Couldn't find any weight recommendations on the site or int he manual. Seems like the Larges are all gone already but was curious if it was pretty flexy.
When looking at the geometry, am I right to assume that the large version should actually feel a bit more relaxed than the medium one? I am rather long legged and my upper body often feels too stretched on many bikes.
For me, a bike for all roads plus needs about a 35 or 38 tire. My preference is for quicker handling but many mid priced bikes like the Surly or Soma may feel a bit heavy or unresponsive. Moving up to better tubing can make the frame light and forgiving. If you want something to carry more stuff a modern gravel bike works well for that. I think a used Ritchey cross bike with cantilevers would be possible but the cross geometry, shorter and slightly more upright may not work.
Good points. I had a ritchey swisscross canti version and the tubeset was just perfect, but as you mention, the high bottom bracket didn't suit me on long rides as much as something with a lower bottom bracket. I also prefer a steeper seat tube than it had.
Your size in that bike will definitely be small (S), Russ. The stack and reach figures are deceptive because they are always relative to each other. For example, on a M frame the reach may not vary much in published dimension, but it refers to a higher point, because it is always measured at the top of the head tube. So if the head tube is taller, the reach will be shorter, due to the head angle. For this reason, if you add spacers to a S to level that gives an equivalent stack as the M frame, the reduction in reach will be more than what is suggested by comparing the S and M reaches in the geometry table. Choosing the smaller frame and flipping the stem is often the best choice when you are between frame sizes.
Great looking bike. Thanks, Russ. Would love to own a Ritchey at some point in my life. Personally, I’m not a carbon fork guy, although I’m probably in the minority of cyclists with that opinion. I do like rear rack mounts too, but I understand that’s not what this bike is necessary designed for. Maybe I’m more of an Ascent guy and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Missing rear rack fittings is a bit of a downer but a lightweight rack like a Tubus Fly might be fitable by sharing the fender mounts. It's not like this is a bike for loading up with a ton of gear.
Sounds very similar to my 2005 Rivendell Canti-Rom which is an ideal sportif style bike. Has done everything from Paris-Brest-Paris to light touring and gravel roads. Love seeing Ritchey put the Montebello out there!
Love the silver rims. Maybe I sound like a retrogrouch saying this but I don’t understand why and how every brand decided that the vast majority of bicycle components must come in only black now, and there is not even a silver option. Personally, I like the classic look of silver components. I like anodized parts too, some colour is nice. I just don’t get why black became the only colour. With the amount of money they expect cyclists to pay for groupsets, you’d think silver would at least be an option. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because all bikes will soon be 100% carbon fibre anyway. I like black. I wear a lot of black. I just don’t think it looks great to have all black components on every bicycle.
Russ thank you for answering my question! Seems silkiest ride is going to be the Montebello with its triple butted tubing, plus the non-tapered head tube based on past videos of other Ritchey bikes. Tire size and tire build can make up for that a bit with the other bikes. I’m looking for a city/road/paved trail “peak mechanical” bike and might even go flat bar.
What a great bike. A retro update In looks and function. Increased stack is a real plus . I love really well made steel tubes. So much to like but a bummer not having rear rack braze ons but a minor thing overall.
Looks almost exactly like what I want from a road/allroad bike! Too bad I'm not in the market for something in this price point 😜 I'll have to keep riding my restomodded Columbus SLX frame for now. It has a rival 22 derailleur as well! I'm also a bit sad that it doesn't have braze-ons for a rear pannier rack, could've been a great light touring bike as well.
Ironic that this bike is so exciting in 2024! An old skool concept maybe, but brought up to date, well designed and judging by other Ritchies I own, should be very good build and ride quality. The devil is in the detail with these sorts of bikes and Ritchey sweats detail... Mrs H would have one in a heart beat, but she (like many smaller people, I guess) would need an XXS - bit of an omission, but good to see an XXL come to the range.
