New Ritchey Road

[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]

Originally Posted by yashcha

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by saab2000

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]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by MikeD

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]

Originally Posted by mistermo

^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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by owly

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.