Stevens Prestige or Ritchey Breakaway

[moose8]

So through an odd set of circumstances involving a defective bike, I have $1000 credit on realcyclist but only to be used towards a frame. I can get a Stevens Prestige without paying anything, or a Ritchey Breakaway that I would need to pay another $300 for (bringing my total to around $800 for the frame, so a good discount). I'm leaning towards the breakaway cross for an all-arounder, good bike. I'm mostly going to be using these for on-road rides around 40-60 miles, a few longer, some dirt roads. Of course, I just bought a bilenky s&s coupled bike from another forum member, so I probably don't need another travel bike, but people seem to like it and it's one of the few frames not crazy expensive there that is in my size. The breakaway road is also an option.

Anyone have experience with any of these frames or any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

[zennmotion]

I have a Ritchey BA crosser that I love for its versatility- it travels with me on overseas business trips, mostly Africa, where I don't often know what the riding conditions will be, urban pavement, rough roads, dirt paths, whatever. I usually mount a set of 30-32ish minimal tread tires that are a good compromise for just about anything. It has fender and rack mounts for light touring if I want to be self supporting for a few days, it's more of a superb, stable dirt road bike than a CX racer, though I've raced mine some as a back up pit bike a few times. It fills a wide niche as my do-everything bike away from home, even a couple of road races. However, I have other bikes at home that are "better" for most activities, ie dedicated cross racers, road bikes, loaded touring etc, so these get used more often than the Ritchey when I'm not traveling with one exception: The Ritchey is the best, most comfortable, best handling bike I have for dirt roads where I need wider than 28mm tires, and I love those rides so that's where the Ritchey gets used most at home (and winter/wet day training when I want fenders). But it fills in adequately as a compromise bike that's OK/good for everything else and packs into a normal sized suitcase. I don't know the Stevens at all, I guess your decision depends on what you have, where you like to ride and how often you travel, or could travel, with a bike. For me, real traveling means getting off the pavement. If I could only have one bike (like when I move temporarily overseas with minimal stuff), I'd keep the Ritchey BAB cross and not really feel like I was missing much of anything in the way of riding experiences. I've had the pleasure of working a little informally with Tom Ritchey on his Project Rwanda initiative. He's a good builder/designer and a great person, one truly good dude, I like the idea of having his name on my downtube. Plus I love the new BAB cross white/red color scheme.

[branflakes]

i would have to second the ritchey. whether road or cross, there aren't many frames with the flexibility provided with the breakaway. they build up light, travel well, and ride like butter.

[moose8]

Thanks for the responses. It'll probably be the ritchey cross, as it sounds pretty much what I'm looking for to replace the frame i had.

[rugbysecondrow]

Ritchey is decent at traveling, but I did not like it too much otherwise. I would not want to be on that bike for 40-60 miles, I just didn't care for it. I actually sold it in favor of a Surly Travelers check, a much better decision for me.

You said the money could only go towards a frame, this looks to be a complete bike, but I like this option better: http://www.realcyclist.com/salsa-salsa-casseroll-bike

If you HAVE to buy something, I would by the Ritchey, then resell it for cash. Put that money towards a better frame more suited towards what you will be riding.

[moose8]

I went with the breakaway cross. It had to be a frame, not a complete bike, plus I have a full ultegra set to swap off anyway. For those with the ritchey, can you confirm the fit is fairly traditional/accurate? I normally ride a 56 or maybe a shade bigger, and all they had in stock that could possibly fit me is 56 so I went with that. 6ft with 34 inch true inseam. Thanks

[witcombusa]

I went with the breakaway cross. It had to be a frame, not a complete bike, plus I have a full ultegra set to swap off anyway. For those with the ritchey, can you confirm the fit is fairly traditional/accurate? I normally ride a 56 or maybe a shade bigger, and all they had in stock that could possibly fit me is 56 so I went with that. 6ft with 34 inch true inseam. Thanks

I'm very close to your size and I ride a 60cm Ritchey BCX. That 56 will be tiny!