I'm always looking for an excuse to buy another Ritchey but with a '23 Outback and a recent Swiss Cross I'd have a hard time justifying adding this one to the stable. It's a cool bike though. Should have rack mounts on the rear and I'd also prefer a steel fork. My '86 Specialized Sequoia fits into this slot.
Agreed. Even if that isn't what it is intended for, that's a missed small inclusion which can be a deal killer for some people. Steel bikes should have rack mounts. Full stop.
such a weird emission. far more useful than a front rack. I have an old Steel Genesis Equillibrium that didn't come with fittings (they do now) but i got a seat-post rack mount that does the job
A 56cm top tube is a large. You and Mr Bike Sauce were really really diplomatic about talking about it. But it is really frustrating that bike brands all seems to be putting people into the wrong size - too big. If you have to put a 70mm stem on a 'road' bike you have the wrong size.
Sounds interesting. I might want to build one up, except for the fact that I built an All City Zig Zag late last year. It would likely be a bit redundant.
Pretty sure that is just a "road bike". It is a nice addition to the Ritchey stable and I commend Fergus for his input on its creation. It definitely fills a hole in their lineup, an "all road" bike that shares some commonalities with the Fairlight Strael and Secan. I really like the Ritchey Logic (their proper "road bike" for people looking for a road bike) and it handles most midwestern gravel (IL, IA, WI) on 30 mil tires. It can be a bit slow if the gravel freshly graded and deep, so I like the option for wider tires that just make life easier and faster on the loose stuff. Looking at the geo numbers the Montebello has much more of a "French fit" and is sort of similar to my 2012 Salsa Casseroll though I am sure with Ritchey's tubing and design not nearly as noodly as the Salsa. I also like that they went with shorter chain stays on the Montebello than on the Swiss Cross. I like the Cross and the front end fits pretty much the same as the Logic, but I think the stays are too long, certainly for a cross course. On rides over 100 miles I definitely would lean towards the Montebello, under probably the Swiss Cross (and if I needed anything bigger than 40 mil tires probably a xc rig). Come to think of it the Montebello reminds me a bit of the 2019 Ritchey Breakaway cross which is also a great all road bike (if you don't mind canti brakes).
It reminds me pretty much of the Fairlight Strael 3.0 which is a niche bike, all-year, all-rounder road bike devised for Audax events in particular. Do you know it? What are the similarities/differences?
Strael has much lower stack, higher bb, thicc headtube, less tyre clearance, no fork mounts. Pretty different bikes I'd say. Owned a Strael for a few years, great bike, but more of a racer than a randonneur.
Hm, I have a Giant contend ar, I like the tire clearance, the big gears, and how light it is, because it's super easy to move. I'm rough with my bikes though. I always feel like I'm going to destroy it.
I’m thinking of getting one, though it’s similar to my gravel bike. The Montebello has a more aggressive geometry than my Black Mountain Cycles MC, though the chain stays are only slightly shorter than mine. The gearing mentioned here is almost identical. It’s seems more dedicated to pavement randonneuring compared to my Black Mountain. How does the Montebello compare to a touring frame?
My "beef" with Surly? I've bought and owned half a dozen of them and have no beef with them. They make great value interesting bikes that push the envelope. That said, they tend to be overbuilt and their components while functional are definitely things to upgrade. Because of this they can weigh more for equivalent bikes and not feel as compliant springy or quick.
I suspect Paul and Tom have been batting ideas off each other for a long time, both were connected for while to Rocky Mountain and Paul has talked about the influence of seeing his first Ritchey Mountainbike.
Well this is bike is aimed at oldheads and they dont trust carbon much. Dont get me wrong Im right with them when it comes to not liking where the industry is at. But carbon makes perfect sense as a fork material.
as you living now in europe you could start using kgs and kilometers as reference :D like mainly the rest of of the world ;) cheers from berlin to spain!
Now that you've escaped the USA to join the rest of the world, it's time to embrace the measurement standards everybody uses such as kilograms and kilometres. Anyway I enjoy the content.
