Something new from Ritchey

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by ridethecliche

I'm curious what would make someone pick one of these over a fairlight secan. Fairlight has the geometry options down and the rack mounts look to have much better options.

That said, the stack and reach measurements of this would also work for me. I would have loved a road logic disc but I feel like I'm kind of in no mans land with sizing a bit. I looked at some of the used rim brake options popping up on the forum and would have loved to try one but can't imagine getting rid of the caad13 for one.

Anyway.... cool on them for coming out with a pretty cool frameset option!

Having a Fairlight Secan, I can say I absolutely still think this Ritchey is cool and perhaps in a yearish there will be one in my garage. Definitely an emotional response there, but its something I have hoped Ritchey would design for many years.

- 1 1/8 head tube and straight steerer is cool.
- Ritchey name is cool(Fairlight too, for the uber-nerds that even know of it).
- My Secan is 1st gen without fork mounts. Dont really care much, but it is a difference.
- I have Conti TerraSpeed 45s that measure at 43.5mm on my Secan. I see this Ritchey as a 32-35mm tire bike and would be a main road bike. So really more like the Fairlight Strael, for me at least.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by ridethecliche

I'm curious what would make someone pick one of these over a fairlight secan. Fairlight has the geometry options down and the rack mounts look to have much better options.

While most people on this forum will likely have heard of Fairlight and probably wouldn't mind ordering from them directly, many many more cyclists in the United States will have heard of Ritchey.

That doesn't answer why someone on this forum would chose a Montebello over a Fairlight, but it also helps explain why Ritchey might introduce it.

[ridethecliche]

Ah, i didn't realize that ritchey's pricepoint was going to end up being below fairlight.

I guess it definitely makes sense since you don't have to deal with customs/import taxes/currency conversion/whathaveyou.

It's definitely a cool setup. I'm intrigued. I think most of the other ritchey frames have been too long and low for me as others have said. This geo looks pretty cool to be honest.

Glad to see they're still coming up with new rad ish!

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

While most people on this forum will likely have heard of Fairlight and probably wouldn't mind ordering from them directly, many many more cyclists in the United States will have heard of Ritchey.

That doesn't answer why someone on this forum would chose a Montebello over a Fairlight, but it also helps explain why Ritchey might introduce it.

have we seen geo specs for the new Ritchey yet? Most Ritchey bikes seem to be long.. that would be a reason for a Fairlight over a Ritchey if this new one holds to that design philosophy..

[Xrslug]

Originally Posted by fourflys

have we seen geo specs for the new Ritchey yet? Most Ritchey bikes seem to be long.. that would be a reason for a Fairlight over a Ritchey if this new one holds to that design philosophy..

Geo chart is on the previous page of this thread. The XL, which would be my size, has 2cm more stack and 1cm less reach than the 59cm Road Logic Rim.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by Xrslug

Geo chart is on the previous page of this thread. The XL, which would be my size, has 2cm more stack and 1cm less reach than the 59cm Road Logic Rim.

thanks, guess I missed that post..

and, yep.. the shortest reach is 380mm.. why Tom Ritchey, why?!?!

those are some long bikes per stack and reach.. which us baffling to me if it's a bike designed for a long day in the saddle..

[EB]

Originally Posted by fourflys

thanks, guess I missed that post..

and, yep.. the shortest reach is 380mm.. why Tom Ritchey, why?!?!

those are some long bikes per stack and reach.. which us baffling to me if it's a bike designed for a long day in the saddle..

Maybe they want you to run a shorter stem? They’ve said the Outback is designed with a 9cm stem in mind and that’s what I run on mine. Not sure about this bike but the photos make it look like they’re running a 10cm stem. Also note the seat tube angle.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by fourflys

and, yep.. the shortest reach is 380mm.. why Tom Ritchey, why?!?!

I feel your pain. I usually ride a 52-ish road bike and Ritchey’s are always not he long end (and usually the low end too).

[prototoast]

Look, this is Tom Ritchey we're talking about. His story is cool, but the baseline expectation of a Ritchey frame is that it has stupid geometry. There are some exceptions in there, usually only for certain sizes of certain models, and those bikes are truly wonderful. I have a carbon Breakaway, size large, and it works well, but you just can't expect him to put out a bike and have it have good geometry, let alone across the entire size range.

By the standards of other Ritchey bikes, the geometry on this one is pretty good, but he's Tom Ritchey, not Tom Kellogg, and he's just going to be himself.