[zennmotion]

I'm 5'10" and ride a 56cm both road and cross, the 56cm BAB cross is a good fit for me with a 12cm, 6deg stem with 10mm of spacers for a road-like fit with slightly higher bar position than my road bikes. A wild ass guess in the dark without knowing you would be that your ideal frame would be closer to a 58cm, but the bike fits like a 56cm road bike, so if that's what you're used to then it should be fine (how is your current fit? 6' and 56cm, really?). The fork on mine came shorter than an aftermarket fork, with maximum spacers of 2cm- I cut just 1cm off when I built it. So that might be an issue if you're liking your bars higher, you'll need to get a stem with more rise.

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm very close to your size and I ride a 60cm Ritchey BCX. That 56 will be tiny!

Agreed.

[branflakes]

i have to speculate the 56cm will be a crunch to fit you unless you have extremely long legs and short torso for 6'. even with that said you may run out of seatpost height on that short a seat tube, which would be a BIG problem on the bab. you need at least 110-120mm of inserted seatpost to complete the pivot lock of the bab design. you would definitely need a 350mm seatpost.

just some rough numbers to think about:
34" inseam equates to a saddle height of 76-77cm +/-
3cm is avg. from center rails to top of saddle

76.5cm saddle height
- 56cm c-t seat tube
- 3cm rails to saddle
= 17.5cm (~7") exposed seatpost

so, a 350mm seatpost will easily accommodate the 175+120 (exposed + insertion). BUT, also consider the relatively short 138mm head tube and how much saddle to stem drop you're looking at (or amount of spacers you'll need to accommodate your comfort).

it sounds like your options were limited, but i wouldn't make too many plans with the new frame either. just my $.02.

[zennmotion]

Ritchey is decent at traveling, but I did not like it too much otherwise. I would not want to be on that bike for 40-60 miles, I just didn't care for it. I actually sold it in favor of a Surly Travelers check, a much better decision for me.

You said the money could only go towards a frame, this looks to be a complete bike, but I like this option better: http://www.realcyclist.com/salsa-salsa-casseroll-bike

If you HAVE to buy something, I would by the Ritchey, then resell it for cash. Put that money towards a better frame more suited towards what you will be riding.

OK, YMMV but without discussion as to the reason for your choices, it's not useful to the forum or the OP. I've ridden a Surly Crosscheck in my size, I assume it rides pretty much the same as the travel version, nice bike, it would sub for the Ritchey, although I think it's a little heavier and more expensive once you add in a travel case. Have you experience with the Casseroll too?

[moose8]

My order is on hold until the sizing is sorted out. They may just order me a 58 and I'll just have to wait awhile. I appreciate everyone's answers. You have helped prevent me from making a dumb semi-rash decision.

[rugbysecondrow]

OK, YMMV but without discussion as to the reason for your choices, it's not useful to the forum or the OP. I've ridden a Surly Crosscheck in my size, I assume it rides pretty much the same as the travel version, nice bike, it would sub for the Ritchey, although I think it's a little heavier and more expensive once you add in a travel case. Have you experience with the Casseroll too?


Crappy coupling design that will chip your paint and wear horribly. Whippy and flexy frame, short HT which caused bar height issues, not a stable ride. Frankly, it was ok for travel, but poor as an everyday or even a weekend bike IMO. In the larger size, just too many compromises to make it work.

No experience with the salsa, but I was grasping at straws to find a better option than the Ritchey.


I love my travelers Check, no only a great bike, fun to travel with, fat tires compatable, able to ride as a SS or fixed. It is my SS/ fixed bike as well as a travel bike for me. Big fun, no compromise.
If this were the OPs only travel bike, that is one thing, but with him having a new Bilinky incoming, I would bet that is a better option making the Ritchey extraneous. The Ritchey as a road bike was not suitable for me.
Just my opinion, we all have them.

