# Ritchey Break Away - experience?



## Jim Nazium

*Travel frames - Ritchey Break Away, others*

I was thinking about building up a travel bike. The Ritchey Break Away Frame is reasonably priced (1100 - 1200 USD), but that joint at the bottom bracket looks flimsy to me. They've been using that design for a few years, so I guess it must be OK, but every time I look at that joint I get nervous. 

The S&S coupling system looks a lot more solid to me, but only seems to be available on pricey custom frames.

Are there any S&S equipped frames that are reasonably priced? Or deos the Ritchey system work well enough?

thx,
JN


----------



## darbo

Jim Nazium said:


> Are there any S&S equipped frames that are reasonably priced?


Surly Traveler Check, in stock now at QBP, where almost any dealer can order it. Prob about the same price as the Ritchey.
http://www.surlybikes.com/travelerscheck.html


----------



## buck-50

Jim Nazium said:


> I was thinking about building up a travel bike. The Ritchey Break Away Frame is reasonably priced (1100 - 1200 USD), but that joint at the bottom bracket looks flimsy to me. They've been using that design for a few years, so I guess it must be OK, but every time I look at that joint I get nervous.
> 
> The S&S coupling system looks a lot more solid to me, but only seems to be available on pricey custom frames.
> 
> Are there any S&S equipped frames that are reasonably priced? Or deos the Ritchey system work well enough?
> 
> thx,
> JN


I've read a lot of positive reviews about the ritchey sytem. Figure he designed it for himself and he's not gonna ride on something that doesn't work- Ritchey's got a rep for making smart choices.

If yer looking for an even cheaper option, Dahon (who knows a thing or 2 about folding bikes) has licensed Ritchey's design and they use it in this: http://www.dahon.com/us/tournado.htm


----------



## Pablo

You should do a search omn the boards. I know there's ones on the breakway. 
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=108397&highlight=break+away+S&amp;S 
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=68188&highlight=break+away+S&amp;S

Also, I looked into it a while ago. There are quite a few companies that will retrofit, if you have a steel bike already. 
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=105693&highlight=break+away+S&amp;S 
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=21085&highlight=break+away+S&amp;S

There's also one comparing it to Dahon: 
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=21085&highlight=break+away+S&amp;S


----------



## FatTireFred

wow, I thought dahon only made [email protected] how much is that bike? don't see too many equipped with a brooks saddle


----------



## ZenNMotion

I don't think Dahon is making the breakaway model any longer, I looked very hard for a source when I was in the market. I bought a Ritchey cyclocross version frame/fork including the wheeled case, cable couplers and decent headset for $1,000 even online from edinabike in MN- a very good deal when you add it all up. The coupling is very simple, very solid, no worries there, I'm sure it's stronger than the downtube itself. A friend with a S&S coupled Waterford is very happy with that also, although the system requires a little more care than the Ritchey- you are supposed to keep the threads lubed with a special silicone lube, and check it soon after reassembly as some people experience some loosening after a few miles- not a problem after re-tightening. I'd also be a little nervous about banging up the coupler threads in transit, these are precision machined parts, YMMV. My Ritchey frame came with a second spare downtube collar, and you can buy a replacement for about 20 bucks, including extra cable couplers. I don't see why you'd need a spare collar unless you consistently overtighten it. Seriously, the downtube will buckle before the coupler splits, it ain't gonna fall apart just riding around. Unless you're planning on doing a lot of road racing, or can't deal with canti brakes, I'd recommend the cross version over the road version as it gives you more options for fenders and wide tires without any downside on performance, mine handles very nicely on and off road. Ritchey's comp carbon cyclocross fork is nothing special, but it matches the frame design and I have no complaints, although it's a bit stiff and overkill for narrow tires on smooth pavement- the road version would have some advantage here. My crosser has already seen a lot of airmiles, 2 cyclocross races, 1 training crit, touring goatpaths and rural roads in W. Africa, snowy farm roads in Upstate NY, and a bunch of hard team training road rides. I got over the trauma of the magenta color as I saved 300 bucks over the cheapest orange or red one I could find, I actually like it now. I'm really tempted (well maybe) to thin the herd that continues to breed in my basement, the Ritchey does just about everything except real MTB territory or heavy loaded touring, and even then it could in a pinch. Edinabike was the best deal I could find, they were good to me. I posted a review here under Ritchey road bikes, I didn't see the CX version when I posted it, but there are several reviews there also. The new Surly coupled crosscheck looks interesting also, but I think the price will be as much or maybe even more than the Ritchey, and Ritchey's proprietary tube mix is better, lighter heat treated steel than Surly's 4130. The S&S couplers are a more expensive solution than Ritchey's simple seatlug and downtube collar design, that has to be passed on to the buyer.