And yeah, that new P-29 is a stinker top to bottom.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by EB

Maybe they want you to run a shorter stem? They’ve said the Outback is designed with a 9cm stem in mind and that’s what I run on mine. Not sure about this bike but the photos make it look like they’re running a 10cm stem. Also note the seat tube angle.

how short of a stem would you need to run when the smallest bike (XS, eff TT of 528mm) has a 380mm reach? many 54cm bikes designed around a 100 stem have a ~380mm reach..

[zennmotion]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Look, this is Tom Ritchey we're talking about. His story is cool, but the baseline expectation of a Ritchey frame is that it has stupid geometry. There are some exceptions in there, usually only for certain sizes of certain models, and those bikes are truly wonderful. I have a carbon Breakaway, size large, and it works well, but you just can't expect him to put out a bike and have it have good geometry, let alone across the entire size range.

By the standards of other Ritchey bikes, the geometry on this one is pretty good, but he's Tom Ritchey, not Tom Kellogg, and he's just going to be himself.

And yeah, that new P-29 is a stinker top to bottom.

Well, my actual experience is different (and maybe so is yours if your Carbon BA works well). So I have a 55cm steel Breakaway Cross and a 55cm Road Logic and I've done double century length rides comfortably on both with 60+ old man long legs/shortish torso, and not being particularly flexible these fit me fine with 11cm stems and 2cm of spacers. Their geometry, especially the Road Logic, works super well for me. It's a fair comparison geometry and fit-wise to my Tom Kellogg Spectrum custom built for me after a half day of being fit and interviewed in The Barn. So everyone has their opinions, but I pay more attention to ones based on personal experience (i.e. actual miles in the saddle, not tea-leaf reading geometry tables) or at least some demonstrable expertise rather than a "baseline expectation" that's based on.... what exactly?

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by zennmotion

Well, my actual experience is different (and maybe so is yours if your Carbon BA works well). So I have a 55cm steel Breakaway Cross and a 55cm Road Logic and I've done double century length rides comfortably on both with 60+ old man long legs/shortish torso, and not being particularly flexible these fit me fine with 11cm stems and 2cm of spacers. Their geometry, especially the Road Logic, works super well for me. It's a fair comparison geometry and fit-wise to my Tom Kellogg Spectrum custom built for me after a half day of being fit and interviewed in The Barn. So everyone has their opinions, but I pay more attention to ones based on personal experience (i.e. actual miles in the saddle, not tea-leaf reading geometry tables) or at least some demonstrable expertise rather than a "baseline expectation" that's based on.... what exactly?

problem is that can get mighty expensive to do a trial by butt.. not all of us are Clean..

[zennmotion]

Originally Posted by fourflys

problem is that can get mighty expensive to do a trial by butt.. not all of us are Clean..

This is the same issue with any bike though, right? I'm not claiming that Ritchey works for everyone or anyone in particular, just pushing back on generalizations that somehow turn into unfounded "common knowledge", so everyone who can plug a few numbers from a website geometry table into Bikecad becomes an expert...

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by zennmotion

Well, my actual experience is different (and maybe so is yours if your Carbon BA works well). So I have a 55cm steel Breakaway Cross and a 55cm Road Logic and I've done double century length rides comfortably on both with 60+ old man long legs/shortish torso, and not being particularly flexible these fit me fine with 11cm stems and 2cm of spacers. Their geometry, especially the Road Logic, works super well for me. It's a fair comparison geometry and fit-wise to my Tom Kellogg Spectrum custom built for me after a half day of being fit and interviewed in The Barn. So everyone has their opinions, but I pay more attention to ones based on personal experience (i.e. actual miles in the saddle, not tea-leaf reading geometry tables) or at least some demonstrable expertise rather than a "baseline expectation" that's based on.... what exactly?

I've had two good experiences with Ritchey frames (breakaway steel, breakaway carbon), one bad experience with Ritchey (road logic disc), and a whole bunch of Ritchey frames I looked at but decided against because thought their geometry was too bad (Outback, Outback Breakaway, Ultra, Swiss Cross).

[nalax]

Originally Posted by fourflys

how short of a stem would you need to run when the smallest bike (XS, eff TT of 528mm) has a 380mm reach? many 54cm bikes designed around a 100 stem have a ~380mm reach..

My small Swiss Cross Disc has a 382mm reach and I run it with an 80mm stem. It rides great. The XS Montebello would fit me fine.