Steel Masters: Interview with Jeff & Fergus of Ritchey Bikes

After testing a couple of carbon gravel bikes I started to question steel as the best material for gravel bikes. But before making final judgments I wanted to talk to the guys at Ritchey Bikes, who are regarded by many as a benchmark in terms of steel bikes. I did not get the chance to talk with Tom Ritchey directly, but Jeff (international marketing manager) and Fergus (US marketing manager) were more than happy to school me in the steel, but also carbon bike design.

CyclingAbout: You are widely considered as the masters of steel bikes so my first question is why did you make a carbon version of Outback?

Jeff & Fergus: There are only two carbon fiber bikes in the Ritchey line, and they are both Break-Away frames: The Carbon Outback Break-Away and the Carbon Road Break-Away. Tom carefully designed both carbon bikes to ride and feel as close to his steel bikes as possible. The Carbon Outback Break-Away was built to be the ultimate bike with which to travel. With wider tire clearance and the ability to easily and quickly separate into two main pieces, the bike fits in its own travel case that is not subject to airline extra baggage fees. I know people who purchased the Outback Break-Away but rarely travel. They wanted a carbon version of the bike, and that fit the bill.

CyclingAbout: Carbon bikes have pushed the stiffness theme onto the road, and now, the gravel market. But at the same time, carbon frames are becoming more and more effective in combining stiffness and compliance. Is there still a place for a steel bike? Can steel gravel bikes still compete with carbon versions when not only comfort but also stiffness is required by today’s consumers?

Jeff & Fergus: There will always be a place for steel bikes, no matter what cycling discipline we’re talking about. Steel is, of course, extremely comfortable when designed and built properly. It’s also plenty efficient and fast. It’s also more reliable than carbon. Steel bends when it fails and can be repaired. Carbon breaks are complete and sudden and are unable to be repaired. Not to mention steel is less of an environmental detriment than carbon fiber. Aside from that, the carbon-vs-steel argument is truly about design and the game of marketing we all play. The industry will try to market stiffness as an attribute that’s beneficial in all applications, but it’s not. Carbon bikes, one could argue, are over-designed and over-built. Good design requires a material to act as it should when applied correctly. For Tom, steel has been the material that behaves correctly when applied to various forces. The carbon bikes produced by Ritchey are intentionally designed to react and ride with the same beneficial characteristics of a steel bike.

CyclingAbout: Carbon frame makers have a lot of options to make the frame both stiff and compliant. On one hand, they can shape the tubes however they want, and on the other hand, they can use different carbon fibers in different places to achieve maximal stiffness of compliance. Titanium frame builders try to mimic that by making oval tubes (like T-Lab with X3 bike) and try to tinker with the tubing thickness to achieve desired properties. I don’t know how effective these efforts are but I don’t really see a similar trend in steel bikes. Why is that?

Jeff & Fergus: Sorry, but that assumption is incorrect. Most steel bikes are built with tubes of varying thicknesses in certain areas of the tubing. Sometimes the tubes have a thicker wall at the joints to be more secure for the welds, while at other places, it will be thinner to offer desired compliance and weight reduction. Yet other areas of the same tube will also be thicker where there tends to be more stress. Ritchey uses its own triple-butted steel tubing to deliver a frame that’s strong where it needs to be, stiff enough for efficient efforts, and compliant enough for a sublime ride experience.

The butting profile of steel tubing, or varied tubing thickness, is nothing new to the bike industry. Frame builders have played with tubing profiles and shape for many decades. What makes Ritchey Logic tubing unique is the “secret sauce” (as Tom puts it) of what length butting profile goes where on the frame to give Ritchey bikes the ride quality that is heralded. We make sure the butting profile of a downtube is not only unique at both ends where it’s joined but unique to its placement in the frame. True, not every steel frame manufacturer does this, but not every frame rides like a Ritchey.

CyclingAbout: Carbon bikes are renowned for their BB stiffness. For example, Specialized Diverge has so big BB area that, with the combination of a short chainstay, makes for a real sprinter. What can be done to a steel bike to improve the stiffness of the BB area? Is T47 BB a solution for that in your opinion?

Jeff & Fergus: The bottom bracket area of Ritchey steel bikes is purposefully designed to add to the performance, compliance, and efficiency of the bike. An oversized bottom bracket on such a steel bike would be too stiff and make it ride poorly. Additionally…how often do you hear a 68mm threaded bottom bracket squeak and make noise? Certainly, nowhere near as much as press-fitted BBs in carbon bikes.