----------



## AlexCad5

Found a Dahon for $1799, reg. $1999. The 56 had a 54 CTT seat tube and a 55.5cm tt. They counter that with a really tall stem. The 58 had a seat tube of 56cm CTT. Head tube angle is 72.5 which they offset with a 48 mm fork. I don't really understand those geo choices. Tange Prestige tubing. Old school materials. 
The ritchey has a long top tube also, if I recall. 
I don't like anything called breakaway on a bike. Bad Juju.


----------



## Pablo

Curtlo makes custom frames with the Ritchey system for around $1,200, if you don't mind the wait.


----------



## ZenNMotion

Prestige used by Dahon is decent steel, although it's not heat treated and probably a little heavier than the Ritchey mix, although probably only a half pound difference at most. Sounds like the Dahon you found is from a few years back, NOS as Tange Prestige is no longer produced (amateur builder, I've tried to source it and I've only found older stock available). My Ritchey BA cross lists as a 56cm, measures 56 CT and 55.5 CC top tube. The geometry is 72deg HT, 73.5 ST and the carbon comp fork offset is 47mm. It all handles very nicely, though designed to work best for wider tires if you're on pavement. If someone is looking for a very small or very large frame size, a test ride might be in order because Ritchey uses the same seat lug for all sizes, you're locked into the ST angle. Long legged riders might do better with a slacker angle. As always, those of us lucky enough to be male and in the middle of the bell curve size-wise fit the off-the-rack frame design quite well. I'm sure the Dahon frame is decent, if you're happy with the component selection it's probably a good deal, though is the travel case included, and is it the newer case with wheels? No way I want to drag that sucker through airports without wheels... The bad breakaway juju is balanced off by the pink color, so it's not a problem. I've never had a pink bike item fail. Doesn't happen.


----------



## ZenNMotion

Pablo said:


> Curtlo makes custom frames with the Ritchey system for around $1,200, if you don't mind the wait.


 Quite a few do, I was considering Jeff Lyon of Lyonsport as well. But it's a travel bike, gonna get banged up. Not where I want to spend more than necessary, by the time you add fork, travel case etc it starts adding up.


----------



## merckxman

re: S&S: The recommended solution for protecting the threads is to slice a tennis ball and slip it over the the threads. Worked for me so far....




ZenNMotion said:


> I'd also be a little nervous about banging up the coupler threads in transit, these are precision machined parts, YMMV.


----------



## PdxMark

*Ritcheys are great bikes*

We've had his & hers Ritcheys for 2-3 years. We done 3 trips with them, including a cross-country flight and a trans-continental flight. The bikes have done very well. They ride well, the assembly is easy, and the included soft case protects the bikes and is easy to deal with at your destination. The downtube coupling is just fine. The collar is not heavy-duty steel, but I don't think it needs to be. The two downtube sections are grooved to mate together, so the collar merely holds in place tubes ends that are mated together. I can't discern any flex at the downtube coupling.

We did a trip to Italy with friends who have custom S&S bikes. Their bikes are great, of course, but are their main day-to-day rides and cost 3-4 times as much as our Ritcheys. As a consequence, their anxiety over damage & loss during transit is much greater than ours. 

I think the Ritchey Break-Away is a fine bike that could be a person's only bike. The steel frames are relatively durable and ought to stand up to the dings and bumps of travel quite well, though we've had no damage in our 3 trips. For me, I like the Ritchey alot for my trips and don't worry nearly as much as if I brought my Vanilla or Litespeed.


----------



## epicxt

*Lucky find...*

I recently picked up a used Gunnar Crosshairs with S & S couplers for use as a travel bike. I love the system and it fit beautifully into the 26"x26"x10" case for the airline.

I spent last week down in Las Vegas visiting a buddy and managed to put 350 miles on it in 4 days. The couplers worked perfectly, and I'm sure this bike will be one that I'll hold onto for a long time.