Nice looking bike, but I have to say I'm confused by why they'd put mounts for a front rack but not a rear one. I'm of the opinion that any bike that wants to be 'for the people' should be as practical as possible, and not having rack mounts seems to me to be the very opposite of this. Definitely a major con for anyone looking to use this bike as a commuter bike, for instance.
It should have a steel fork to go with the steel frame - why the carbon? I wouldn't buy this bike purely for this reason. However, the rest of the bike is very nice...
Yeah, the weight reduction also comes with reduced lifespan and, in my opinion, reduced aesthetics. For me, on the other hand, the VO Polyvalent somehow doesn't spark joy even with its steel fork, so I would rather go the Montebello or something else.
@miatomi I guess it's subjective, but for me a decade is a low bar for a non-moving part. I don't think we will see 40-year carbon fiber classics being ridden.
Am I only one who does care that much about front load on a high trail bike? I run a big old Jack Supply bag on the front of my 64 deg headtube hardtail all the time and it is fine
I genuinely think that the Fairlight Strael is the better bike than this. It´s cheaper, more versatile and lovely designed from a small British company.
No rack, no sale. I don't want an awful sweaty backpack to carry my laptop or groceries. Not everything fits in a handlebar bag. The current alt bike trends totally disappoint me. None of them feel at home in an urban environment and have all but abandoned commuters/city bikers. People who use their bikes every single day, for everything.
@@zwicker5585 A carbon fork (on a steel bike?!?!) with a totally useless weight limit. And a front rack trying to carry a heavy load meant for a rear rack will handle awful.
Same as others, why no rear rack if it can take a front rack? Just seems like such a clear addition to the bike that would make it way more adaptable. Additionally, why carbon fork? Especially attaching a front rack to that is scary. People who are buying ritchey products want stuff that will last, not plastic that can catastrophically fail.
It's based on a randonneuring bike, and those traditionally don't have rear racks. They're all about front racks/bags so that you can access food/gear without stopping on longer distance type rides. Also, rear racks create that "tail wagging the dog" effect, which tends not to play well with lower trail geometries and lighter tubing. I know this isn't a particularly low trail design, but leaving out the rear rack is in keeping with the whole rando gestalt of this bike. That's how I see it anyway.
Ritchey has forgotten that there are electric group sets, you can’t use any di2 with all Ritchey frames. Come on. We have 2024! I like mechanics, using a 12-speed GRX but they haven’t modernized their frame line until today. 😢 (cables would be a mess) and AXS customers mostly want some Internal brake hoses…
id rather switch to hiking than run electronic shifting, and internal routing is sillly. it nice having different brands doing different thangs though.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for tackling some Q&A, Russ! We're happy to answer any other questions people have as well.
Could you give me a link to the wheelset?
Are the rims box section?
Are they polished?
Couldn't find any weight recommendations on the site or int he manual. Seems like the Larges are all gone already but was curious if it was pretty flexy.
When looking at the geometry, am I right to assume that the large version should actually feel a bit more relaxed than the medium one? I am rather long legged and my upper body often feels too stretched on many bikes.
What are the tradeoffs with tire clearance? What would have it taken to get 40mm with fenders? Would the tradeoff be weight, geo, etc?
And what does Ritchey think of UDH?
Thanks for your clear answers to my questions! I'm excited for your full review
Thanks!
For me, a bike for all roads plus needs about a 35 or 38 tire. My preference is for quicker handling but many mid priced bikes like the Surly or Soma may feel a bit heavy or unresponsive. Moving up to better tubing can make the frame light and forgiving. If you want something to carry more stuff a modern gravel bike works well for that. I think a used Ritchey cross bike with cantilevers would be possible but the cross geometry, shorter and slightly more upright may not work.
Good points. I had a ritchey swisscross canti version and the tubeset was just perfect, but as you mention, the high bottom bracket didn't suit me on long rides as much as something with a lower bottom bracket. I also prefer a steeper seat tube than it had.
