

[Clean39T]

Classic frame. Great color. Buttr'fork... :no: :crap:

[R3awak3n]

fork looks fine to me. Bike looks awesome but also a ritchey logic fanboy. Will get one someday.

@adam, if you want a carbon fork with tons of clearance, check out the whisky road plus. Clears 35s

[eddief]

https://ritcheylogic.com/comp-road-logic-bike

[false_Aest]

No need for a replaceable hanger.

The previous generation handled really, really well (I ride mine almost daily). This generation is off the charts. Previous gen was about 170g lighter than the All City.

Ritchey's customer service/warranty sucks.

[gasman]

One of our sponsors has a good deal on the f/f

https://www.biketiresdirect.com/product/ritchey-road-logic-frameset

[FlashUNC]

Had the prior gen ride past me on a climb a couple weeks back. Killer bikes for the money.

[R3awak3n]

The mr pink has a bit more tire clearance which is nice but I would pick this guy over it personally.

[Peter P.]

No need for a replaceable hanger.

Agreed. Only the younger generation doesn't realize you can repeatedly align a steel derailleur hanger whereas with aluminum you just stock up on replacements...

[adampaiva]

fork looks fine to me. Bike looks awesome but also a ritchey logic fanboy. Will get one someday.

@adam, if you want a carbon fork with tons of clearance, check out the whisky road plus. Clears 35s

Yea that looks decent too. Not that I actually have a real need for either fork. My vintage Road Logic with steel fork already clears 30's. :cool:

[Pastashop]

If only they offered a proper steel fork as an option...

[Big Dan]

Nice, apart from the fork and headset.

[R3awak3n]

If only they offered a proper steel fork as an option...

From what I read, steel forks are too heavy now a days unless they are custom. You gotta pass all sorts of inspections and a super light fork won't clear it and add a ton of weight to the front weight. Maybe some don't mind it but the logic is suppose to be a road bike and lightness, like it or not, its desirable.

[ColonelJLloyd]

I get that they want you to use their matching fork and sell it as a frameset, but I think the juxtaposition of the HT and the fork crown/blades too abrupt. I know Ritchey likes their integrated headsets or whatever, but a 44mm head tube would presumably be cheaper while allowing more options. But, it's their bike. Nice color.

[MikeD]

Nice, apart from the fork and headset.


Agree on the forks. They look too fat as compared to the old ones. The old forks look better.

[jds108]

I like the look of that fork - the gentle continuous curve. Against that steel frame, the fork legs do look a bit big though. Nevertheless, if given the choice between this one and a steel one, I'd go with this carbon.

[Peter P.]

If only they offered a proper steel fork as an option...

Agreed. I wonder if you could get one built that would aesthetically match the lower headset transition on the head tube? When I replaced my steel frame and fork, I seriously considered a Ritchey Road Logic, but the carbon fork was the deal breaker. I always loved Ritchey's engraved unicrown fork.

From what I read, steel forks are too heavy now a days unless they are custom. You gotta pass all sorts of inspections and a super light fork won't clear it and add a ton of weight to the front weight. Maybe some don't mind it but the logic is suppose to be a road bike and lightness, like it or not, its desirable.

Not light enough?! For decades the pros rode steel frames and forks and no one complained the frame felt "unbalanced". The weight of a high quality fork is irrelevant, and they've proven to be plenty strong. For sure, steel forks can't compete with carbon forks in the weight department, but if you lose a race it certainly won't be due to fork weight.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Not light enough?! For decades the pros rode steel frames and forks and no one complained the frame felt "unbalanced". The weight of a high quality fork is irrelevant, and they've proven to be plenty strong. For sure, steel forks can't compete with carbon forks in the weight department, but if you lose a race it certainly won't be due to fork weight.

Excellent point, Peter. Innovation is dumb.

[Big Dan]

I'm starting to think that less and less riders know how a quality steel fork feels like.
Surly forks don't count as quality forks.