----------



## gmorales

*Just got a Rithcey Logic this weekend*

I was as concerned with the collar. After setting up the bike, I climbed 2500 feet on the first ride. The bike feels like your regular everyday bike. There seems to be no tradeoff for it being a travel bike. Keep in mind that the Ritchey system only adds 100 grams to a bike while the S&S system is much heavier. I haven't been this satisfied with a purchase in years.


----------



## farva

How does the S&S case differ from the Ritchey case? I have the ritchey case & 52cm steel breakaway bike & all the parts barely fit. The Ritchey case is 4" over the airline limit of 62" (L+W+H). Wondering how S&S managed to get it all to fit in 4" less space? Itcertainly would be nice not to worry about the airline busting out the tape measure. Oversize is +$175 each way on Delta now


----------



## PdxMark

farva said:


> How does the S&S case differ from the Ritchey case? I have the ritchey case & 52cm steel breakaway bike & all the parts barely fit. The Ritchey case is 4" over the airline limit of 62" (L+W+H). Wondering how S&S managed to get it all to fit in 4" less space? Itcertainly would be nice not to worry about the airline busting out the tape measure. Oversize is +$175 each way on Delta now


If I remember correctly, the main body of the Ritchy case fits within the 62" airline limit. The issue is the cup that extends outward to accommodate the cassette. We've flown several times with our Ritcheys and no-one has come close to questioning their size. I think the S&S case omits the "cassette cup" from the case, making the case truly legal and harder to pack.


----------



## laffeaux

Speaking of hte S&S Case, seen here:
http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?...el+Hard+Case&vendorCode=SANDS&major=9&minor=1

Has anyone used one of these on a Breakaway? I have a 58cm steel Breakaway CX. I'm not a big fan of the soft-sides on the Ritchey case, and have been looking at other options. This one looks better (due to the hard-sides), but I'm not sure how it will fit. Getting the 58cm into the current case is hard enough.


----------



## farva

PdxMark said:


> If I remember correctly, the main body of the Ritchy case fits within the 62" airline limit. The issue is the cup that extends outward to accommodate the cassette. We've flown several times with our Ritcheys and no-one has come close to questioning their size. I think the S&S case omits the "cassette cup" from the case, making the case truly legal and harder to pack.


Thanks. My case doesn't have a cup on the side for the cassette. It's flat both sides & consequently probably wider overall. I kinda wish it did as the dome on the side would be hard to measure & they'd likely just let it go. I looked at the packing instructions on the S&S & it appears they also remove the chainrings/right crankarm which is not necessary on my frame w/the Ritchey case. I was thinking another option would be 2 seperate slightly smaller cases, one for wheels & one for everything else that you could click or velcro together until you check them. Last time I checked, my frequently used airline still allows 2 checked bags for free.


----------



## Mootsie

farva said:


> How does the S&S case differ from the Ritchey case? I have the ritchey case & 52cm steel breakaway bike & all the parts barely fit. The Ritchey case is 4" over the airline limit of 62" (L+W+H). Wondering how S&S managed to get it all to fit in 4" less space? Itcertainly would be nice not to worry about the airline busting out the tape measure. Oversize is +$175 each way on Delta now


I have the S&S case and if I remember right isn't Ritchey wider? The S&S is a pretty tight fit to get in all in. Everything if packed just right, fits in.


----------



## DrSmile

I've never been charged for the newer type (flat) Breakaway case. It's a soft case so they usually don't bother measuring it. I can't see the S&S case being any smaller, the wheels need to fit in it so it has to be the same length and height.


----------



## JFRCross

I have a Breakaway Cross, 48cm. A friend of mine has borrowed it for travel using his S&S case. I am planning on traveling with it soon and am deciding between using the Ritchey soft case or borrowing my friend's S&S. Are there any concerns for the bike, wheels and components when using the Ritchey soft case? -thanks


----------



## farva

Ritchey case is actually about 2" over airline max dimensions but in the 100+ times I have checked it no one has busted out a tape measure on me. As long as it is < 50 lbs & resembles the size of a large checked bag then you should have no trouble.


----------



## JFRCross

Is the Ritchey case protective enough for airline travel? As protective as the S&S? That is my main concern.