Sounds like a Malocchio.
Your size in that bike will definitely be small (S), Russ. The stack and reach figures are deceptive because they are always relative to each other. For example, on a M frame the reach may not vary much in published dimension, but it refers to a higher point, because it is always measured at the top of the head tube. So if the head tube is taller, the reach will be shorter, due to the head angle. For this reason, if you add spacers to a S to level that gives an equivalent stack as the M frame, the reduction in reach will be more than what is suggested by comparing the S and M reaches in the geometry table. Choosing the smaller frame and flipping the stem is often the best choice when you are between frame sizes.
I love my Hybrid. Hybrids are still one if the best options around, oh and they were genuinely affordable.
Great looking bike. Thanks, Russ. Would love to own a Ritchey at some point in my life.
Personally, I’m not a carbon fork guy, although I’m probably in the minority of cyclists with that opinion. I do like rear rack mounts too, but I understand that’s not what this bike is necessary designed for. Maybe I’m more of an Ascent guy and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Missing rear rack fittings is a bit of a downer but a lightweight rack like a Tubus Fly might be fitable by sharing the fender mounts. It's not like this is a bike for loading up with a ton of gear.
Sounds very similar to my 2005 Rivendell Canti-Rom which is an ideal sportif style bike. Has done everything from Paris-Brest-Paris to light touring and gravel roads. Love seeing Ritchey put the Montebello out there!
Love the silver rims. Maybe I sound like a retrogrouch saying this but I don’t understand why and how every brand decided that the vast majority of bicycle components must come in only black now, and there is not even a silver option. Personally, I like the classic look of silver components. I like anodized parts too, some colour is nice. I just don’t get why black became the only colour. With the amount of money they expect cyclists to pay for groupsets, you’d think silver would at least be an option. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because all bikes will soon be 100% carbon fibre anyway.
I like black. I wear a lot of black. I just don’t think it looks great to have all black components on every bicycle.
it's significantly cheaper to paint a piece of metal black than to polish it properly
That's the same question I ask me everyday. Black is cheaper? Or the new silver:)
Russ thank you for answering my question! Seems silkiest ride is going to be the Montebello with its triple butted tubing, plus the non-tapered head tube based on past videos of other Ritchey bikes. Tire size and tire build can make up for that a bit with the other bikes. I’m looking for a city/road/paved trail “peak mechanical” bike and might even go flat bar.
Thanks again Russ. Great first review. Can't wait for your long term/final review.
What a great bike. A retro update In looks and function. Increased stack is a real plus . I love really well made steel tubes.
So much to like but a bummer not having rear rack braze ons but a minor thing overall.
Gotta wait for the refresh.
Looks almost exactly like what I want from a road/allroad bike! Too bad I'm not in the market for something in this price point 😜 I'll have to keep riding my restomodded Columbus SLX frame for now. It has a rival 22 derailleur as well!
I'm also a bit sad that it doesn't have braze-ons for a rear pannier rack, could've been a great light touring bike as well.
Ironic that this bike is so exciting in 2024! An old skool concept maybe, but brought up to date, well designed and judging by other Ritchies I own, should be very good build and ride quality. The devil is in the detail with these sorts of bikes and Ritchey sweats detail... Mrs H would have one in a heart beat, but she (like many smaller people, I guess) would need an XXS - bit of an omission, but good to see an XXL come to the range.
I'm always looking for an excuse to buy another Ritchey but with a '23 Outback and a recent Swiss Cross I'd have a hard time justifying adding this one to the stable. It's a cool bike though. Should have rack mounts on the rear and I'd also prefer a steel fork. My '86 Specialized Sequoia fits into this slot.
Russ, have a look at the fairlight secan/faran. Geometry-wise ticks more boxes for a fast comfortable ride.