:hello:

[jtbadge]

Sounds like you guys missed the point there, though. Current engineering and safety regulations won't allow them to sell a light fork like one that came on a racing frame through the 80s and 90s. To be allowed to sell a new steel fork, it would need to pass a bunch of testing for strength, and then you end up with heavy forks like those that come with an All-City. Then the ride and handling isn't up to the experience they are going for.

I think the new Road Logic looks way better than the grey version, and being able to run a Strada Bianca or whatever 30c tire with a standard reach caliper is badass. I just wish they spec'ed a black groupset to match the cockpit and wheels. Matte silver 105 makes the build look cheap.

[tv_vt]

The head and seat angles on that frame are really steep. Don't get that at all. But Logic frames have always been that way. Rules them out for me.

[Jere]

Hi

I got one of the first generation it was one of most "did" ride nothing.
No snap no spring not a good example of a good steel bike.
It did handle very well at high speeds
The seat tube needed reamed the bottom bracket the threads were not complete
Ritchey said there bikes need a pro setup what the hell.
The best day with that bike was the day I gave it away
Jere B






https://ritcheylogic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/7/image/1000x750/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/o/road-logic-frameset-skyline-blue.jpg

$1,179.95 for the frameset (https://ritcheylogic.com/road-logic-frameset-skyline-blue)
New:
Fork
Clearance for 30c
Paint

Wish they would adopt replaceable derailleur hangers. All-in-all pretty similar to the Mr. Pink.

Thoughts?

[Peter P.]

Sounds like you guys missed the point there, though. Current engineering and safety regulations won't allow them to sell a light fork like one that came on a racing frame through the 80s and 90s. To be allowed to sell a new steel fork, it would need to pass a bunch of testing for strength...

Can you provide any articles or references the reinforce this claim?

High end steel forks have been around for decades and NO WHERE have I read they are considered below standard in strength or safety.

[choke]

Thoughts?
Cons:
No steel fork
Integrated headset
No downtube shifter bosses

Pros:
The color is nice.

[Waldo]

https://ritcheylogic.com/comp-road-logic-bike

Damn, this makes one seriously consider another bike he doesn't need.....

[Waldo]

The head and seat angles on that frame are really steep. Don't get that at all. But Logic frames have always been that way. Rules them out for me.

Parallel 73.5 (in my size 57) is "really steep?"

[ColonelJLloyd]

Can you provide any articles or references the reinforce this claim?

High end steel forks have been around for decades and NO WHERE have I read they are considered below standard in strength or safety.

You're still not getting it, Peter. Why don't you show us a high end production steel fork produced today?

[Waldo]

Is this sufficiently high-end?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/products/carbonomas2015-1-2_1024x1024.jpg?v=1471028754

[josephr]

I really like the lugged Tange Infinity that Soma sells...in Pearl White would look nice on that Ritchey for a steel fork option.

http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/lugged-crmo-49-fork

[merckx]

You're still not getting it, Peter. Why don't you show us a high end production steel fork produced today?

W'ford is high-end-ish, no? They are mid-production, eh? Will it have kittens if pressed into service?

[Big Dan]

You're still not getting it, Peter. Why don't you show us a high end production steel fork produced today?

http://www.totalcycling.com/en/Colnago-Master-X-Light-Saronni---PR82/m-17165.aspx

[ColonelJLloyd]

W'ford is high-end-ish, no?

Yeah.

[R3awak3n]

How much dis the old ritchey logic fork weight?

Ill go ahead and say, on a bike like this I rather have a carbon fork.

[Peter P.]

You're still not getting it, Peter. Why don't you show us a high end production steel fork produced today?

For sure, few if any companies offer PRODUCTION steel frames for the high end market-there's little money to be made there.