----------



## farva

I haven't used the S&S version but my bike has survived is 100+ checked bag sorties in the Ritchey case without incident. As long as you have the protective coves on the tubes you should be fine.


----------



## JFRCross

Great to hear, thanks a lot.


----------



## stinkydub

*I've used both*

I have the soft case and it works fine (as noted above it is 2" bigger than airline requirements but I've never been questioned). I recently purschased the S&S case and just returned from Mexico and it worked very well. I have the X large cross break away so getting it into either case can be challenging (i.e., i have to take the fork off and the crank off but that's pretty easy - shouldn't have to do with smaller breakaways).

If i had to choose, I'd pick the S&S but the Ritchey soft case works fine.


----------



## flatlander_48

Before I bought my BreakAway several years ago, it was a choice between it and and S&S equipped bike. Periodically I check the S&S site just to see what the latest developments are and which builders are supporting the technology. I was looking at the Packing section and I noticed something. In many situations it was necessary to remove the crank or at least the chainwheels. I had not realized this before. I ride a 56cm and even for that size of a Ti Cycles road bike (and presumably other brands as well), the owner removed the crank before packing.


----------



## 55x11

stinkydub said:


> I have the soft case and it works fine (as noted above it is 2" bigger than airline requirements but I've never been questioned). I recently purschased the S&S case and just returned from Mexico and it worked very well. I have the X large cross break away so getting it into either case can be challenging (i.e., i have to take the fork off and the crank off but that's pretty easy - shouldn't have to do with smaller breakaways).
> 
> If i had to choose, I'd pick the S&S but the Ritchey soft case works fine.


It could be because you have a large frame, but I find it's a huge advantage that with soft-side Ritchey case you don't need to take off the fork and don't need to take off cranks. That saves a lot of time in fine-tuning things once you put them back together, and minimizes exposure to well-greased parts (steerer part of the fork, bottom bracket area).


----------



## stinkydub

It is because i have an X large frame i have to remove the fork - doesn't matter, i have to remove it for both the Ritchey Soft case and the S&S hard case. The crank i could probably get away with keeping it on but find removing the chain and crank make it easier to pack - the tradeoff being a bit more work to remove and install. However, it's very easy with a master link and shimano crank. Not sure why you would have grease on your fork steerer except for overgreasing the headset. It's not desirable to have a greased fork steerer especially where the stem attaches. But as you said, both cases work fine. I just find the S&S a bit quicker and easier plus the added bonus of being a hard case.


----------



## 55x11

stinkydub said:


> It is because i have an X large frame i have to remove the fork - doesn't matter, i have to remove it for both the Ritchey Soft case and the S&S hard case. The crank i could probably get away with keeping it on but find removing the chain and crank make it easier to pack - the tradeoff being a bit more work to remove and install. However, it's very easy with a master link and shimano crank. Not sure why you would have grease on your fork steerer except for overgreasing the headset. It's not desirable to have a greased fork steerer especially where the stem attaches. But as you said, both cases work fine. I just find the S&S a bit quicker and easier plus the added bonus of being a hard case.


I figured the extra disassembly/assembly steps must be due the frame size, how long does it take you to pack the whole bike?
Also, what do you mean by X large - I thought Ritchey Cross always come in centimeter sizes - 62 cm? Is it true that you need to completely deflate the wheels for SS hard case? Does SS hard case come with wheels?


----------



## flatlander_48

stinkydub said:


> It is because i have an X large frame i have to remove the fork - doesn't matter, i have to remove it for both the Ritchey Soft case and the S&S hard case. *The crank i could probably get away with keeping it on but find removing the chain and crank make it easier to pack* - the tradeoff being a bit more work to remove and install. However, it's very easy with a master link and shimano crank. Not sure why you would have grease on your fork steerer except for overgreasing the headset. It's not desirable to have a greased fork steerer especially where the stem attaches. But as you said, both cases work fine. I just find the S&S a bit quicker and easier plus the added bonus of being a hard case.


For a long time I used a Wippermann chain with the Connex link. These are very easy to take apart, but sometimes a bit tricky to put back together. This allows me to pack the chain separately and keep everything else clean. However, that chain wore out and I'm current running a solid Record chain. I have quick disconnect links from Wippermann and KMG(?), but I have not tried them yet. One of these days I'll split the chain and insert one of the quick disconnect links...