I've got a Fairlight Strael 3.0 and can't fault it. Absolutely love it.
ritchey makes some awesome stuff and don't just ride trends, thanks for the review, looks like a fun one
Beautiful bike ! Love the simplicity and classic style!
No rear rack standard fittings would make it a no for me!
Agreed. Even if that isn't what it is intended for, that's a missed small inclusion which can be a deal killer for some people. Steel bikes should have rack mounts. Full stop.
such a weird emission. far more useful than a front rack. I have an old Steel Genesis Equillibrium that didn't come with fittings (they do now) but i got a seat-post rack mount that does the job
A 56cm top tube is a large. You and Mr Bike Sauce were really really diplomatic about talking about it. But it is really frustrating that bike brands all seems to be putting people into the wrong size - too big. If you have to put a 70mm stem on a 'road' bike you have the wrong size.
Sounds interesting. I might want to build one up, except for the fact that I built an All City Zig Zag late last year. It would likely be a bit redundant.
It’s an old school light tourer always wondered if they would come back
Looks great but without rear rack mounts it not going to work for me unfortunately.
It looks and seems to fill the same slot as my beloved Jamis Bosenova (2013). Although probably lighter in frame weight.
Pretty sure that is just a "road bike". It is a nice addition to the Ritchey stable and I commend Fergus for his input on its creation. It definitely fills a hole in their lineup, an "all road" bike that shares some commonalities with the Fairlight Strael and Secan. I really like the Ritchey Logic (their proper "road bike" for people looking for a road bike) and it handles most midwestern gravel (IL, IA, WI) on 30 mil tires. It can be a bit slow if the gravel freshly graded and deep, so I like the option for wider tires that just make life easier and faster on the loose stuff. Looking at the geo numbers the Montebello has much more of a "French fit" and is sort of similar to my 2012 Salsa Casseroll though I am sure with Ritchey's tubing and design not nearly as noodly as the Salsa. I also like that they went with shorter chain stays on the Montebello than on the Swiss Cross. I like the Cross and the front end fits pretty much the same as the Logic, but I think the stays are too long, certainly for a cross course. On rides over 100 miles I definitely would lean towards the Montebello, under probably the Swiss Cross (and if I needed anything bigger than 40 mil tires probably a xc rig). Come to think of it the Montebello reminds me a bit of the 2019 Ritchey Breakaway cross which is also a great all road bike (if you don't mind canti brakes).
Tom Ritchey knows a thing or two about building a quality bike 😊👍.
Carbon and steel a beautiful match 😊
What is champagne gravel
looks a bit like my VO passhunter. Great for a long day of pedaling wherever
It reminds me pretty much of the Fairlight Strael 3.0 which is a niche bike, all-year, all-rounder road bike devised for Audax events in particular. Do you know it? What are the similarities/differences?
Strael has much lower stack, higher bb, thicc headtube, less tyre clearance, no fork mounts. Pretty different bikes I'd say. Owned a Strael for a few years, great bike, but more of a racer than a randonneur.
Hm, I have a Giant contend ar, I like the tire clearance, the big gears, and how light it is, because it's super easy to move. I'm rough with my bikes though. I always feel like I'm going to destroy it.
Great information. That sounds like a great bike for me to get someday.
Price and niche wise, it seems the Rivendell Roadini is pretty much the same bike, albeit having rim brakes and a steel fork.
The Roadini while a nice bike has a vastly different geometry and will ride differently.
That's a nice service bike
This seems like an analogue to an all city cosmic stallion, with dyno routing as a perc. The triple butting makes it seem lighter than my space horse.
It is a very pretty bicycle. I personally would prefer a steel fork rather than a plastic one...
Such a lovely bike. If only it was available in Europe... Also, if they offered that silver wheelset with a Son dynamo hub, I would be all over it
You're in luck. It is available in Europe. I'm actually based in Spain right now.
@@PathLessPedaledTV Where can you find it? Been refreshing Bike24 all day...