But the OP doesn't mention PRODUCTION forks. And not to split a hair but, those frames he mentions from the 80's and 90's (which would include Serotta) WERE made with high quality steel from Columbus and Reynolds. Heck; even Trek's 760 series top end road frame was built with either Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL forks.

If you're still interested in who offers a high end production fork, while Waterford has already been mentioned, you can also include their other house brand, Gunnar.

The way I understood the OP's commentary is ANY high quality steel fork would not pass those unspecified strength and safety standards and the implication was that only carbon forks could pass such tests. So was it determined that steel forks jeopadized safety? Or did some agency determine that stronger forks were necessary? History doesn't bear this out.

Since it was already proven that high end production forks could be built that were strong and safe (see the above paragraph) I didn't see the process being so difficult that it was only in the realm of custom builders, and they were and are using the same materials today.

The custom fork on my Soulcraft Royale gives up nothing in strength or safety to a carbon fork, and any weight penalty isn't enough to be worth discussing.

[bikinchris]

Agreed. Only the younger generation doesn't realize you can repeatedly align a steel derailleur hanger whereas with aluminum you just stock up on replacements...

Yes, however did they build bikes for 50 years without replaceable hangers? Easy, they didn't need them. Worst case, you drill out the hanger tab and put the Problem solvers nut and ride some more.

[R3awak3n]

For sure, few if any companies offer PRODUCTION steel frames for the high end market-there's little money to be made there.

But the OP doesn't mention PRODUCTION forks. And not to split a hair but, those frames he mentions from the 80's and 90's (which would include Serotta) WERE made with high quality steel from Columbus and Reynolds. Heck; even Trek's 760 series top end road frame was built with either Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL forks.

If you're still interested in who offers a high end production fork, while Waterford has already been mentioned, you can also include their other house brand, Gunnar.

The way I understood the OP's commentary is ANY high quality steel fork would not pass those unspecified strength and safety standards and the implication was that only carbon forks could pass such tests. So was it determined that steel forks jeopadized safety? Or did some agency determine that stronger forks were necessary? History doesn't bear this out.

Since it was already proven that high end production forks could be built that were strong and safe (see the above paragraph) I didn't see the process being so difficult that it was only in the realm of custom builders, and they were and are using the same materials today.

The custom fork on my Soulcraft Royale gives up nothing in strength or safety to a carbon fork, and any weight penalty isn't enough to be worth discussing.

All the forks you mentioned are very nice but none are not technically production forks.

No clue why no one is making ultra light steel forks which were fine on bikes in the 80s and 90s because I don't think they pose safety risks myself but from what I read, apparently they can't pass some safety tests.

I don't think any carbon fork is more safe than a steel fork and I would love for there to be more steel forks because they have their place for sure.

As far as weight and stiffness goes, everyone will have their opinions on it. Carbon might be stiffer but do we really want such a stiff fork? even a light steel fork will wait more than half over a carbon fork but do we really need that light of a fork?

also, that soulcraft fork is gorgeous.

[yashcha]

How much dis the old ritchey logic fork weight?

Ill go ahead and say, on a bike like this I rather have a carbon fork.

My 98 logic fork was around 680 grams. My friend's 1996 Landshark steel fork was around 540 grams, which at the time seemed super light.

[shinomaster]

looks hot.

[R3awak3n]

My 98 logic fork was around 680 grams. My friend's 1996 Landshark steel fork was around 540 grams, which at the time seemed super light.

Both impressive.

[MikeD]

Della Santa sells his bikes with steel forks. Unfortunately they are 1" size.

[MikeD]

Ritchey's customer service/warranty sucks.


My experience is the opposite. I dented my frame and get a no questions asked replacement for around $650, as I recall. It was a full up frame and fork and headset too. Went through the dealer I bought it from.

[oldpotatoe]

My experience is the opposite. I dented my frame and get a no questions asked replacement for around $650, as I recall. It was a full up frame and fork and headset too. Went through the dealer I bought it from.