----------



## stinkydub

55x11 said:


> I figured the extra disassembly/assembly steps must be due the frame size, how long does it take you to pack the whole bike?
> Also, what do you mean by X large - I thought Ritchey Cross always come in centimeter sizes - 62 cm? Is it true that you need to completely deflate the wheels for SS hard case? Does SS hard case come with wheels?


It's a 60 cm cross. You do have to deflate the wheels. The S&S case does come with wheels. It takes me about 40 minutes to dissasemble the bike and pack.


----------



## 55x11

stinkydub said:


> It's a 60 cm cross. You do have to deflate the wheels. The S&S case does come with wheels. It takes me about 40 minutes to dissasemble the bike and pack.


thanks. I like the "hard shell" aspect of S&S case. But it does seem to be a bit more work to pack it/unpack it, I think I will stick with soft shell Ritchey case - with some padding it seems to work just fine.


----------



## JFRCross

Just got back from my first trip with my Break-Away Cross (48cm). I used the S&S case. Packing was no problem (did not remove the fork or crank). I was harassed by the Jet Blue check-in agent supervisor at DIA who said he had to charge me because it was a bicycle. I explained that it met the size and weight requirements and he was insistent and rude, terrible customer service. One of the other check-in agent overheard and it took her three times to explain to this ass that there should be no charge. I am bringing this up the ladder at Jet Blue as far as I can take it. This guy was not only ignorant, but had horrible customer service. After he found out he was wrong, he wanted to justify his actions, I had to tell him a few times that I did not need to hear it and to just check me in. Other than that, travel was a breeze. The bike arrived in fine shape on both ends of the trip.


----------



## DrSmile

Never say there's a bike in the case. I usually say it's bike "parts." Technically I am not lying.


----------



## JFRCross

I didn't say bike, I think my wife may have when asked. I was in the middle of 8 and 9 year old boy chaos.


----------



## flatlander_48

DrSmile said:


> Never say there's a bike in the case. I usually say it's bike "parts." Technically I am not lying.


I say Exercise Equipment. Also not a lie...


----------



## burgrat

For the Ritchey case, do you guys recommend using one of those TSA locks? I know they will open and check out what's in the case, but I am wondering if there would be any benefit in having one of those locks. I've read they are not very strong, but I'm thinking that _if_ the case was ever left in the oversized luggage area, the lock would at least prevent someone from quickly opening it and snagging some tools or pump. What are your thoughts? Is this pointless?


----------



## flatlander_48

Not a lot of reason to have a lock, from my standpoinf. The sides are still soft and you could slice it with a utility knife; probably quicker than you could unzip it. The other thing is how many others would recognize what's actually in the piece of luggage?


----------



## burgrat

flatlander_48 said:


> Not a lot of reason to have a lock, from my standpoinf. The sides are still soft and you could slice it with a utility knife; probably quicker than you could unzip it. The other thing is how many others would recognize what's actually in the piece of luggage?


I agree, not many people would know there's a bike in there. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## stinkydub

I have never used a lock.


----------



## 55x11

burgrat said:


> For the Ritchey case, do you guys recommend using one of those TSA locks? I know they will open and check out what's in the case, but I am wondering if there would be any benefit in having one of those locks. I've read they are not very strong, but I'm thinking that _if_ the case was ever left in the oversized luggage area, the lock would at least prevent someone from quickly opening it and snagging some tools or pump. What are your thoughts? Is this pointless?


you are overthinking it. What would they steal? 
A frame trialngle is useless without the other half triangle. Pump? How much does a stolen frame pump go on the black market these days? 
No matter how much we obsess about the bikes and the parts, the individual parts are not very useful to an airport thief - the market is too niche for selling the stuff. 
Do you put a lock on all of your regular travel suitcases, containing your clothes and underwear and socks and stuff?


----------



## burgrat

55x11 said:


> you are overthinking it. What would they steal?
> A frame trialngle is useless without the other half triangle. Pump? How much does a stolen frame pump go on the black market these days?
> No matter how much we obsess about the bikes and the parts, the individual parts are not very useful to an airport thief - the market is too niche for selling the stuff.
> Do you put a lock on all of your regular travel suitcases, containing your clothes and underwear and socks and stuff?