@@oleelovold Shipping keeps getting delayed. You're looking at late August, I believe.
Also, Velocity offers a stock dynamo wheelset at a good price.
@@ritcheydesign thanks, appreciate the response!
You need to design and sell some Peak Mechanical stickers.
Wow that's a lovely bike.
I’m thinking of getting one, though it’s similar to my gravel bike. The Montebello has a more aggressive geometry than my Black Mountain Cycles MC, though the chain stays are only slightly shorter than mine. The gearing mentioned here is almost identical. It’s seems more dedicated to pavement randonneuring compared to my Black Mountain.
How does the Montebello compare to a touring frame?
I wonder if there will be a breakaway version in the future
Once again, crushing it
What's your beef with Surly bikes? Can you describe your perspective in more detailed terms than "boring", "dull", etc?
My "beef" with Surly? I've bought and owned half a dozen of them and have no beef with them. They make great value interesting bikes that push the envelope. That said, they tend to be overbuilt and their components while functional are definitely things to upgrade. Because of this they can weigh more for equivalent bikes and not feel as compliant springy or quick.
A non-tapered headtube allows more flex in the fork. I didn’t know that.
The Brodie influence right there in plain sight.
I suspect Paul and Tom have been batting ideas off each other for a long time, both were connected for while to Rocky Mountain and Paul has talked about the influence of seeing his first Ritchey Mountainbike.
Think it's the other way around! Brodie studied the first tom built Ritchey when it was first brought into canada
The logo on the inside of the for is SIIICK
Wow, didn't anticipate so much distain for carbon fibre forks in the comments. Personally I'm fine with the steel frame /carbon fork combo.
Well this is bike is aimed at oldheads and they dont trust carbon much. Dont get me wrong Im right with them when it comes to not liking where the industry is at. But carbon makes perfect sense as a fork material.
Nice Video Russ.
Looks like a very nice bike.
At 60 years old, I could see me selling my Road Logic and getting one of these.
3:36 I think you probably meant the reach is 393 😅
Thanks for the excellent video. 🤙🏼
I like that new buzz word “SPORTIFF” going to write that down…
I've been endless searching for a touring road bike that can do gravel that's actually available to purchase.
Salsa Marrakesh 2021
Kona Sutra 2018?
Maybe compares to the Rivendell Roadeo?
as you living now in europe you could start using kgs and kilometers as reference :D like mainly the rest of of the world ;) cheers from berlin to spain!
The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it.
@@chetmanley1885Well said, my good man. The metric system is for people that use their fingers and toes for counting.
What's "Richey Steel"? What would be the Reynolds equivalent?
650b compatibility?
It's designed for 700c wheels.
Along with other Ritchey bikes I've wanted, I would love to build a bike with this frame, but at 6' 6", I doubt their XL would suit me : /
check the geo on the XXL that will be in stock soon.
Got to have a rear rack
Could you give me a link for the wheelset?
ritcheylogic.com/bike/wheels/classic-zeta-wheels
@@PathLessPedaledTV
Thanks
But I’m confused it says they aren’t disc brakes compatible however in the video they have disc brakes
@@tedyeo4778 ritcheylogic.com/bike/wheels/classic-zeta-disc-wheels
@@PathLessPedaledTV I’m buying this for my crust romanceur, do you think the non box section profile will throw off the classic style of my bike?
@@tedyeo4778 chrome > box section
It’s kinda like my Bombtrack Audax
Cable disc brakes.... cool
Good job 👏
It looks like the perfect commuter…
Now that you've escaped the USA to join the rest of the world, it's time to embrace the measurement standards everybody uses such as kilograms and kilometres. Anyway I enjoy the content.
But front racks and fenders aren't aero.
And the Roadini?
It's awesome!
Is the better choice, says the Ritchey-owner.
Dude ! I am 6'3". It's not in my size . I love this bike . 👍🚴🏜️
If only there's rear rack mount
The best rear racks for road dont use them anyway.