A lot of times the dealer's relationship with Ritchey determines ease of 'warranty'. Also who ya talk to on the phone. We had a swiss cross with a slipping seatpost(Ritchey SP) and the first guy gave us the 'thousand yard stare' on the phone, went up a rung, also included the outside rep(really good rep)...and got an answer..Unfortunately it was a production glitch..their answer was a 27.4mm seat post, which wouldn't even go in..finally got a replacement frame.

[hokoman]

For a $1200 frame and fork that usually goes on sale for <$1k, do people actually swap for another $500 fork? Curious because I wouldn't, especially if it is color matched. I like the way it looks.

[Pastashop]

So, for those that have tried a lot of production and custom frames... Della Santa, Curtlo, Ebisu, BMC, Rivendell, Milwaukee... some very solid sources for a great riding steel frame that can fit fatter tires, whether stock or affordable custom. How does the Ritchey compare? Are there any particulars wrt fit (e.g. LeMond frames that seem to have with longer top tubes, etc.)?..

FWIW, I've ridden steel frames from ~10 different makers and the Ebisu 650b seems to hit the sweet spot for me now.

[Peter P.]

My concern is the Ritchey headtube lengths are kind of on the short side. Note that their specs INCLUDE the headset races. That's a loss of roughly 20mm.

[Mark McM]

My 98 logic fork was around 680 grams. My friend's 1996 Landshark steel fork was around 540 grams, which at the time seemed super light.

I've got an unbuilt '00 Ritchey Logic frame and fork. The fork, with uncut 1" threadless steerer (290 mm long) weights 721 grams. Cutting it to length would probably put it in line with Yashcha's fork.

The frame is still in the original bubble wrap, and I didn't feel like unwrapping it to weigh it, but with the bubble wrap it weighed 1838 grams. Probably around 1700 grams without the wrap.

In any case, that puts it roughly twice as heavy as the lighter carbon frames/forks today.

[saab2000]

My concern is the Ritchey headtube lengths are kind of on the short side. Note that their specs INCLUDE the headset races. That's a loss of roughly 20mm.

I think they're kind of on the long side..... I wish I could get this frame with the 57.5 top tube and about 16, rather than 18, CM of tope tube.

I find it interesting though. This bike with some handbuilt wheels and a 105 groupset would be a wild bargain and mixed surface bike with 30mm wide tire capability.

[acoffin]

This bike with some handbuilt wheels and a 105 groupset would be a wild bargain and mixed surface bike with 30mm wide tire capability.

I am sure the Ritchey is an outstanding road bike. But I would definitely go with a Mr Pink if I was even consideting mixed surface riding. The Pink takes wider tires and has better geometry (slightly more relaxed) for a variety of surfaces.

[MikeD]

I've got an unbuilt '00 Ritchey Logic frame and fork. The fork, with uncut 1" threadless steerer (290 mm long) weights 721 grams. Cutting it to length would probably put it in line with Yashcha's fork.



The frame is still in the original bubble wrap, and I didn't feel like unwrapping it to weigh it, but with the bubble wrap it weighed 1838 grams. Probably around 1700 grams without the wrap.



In any case, that puts it roughly twice as heavy as the lighter carbon frames/forks today.


Yeah, a Ritchey with carbon fork probably weighs a pound and change more than a good carbon bike, but that weight is insignificant compared to the overall bike and rider combination. Another thing to consider is that it will probably ride and handle better than that XYZ carbon bike because it's designed by Tom Ritchey. I have a '15 Ritchey and a '97 Trek Madone 5.2. The Ritchey has similar components and actually weighs a little less than the Trek. The Ritchey also rides and handles a bit better. I no longer ride the Trek. In all fairness though, I use 25 mm tires on the Ritchey and 23s on the Madone because I can't fit 25s on it.

[Burnette]

The head tube mention made me remember this video from 2012 of Tom Ritchey at NAHBS.