T47 was an answer to a unique problem one frame manufacturer had with their frames. Again, this is an example of the result of poor design – an answer to the wrong question. Frame manufacturers have to consider all of these elements when designing a frame – a frame alone does not make up a bike. Every component must be considered when designing a frame. Even something as elemental as a bottom bracket should not be considered a given.

CyclingAbout: Should I really worry about the lack of BB stiffness in a steel bike? I have a steel Jamis Renegade Exploit bike and when my friend, a semi-professional road cyclist, stands on the pedals while holding the brakes, I see a lot of flex in the BB area. But when he does the same with a carbon gravel bike, the flex is much less visible. So naturally, I feel that my bike is lacking in the stiffness department and I think I need a more stiff bike. But is this the right approach in your opinion?

Jeff & Fergus: We would advise against choosing a bike or a bike material based on this method. Again, steel bikes are purposefully more compliant in the bottom bracket area. Bicycle frames are like a robust, interconnected organism. Every part of its overall design is influenced by other areas of the bike while those parts inform the next part. If you add a super-stiff BB area, you’re going to throw off the whole system and will have a poorly performing bike to ride. Or, you will need to add compliance to another area of the bike, which means making yet another area of the bike stiffer, and…the cycle goes on.

Sure, some steel bikes are poorly designed and built, and having a “flexy” bottom bracket on such a bike would be the least of your worries. Ritchey frames have enough compliance in the bottom bracket area, which compliments other design considerations in other areas of the bike, to produce an absolutely well-intentioned and lovely ride. Efficient and comfortable.

CyclingAbout: Carbon bikes usually have thin and/or bent seat stays to improve vertical compliance. There is also no bridge between seat stays. Why we don’t see more steel or titanium bikes with similarly shaped seat stays? Would this be beneficial in terms of compliance like it is with carbon frames?

Jeff & Fergus: Steel is inherently a more flexible material, so there’s no need for such bends in the seat stays to make a less stiff and more comfortable ride. Carbon is torsionally stiffer, so special considerations need to be made to make it less laterally and vertically stiff. Special shapes literally correct a problem that carbon fiber creates.

CyclingAbout: What is the purpose of the wishbone seatstays in both of the Outback (carbon and steel) frames? Is this somehow beneficial in terms of stiffness and how about the difference in compliance when compared to a more traditional approach?

Jeff & Fergus: Only the Break-Away Outback, which is carbon fiber, features the wishbone stays. The steel Outback uses the Ritchey Fastback seatstay, which is where the seat post binder/bolt is integrated into the junction with the seatstays where they meet the seat tube. The wishbone junction on the carbon Break-Away bike is used because that is one of the two areas where the frame separates (and joins) when the frame is disassembled. Therefore, it needs to be strong, and the Fastback seatstay would not work in this position in carbon fiber.

CyclingAbout: What is the minimum length of a steel frame chainstay when you want to accommodate a 700x42c tire? For example, carbon frames can have a 415mm chainstay and still work with that kind of tire but I believe that there are very few steel gravel bikes with chainstay shorter than 430 mm (and only a few gravel titanium bikes with chainstay of 420mm).

Jeff & Fergus: Again, the wrong question regarding design. What’s the point of having a stay so short? What about clearance for the tire or debris? Companies are pushing shorter and shorter stays for aesthetics when ride quality suffers. There have been steel frames in the past and currently with short stays, but it requires a dropped stay to clear both the tire and chain ring. That’s a poor solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist.

CyclingAbout: Why do your frames have a quite steep seat tube angle (usually it is 73 degrees and your Outback’s have 74 in similar size)? Is this more beneficial for the ride feel and comfort to have a steeper seat tube angle?

Jeff & Fergus: Advances in physiology have determined seat tube angle coming forward benefits pedal stroke. However, there’s a limit before the seat angle becomes a detriment to pedal stroke and overstresses individual muscles.

CyclingAbout: Outback frame has a rather steep head angle that you matched with a rather small (47 mm) rake. What are the benefits of this combination and why not use a 71,5 (instead of 72 degree) head angle and match it with a more common 50 mm fork rake (the trial in both cases is the same)?

Jeff & Fergus: Head tube angle, rake, and trail are somewhat dependent on frame size and how that will affect ride quality. Scrutinizing the minutia of frame geometry is overlooking the entirety of the bicycle as it acts as a complete unit. What about tire size and bar choice? These play a factor in how a bike handles as well as .5-degrees of head tube angle. The Outback was designed to rip whether on-road or off. Does it do that? Yes. Do I wonder about what the rake of the fork is while doing so? Not really.