Cool looking bike. Awesome video hopefully next time porfas pronounce "Montebello " correctly.
Tenga buen día.
Nice bike
I translate: Road bike is for the majority of the world = race bike
It has a "plastic" fork 😊😊😊
Nice looking bike, but I have to say I'm confused by why they'd put mounts for a front rack but not a rear one. I'm of the opinion that any bike that wants to be 'for the people' should be as practical as possible, and not having rack mounts seems to me to be the very opposite of this. Definitely a major con for anyone looking to use this bike as a commuter bike, for instance.
Me: Still use Roux etape 150😂
It should have a steel fork to go with the steel frame - why the carbon? I wouldn't buy this bike purely for this reason. However, the rest of the bike is very nice...
Yeah, the weight reduction also comes with reduced lifespan and, in my opinion, reduced aesthetics. For me, on the other hand, the VO Polyvalent somehow doesn't spark joy even with its steel fork, so I would rather go the Montebello or something else.
@miatomi The complete frame is steel, why the carbon up front? I'm a purist I guess...
@miatomi I guess it's subjective, but for me a decade is a low bar for a non-moving part. I don't think we will see 40-year carbon fiber classics being ridden.
carbon probably for compliance.
Am I only one who does care that much about front load on a high trail bike? I run a big old Jack Supply bag on the front of my 64 deg headtube hardtail all the time and it is fine
I genuinely think that the Fairlight Strael is the better bike than this. It´s cheaper, more versatile and lovely designed from a small British company.
No rack, no sale. I don't want an awful sweaty backpack to carry my laptop or groceries. Not everything fits in a handlebar bag. The current alt bike trends totally disappoint me. None of them feel at home in an urban environment and have all but abandoned commuters/city bikers. People who use their bikes every single day, for everything.
Its fitted with a front rack in the video?
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. My Joe Appaloosa suits me fine.
@@zwicker5585 A carbon fork (on a steel bike?!?!) with a totally useless weight limit. And a front rack trying to carry a heavy load meant for a rear rack will handle awful.
@@freemandrew it could probably handle a laptop just fine. Maybe not groceries. Im just saying having a rack is better than having none 🤷🏻♂️
@@freemandrew could always get some steel forks for it too
Not in love with the carbon fork, but I get it. Based on the info available, it is a strong contender for my next fair weather bike.
The fenders, huge brand logo on the frame, carbon fork, black derailleur and chainrings, ruin this bike imo
Same as others, why no rear rack if it can take a front rack? Just seems like such a clear addition to the bike that would make it way more adaptable. Additionally, why carbon fork? Especially attaching a front rack to that is scary. People who are buying ritchey products want stuff that will last, not plastic that can catastrophically fail.
Because its an alternative to a road bike not a touring bike.
It's based on a randonneuring bike, and those traditionally don't have rear racks. They're all about front racks/bags so that you can access food/gear without stopping on longer distance type rides. Also, rear racks create that "tail wagging the dog" effect, which tends not to play well with lower trail geometries and lighter tubing. I know this isn't a particularly low trail design, but leaving out the rear rack is in keeping with the whole rando gestalt of this bike. That's how I see it anyway.
Grav grav?
I agree if it had a steel fork I would have bought it.
Everybody WANTS a road bike. They just say they don't.
Bloody thru-axles. No thanks.
Ritchey has forgotten that there are electric group sets, you can’t use any di2 with all Ritchey frames. Come on. We have 2024! I like mechanics, using a 12-speed GRX but they haven’t modernized their frame line until today. 😢 (cables would be a mess) and AXS customers mostly want some
Internal brake hoses…
Eww electric
id rather switch to hiking than run electronic shifting, and internal routing is sillly. it nice having different brands doing different thangs though.
Then switch to sram. If you could afford montebello, you also could for rival axs.
😂😂😂😂 best comment
Montebello, Road Logic Disc and Outback are all compatible with and routed for current Di2
im in love, where do i get one!