Skip to 8:00 minutes in to hear his thoughts on that head tube shape he uses and general thoughts about materials and design:
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhu3tsZTzmU

[mistermo]

The head tube mention made me remember this video from 2012 of Tom Ritchey at NAHBS.

Skip to 8:00 minutes in to hear his thoughts on that head tube shape he uses and general thoughts about materials and design:
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhu3tsZTzmU

^fixed:
https://youtu.be/Zhu3tsZTzmU?t=7m50s

[Mark McM]

Yeah, a Ritchey with carbon fork probably weighs a pound and change more than a good carbon bike, but that weight is insignificant compared to the overall bike and rider combination. Another thing to consider is that it will probably ride and handle better than that XYZ carbon bike because it's designed by Tom Ritchey. I have a '15 Ritchey and a '97 Trek Madone 5.2. The Ritchey has similar components and actually weighs a little less than the Trek. The Ritchey also rides and handles a bit better. I no longer ride the Trek. In all fairness though, I use 25 mm tires on the Ritchey and 23s on the Madone because I can't fit 25s on it.

You're right that the difference in weight is piddling. And I think we all agree that steel forks can ride and handle well. The big manufacturers would probably still offer steel forks if there was a demand for them - but there isn't. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why (both practical and frivolous). But one of the reasons is probably weight (not sure where this falls between practical and frivolous).

[homagesilkhope]

New Ritchey carbon fork looks a lot like Pegoretti's Falz, introduced about five years ago. Maybe the crown isn't quite as flat.

[Pastashop]

^fixed:

https://youtu.be/Zhu3tsZTzmU?t=7m50s



That bit about the 1" steerer and corresponding head tube being stronger (more resilient) in usage is actually quite perceptive. The bike frame and most bike parts are loaded cyclically, and most failures are from fatigue – i.e. from many load-unload cycles. I was looking at how the door hinge springs were constructed on my VW, and you could see the way the designers guide the stress field in usage, which will include on the order of 10x365x20 = 73,000 open/close cycles, if not triple that amount, plus a safety margin... The headtube on the Ritchey is structured like a butted (swaged) spoke, albeit it is loaded differently, the design principle is similar and allows for dissipation of stress very efficiently, accounting for millions of small amplitude fore-aft and lateral cycles. The bike is a complex of springs :-)

[Masaoshiro]

I just ordered a 51cm.
I am 5"9 and have longer legs. (Hence the 51cm=532mm TT)
I was torn between a 51 & 53, seeing that I fall in the middle, but I'd rather rock a 110/120mm than a 100/90mm stem. Unfortunately, I'll have to run 25mm of spacers to be approximately where I was at stackwise on my old frame.

Anyone else out here riding a 51cm around the same height as me? They look so small. Should I have gotten a 53?
I wanna see some pics!

[owly]

I just ordered a 51cm.
I am 5"9 and have longer legs. (Hence the 51cm=532mm TT)
I was torn between a 51 & 53, seeing that I fall in the middle, but I'd rather rock a 110/120mm than a 100/90mm stem. Unfortunately, I'll have to run 25mm of spacers to be approximately where I was at stackwise on my old frame.

Anyone else out here riding a 51cm around the same height as me? They look so small. Should I have gotten a 53?
I wanna see some pics!

I go by stack and reach these days. However, as I'm 5'9.5"/34", a low 530mm ETT is generally ideal for me.

Not a fan of its overall geo though, due to the low stack.

[Masaoshiro]

I go by stack and reach these days. However, as I'm 5'9.5"/34", a low 530mm ETT is generally ideal for me.



Not a fan of its overall geo though, due to the low stack.



Yeah. My last stack set up was 125mm with a 15mm conical spacer. I’m either gonna run a 15mm with a 10mm spacer. Or I have a 25mm conical. Gonna see what makes it most bearable to look at. But stack should be okay! I’ll post pics once it’s built.