[zennmotion]

i have to speculate the 56cm will be a crunch to fit you unless you have extremely long legs and short torso for 6'. even with that said you may run out of seatpost height on that short a seat tube, which would be a BIG problem on the bab. you need at least 110-120mm of inserted seatpost to complete the pivot lock of the bab design. you would definitely need a 350mm seatpost.

just some rough numbers to think about:
34" inseam equates to a saddle height of 76-77cm +/-
3cm is avg. from center rails to top of saddle

76.5cm saddle height
- 56cm c-t seat tube
- 3cm rails to saddle
= 17.5cm (~7") exposed seatpost

so, a 350mm seatpost will easily accommodate the 175+120 (exposed + insertion). BUT, also consider the relatively short 138mm head tube and how much saddle to stem drop you're looking at (or amount of spacers you'll need to accommodate your comfort).

it sounds like your options were limited, but i wouldn't make too many plans with the new frame either. just my $.02.

Agreed on the above, but, regarding the head tube, keep in mind that this is a bike with a CX fork. The axle-crown measures approx 25 mm longer than a carbon road fork, so the head tube is going to be comparatively shorter for the same fit on a road bike frame. The Ritchey BACX head tube dimension is actually pretty average for this style (roadish all-rounder-crosser). Just a note from a Cross geek for the gentle readers. But the 56cm frame is probably going to feel small for the OP, I'd call and ask about getting a size that fits even if it's not in current inventory. I do think a 60cm might be a bit big for a 6'-0 guy though. Internet bike buying is not for newbies IMO.

[zennmotion]

Crappy coupling design that will chip your paint and wear horribly. Whippy and flexy frame, short HT which caused bar height issues, not a stable ride. Frankly, it was ok for travel, but poor as an everyday or even a weekend bike IMO. In the larger size, just too many compromises to make it work.

No experience with the salsa, but I was grasping at straws to find a better option than the Ritchey.

I love my travelers Check, no only a great bike, fun to travel with, fat tires compatable, able to ride as a SS or fixed. It is my SS/ fixed bike as well as a travel bike for me. Big fun, no compromise.

Just my opinion, we all have them.

OK, with some more info that's useful thanks, I've no experience with larger frame sizes and I weigh less than 160 when I'm feeling fat (not phat, fat). I've not experienced the flex or paint chip issues beyond what the TSA gorillas would do to any bike box they open for inpection/mayhem. My biggest issue is with the color of my (2007?) model, the dark magenta that I look forward to chipping enough to justify a new powder coat in a different color. BTW, I had no business playing a Fly Half for 3 seasons on the McGill Rugby team, but I lived (just barely at 140 lbs) to tell the stories of creaming most of the US teams we played :crap: Just kidding :beer:

[majl]

I normally ride a 56 or maybe a shade bigger, and all they had in stock that could possibly fit me is 56 so I went with that. 6ft with 34 inch true inseam. Thanks
OP does state that he normally rides a 56 so maybe it is not too far off for him. I know for me it would be too small and I am similar in size (6'-1/2" with 33" inseam), but I ride a 57/58 road bike. My Breakaway cross, which is a great bike by the way, is a 58. zennmotion is spot on about what it's best at.

[moose8]

Again, thanks everyone for the very useful replies. As fitted by shops I've been a 56 on a cannondale r300, a surly lht, surly steamroller, and in an online purchase a rocky mountain (which I tried in a larger size but was way too big). I bought an old ciocc on Craigslist and just bought based on whether I enjoyed the test ride. I think it's significantly bigger than a 56 actually but i've never measured it - I just have swapped out stems and handlebars until I found a combo I liked. I may very well have weird proportions. Main point is, I should probably have done more research before just assuming a 56 would work because that was what was in stock.

[witcombusa]

Agreed on the above, but, regarding the head tube, keep in mind that this is a bike with a CX fork. The axle-crown measures approx 25 mm longer than a carbon road fork, so the head tube is going to be comparatively shorter for the same fit on a road bike frame. The Ritchey BACX head tube dimension is actually pretty average for this style (roadish all-rounder-crosser). Just a note from a Cross geek for the gentle readers. But the 56cm frame is probably going to feel small for the OP, I'd call and ask about getting a size that fits even if it's not in current inventory. I do think a 60cm might be a bit big for a 6'-0 guy though. Internet bike buying is not for newbies IMO.


Well I'm extremly happy with the fit. I like a higher bar relative to my saddle height especially for this type of bike. Here is my 2006 60cm BACX...