Ritchey Gravel Bike

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by fogrider

I don't understand, with flat mount, won't you need an adapter to go to larger rotors?

Who needs a larger rotor than 160mm... Its plenty for gravel imo.

[fogrider]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

Who needs a larger rotor than 160mm... Its plenty for gravel imo.

that's what I don't understand, with post mount on the frame and fork, no adapter is needed, but with flat mount, its too close. or am I miss understanding something?

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by fogrider

that's what I don't understand, with post mount on the frame and fork, no adapter is needed, but with flat mount, its too close. or am I miss understanding something?

what do you mean its too close? There is no adapter needed for flat mount if you use a flat mount caliper.

most gravel bikes that just been released have flat mount, OPEN cycles, the ibis Hakka MX, even the On One.

[fogrider]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

what do you mean its too close? There is no adapter needed for flat mount if you use a flat mount caliper.

most gravel bikes that just been released have flat mount, OPEN cycles, the ibis Hakka MX, even the On One.

go to 44 to 47 seconds, https://youtu.be/2nfjo3Oce5A?t=1m17s flat mounted with no adapters.

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by fogrider

go to 44 to 47 seconds, https://youtu.be/2nfjo3Oce5A?t=1m17s flat mounted with no adapters.

Those are not flat mount, thats post mount and yes no adapter needes on post if you want to do 160 in front

[shoota]

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

"The Outback frameset includes the new Ritchey Carbon Fiber Gravel thru-axle fork for a confident and precise front end, and it can accommodate tires up to 40mm wide."

Non-starter, in my opinion.

I guarantee you it's more like 43mm clearance. How big a tire do you want??

[ColonelJLloyd]

Originally Posted by jtbadge

I am curious about the decision to use a weird A-C measurement and a straight steer tube. Seems like it would significantly limit your replacement fork options.

Switching to a different fork on the frameset as they designed it isn't something Ritchey should be be worried about, IMO. The A-C makes a lot of sense to me. My custom has a steel fork and was designed around 27.5x2.2 or 700x38 and it has a 390 A-C, 66mm offset fork. The Outback fork would be an excellent carbon option for my frame if they ever sell it separately. I've yet to see how fat a 650b tire the Outback fork fits, though.

[mistermo]

Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd

I've yet to see how fat a 650b tire the Outback fork fits, though.

In that video, the Breakaway Outback is running 650b w/ 48s on that fork (flat mount version). And they also say it was designed around 40c tires, rather than up to 40c.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

my only problem with this bike is that it doesn't have flat mount discs.

As I was curious about this choice I emailed them. The man himself replied.

Flat mount puts more torque on the CS than the triangulated post mount. For a steel frame, this would require more material for flat mount and then obviously a match for the other side. This would change the ride characteristics of the frame and make it heavier along with loosing some of the benefits of riding steel.

With carbon, you just wrap a few more layers in those areas I assume.

Post is not going away. Mounting XT calipers will always be an option, sure sram has an option as well.
Campy is not an option anyway due to the unreliability of their products in anything but smooth road conditions.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Andreas

As I was curious about this choice I emailed them. The man himself replied.

Flat mount puts more torque on the CS than the triangulated post mount. For a steel frame, this would require more material for flat mount and then obviously a match for the other side. This would change the ride characteristics of the frame and make it heavier along with loosing some of the benefits of riding steel.

With carbon, you just wrap a few more layers in those areas I assume.

Post is not going away. Mounting XT calipers will always be an option, sure sram has an option as well.
Campy is not an option anyway due to the unreliability of their products in anything but smooth road conditions.

And exactly what are you basing this statement on?

[fiamme red]

Review: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/ritc...ameset-review/

"Finally, riding the Ritchey on a very wet Giro Della Donna, I experienced an issue I’ve yet to have to complain about in a product review before – water build-up. Packing the bike immediately after the event, I was surprised to see water pouring out of the frame’s rear-end like a full jug. I suspect water was entering through the slotted seat tube, frame coupler, and front derailleur cable routing, but without a hole at the bottom bracket, there’s no way for it to drain. I don’t have a proven solution to stop this from happening at the moment, and Ritchey is looking into it."

[sandyrs]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

Review: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/ritc...ameset-review/

Glad to see someone in the "press" calling out that bike's absurd geometry. Seems like a cool bike otherwise but especially for the intended use I just don't get the geo. It's very low compared even to the Road Logic.

[Keith A]

Originally Posted by sandyrs

Glad to see someone in the "press" calling out that bike's absurd geometry. Seems like a cool bike otherwise but especially for the intended use I just don't get the geo. It's very low compared even to the Road Logic.

And it has a steep STA??

[adub]

If you need a 700c tire wider than 40mm you need a MTB..

[jmal]

Originally Posted by sandyrs

Glad to see someone in the "press" calling out that bike's absurd geometry. Seems like a cool bike otherwise but especially for the intended use I just don't get the geo. It's very low compared even to the Road Logic.

My exact thoughts the first time I saw the geo chart. Low stack and really long reach for a gravel bike.