Richey Ascent 2021 Version
 

Ritchey has updated their ascent to support 27x2.6" or 29x2.6" tires. They show it built up as both a flat and drop bar, but it is only sold as a frameset.

https://us.ritcheylogic.com/us_en/ascent-frameset

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...0ac2c41cd5.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...59c934b423.png

The frame is an interesting blend of gravel and mountain. However, the geometry seems more steered towards a drop bar bike packing build. I was excited when I first saw it, but the geometry doesn't fit my ideal usage, so I'll probably pass unless I can find one to test ride.

Any comments? Anyone have experience with the previous 2017 ascent?

The Ritchey frames are so cool and so close to what I would want, but just miss slightly.
Their largest sizes are still too low I'm stack height, and i don't understand them routing the derailleur cable along the top tube on their bikes that will run frame bags. They are a true holdout in many ways.
I do like the traditional steerer tube sizing on their bikes. I haven't found that a steel steerer needs a 44mm head tube. Heck, I think for how I use a gravel bike(and many others), I could be fine with a 1 1/8 carbon steerer.

I'm very fortunate to be 5-10, so fit is not a big issue for me. From what I gather, Tom Ritchey claims that he sticks to 1-1/8" for compliance, plus the forged headtube has the diameter of 1" headtubes to keep a classy steel look vs some "beercan" headtubes used by other vendors. Not so much on this new sturdy Ascent, but this minimalism is evident in other frames. A steel tapered fork sounds brutally stiff and heavy. FWIW I find my carbon Ritchey fork with this headtube to be exrtemely comfy.

The geometry is interesting, to me at least, as the M size has a very similar geometry regarding fit as my 55 Swiss Cross Disc V1; so this could make for the exact same fit but with fat 27.5 tires, slacker headtube, and longer chainstays+wheelbase.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...24afe5ac7e.png
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8673f20a7b.png

Nice bike.

Regarding geometry, different strokes for different folks. I got their Swiss Cross precisely because it doesn't have an obscenely tall stack height like most modern gravel frames (especially the V2 is lower and longer, with 550 stack and 388 reach in size M) , and I managed to build a gravel bike which replicates my road bike position amazingly well, with angles basically the same and with just one cm taller bars, which is handy offroad.

It isn't the sort of bike you festoon your worldly possessions onto, though, it's just not meant for it between the derailleur cable routing and absence of any rack mounts and the like. Not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
​​​​​
​​​​​

That is a perfect example of why I prefer CX over gravel geometry (I've had/have both). The gravel is slower steering and more sluggish feeling. Great only on an actual gravel road because it's more stable. But anything else and it's a dog. CX is more nimble and agile which is more fun to me.

Just when I thought he couldn't get any longer in the chainstays, out comes the Ascent.
Can see that is due to the big 29er clearance and the straight chainstay+seat tube.
Though going by his recent releases, I think he has a thing for a long chainstay.

Guess this kind of ride would appeal to the folks like Russ from PathLessPedaled.

Fortunately, Tom's geometry ideas don't work for me at all.
I went and had another look at the geo of the old Rawland ULV and the Mason ISO to compare against. Thinking about just the 27.5 tyre size.
That whopping 90mm bbdrop on the Rawland is more what I'd prefer, if pushing a big 27.5.

I'm doing quite a bit of gravel riding on a 1986 Ritchey Ascent. Its great! Hope this helps.

I have a V2 Swiss Cross and the chainstays are indeed quite long! I was nervous about this since mine is my cyclocross race bike, and it’s a good 7 mm longer than even a fairly long rear-center for cyclocross, 12 mm longer than a typical 425 mm chainstay - which the previous edition actually had. So far, it’s working out fine and it feels just like a good cyclocross race bike, so I’m willing to consider the possibility that Tom is onto something, here. If you can squeeze out a bit more high-speed stability while preserving a quick-handling front end (which I suspect is the theory behind it), that’s a good trick. I was worried about a penalty in ease of hopping or rear wheel traction, but compared to the old bike it’s so much stiffer that it’s better on both counts regardless. Maybe not versus a carbon fiber rocket ship, but those don’t have the same charm. I have to admit, the Ascent is pretty appealing as an all-terrain bikepacking adventure bike. But it’s probably pretty obvious by now that I’m a Ritchey guy. I like his stuff.

V2 has [obviously] thru-axles, but not too obvious are the larger diameter chain and seatstays over V1.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2039d2a9c4.png
V2 (L) and V1 (R)

Appreciate the photo. Yes, the seatstays definitely seemed thicker to me, but not by so much that I was sure my eyes weren’t fooling me. I sold my V1 not long after acquiring the V2, so I couldn’t directly compare them.