Richey Ascent 2021 Version
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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
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?
https://us.ritcheylogic.com/us_en/ascent-frameset
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?
#2
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,604
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10947 Post(s)
Liked 7,473 Times
in
4,181 Posts
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.
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.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Kips Bay, NY
Posts: 2,212
Bikes: Ritchey Swiss Cross | Teesdale Kona Hot | Haro Extreme | Specialized Stumpjumper Comp | Cannondale F1000 | Shogun 1000 | Cannondale M500 | Norco Charger | Marin Muirwoods 29er | Shogun Kaze | Breezer Lightning
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 576 Post(s)
Liked 1,000 Times
in
488 Posts
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
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?
https://us.ritcheylogic.com/us_en/ascent-frameset
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.
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.
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.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Branko D; 08-29-21 at 09:41 AM.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minas Ithil
Posts: 9,173
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2432 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times
in
395 Posts
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.
#6
Senior Member
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.
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.
#7
Behold my avatar:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SW Colorado
Posts: 1,034
Bikes: 2019 Gorilla Monsoon, 2013 Surly Krampus, Brompton folder
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6941 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times
in
289 Posts
I'm doing quite a bit of gravel riding on a 1986 Ritchey Ascent. Its great! Hope this helps.
#8
Senior Member
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.
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.
Likes For grolby:
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Kips Bay, NY
Posts: 2,212
Bikes: Ritchey Swiss Cross | Teesdale Kona Hot | Haro Extreme | Specialized Stumpjumper Comp | Cannondale F1000 | Shogun 1000 | Cannondale M500 | Norco Charger | Marin Muirwoods 29er | Shogun Kaze | Breezer Lightning
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 576 Post(s)
Liked 1,000 Times
in
488 Posts
V2 (L) and V1 (R)
#10
Senior Member
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.