It was a legitimate question. Normally I don't lock my regular luggage that I check in, but then again I'm not checking in my camera, iPod, etc. I'm not so much worried about someone walking away with the rear triangle of the bike, but if someone (such as an airline baggage handler) snags some tools, pedals, or something like that (which will be easily accessible), it could definitely screw up a weekend trip when time is limited. That's what I would be more concerned about. I know TSA will open and check contents, but they are _supposed to_ replace the lock and secure it. It would be nice if it could be somewhat secure in transition. From what I've read, the TSA workers don't always replace them after opening the bag. I thought I'd ask if anyone else felt a lock would be any benefit. Call it overthinking if you want, I'll call it planning ahead.:thumbsup:


----------



## 55x11

burgrat said:


> It was a legitimate question. Normally I don't lock my regular luggage that I check in, but then again I'm not checking in my camera, iPod, etc. I'm not so much worried about someone walking away with the rear triangle of the bike, but if someone (such as an airline baggage handler) snags some tools, pedals, or something like that (which will be easily accessible), it could definitely screw up a weekend trip when time is limited. That's what I would be more concerned about. I know TSA will open and check contents, but they are _supposed to_ replace the lock and secure it. It would be nice if it could be somewhat secure in transition. From what I've read, the TSA workers don't always replace them after opening the bag. I thought I'd ask if anyone else felt a lock would be any benefit. Call it overthinking if you want, I'll call it planning ahead.:thumbsup:


Sorry - wasn't trying to be snarky, I just think worrying about the lock on your softcase may be a bit too much. I worry about damage to parts more than loss, but more realistic concerns are about me forgetting to pack pedals or skewers or pump or shoes or something. 

If you are worried about someone stealing, look into those plastic zipties - TSA can cut them off if they need to open the bag, but it may provide a layer of security.

If you think about logistics of who could steal something from your bag - it comes down to check-in counter people, TSA agents, baggage handlers, and maybe someone in buggage receiving area if you don't get there before bags come out. Not sure which one you worry about most?


----------



## burgrat

No worries, I just haven't travelled with my Breakaway yet and I'm just curious what everyone thought. I think I'll be flying in the next month and I'm going to bring it with me. It's so nice and new, but she's ready. I'll post picks once I complete the build (very soon).


----------



## 55x11

burgrat said:


> No worries, I just haven't travelled with my Breakaway yet and I'm just curious what everyone thought. I think I'll be flying in the next month and I'm going to bring it with me. It's so nice and new, but she's ready. I'll post picks once I complete the build (very soon).


I would say the more important issues is packing everything well, and not forgetting any parts or tools or accessories. Keep in mind that even soft-sided bag is about 13 lbs, and if your Ritchey BAB fully loaded is ~20 lbs, plus padding materials, shoes, helmet, tools, pump, food - you can get close to 50 lbs very quickly.

I pack zipties, electrical tape and tiny scissors, as well as baby wipes (very multifunctional), just in case. I also have a few extra allen wrench keys (in addition to multitool), Ritchey tension wrench, pedal wrench, chain tool, little bottle of oil lube. 

If you use CO2 cartridges in your saddle bag, make sure you take them out (as they are not allowed on airplanes, even in checked baggage last time I checked), and bring a pump instead. I use full frame pump - remember to put it on the bike before riding off.

I also find it useful to have a few extra screws that fix stem front plate and seatpost, and an extra downtube clamp - I lost a screw once, lucking coming back from a trip. Also, make sure to protect derailleur and hanger and not bend cables too much. I am also paranoid that one day I forget shoes, seatpost+saddle, pump or helmet - I have a few copies of packing checklist that I keep in the bag.

I bring bottles with me in carry on bag, instead of putting them with Ritchey BAB bag, to avoid the bag getting flagged.

Practice packing and unpacking the bike a few times - you will get better at it each time. Ziplock bags and an old small towel (goes around derailleur/chain) helps a lot.


----------



## flatlander_48

2 points:



I use a Wipperman chain with a quick disconnect link. This allows me to remove and reinstall the chain at will. Therefore I can take the chain off and put it in a plastic bag.
I remove the rear derailleur. I do not touch the cable; I only unbolt it from the hanger. Northwest (now Delta) broke 2 until I realized that the derailleur is at the bottom when the bike is packed. If it is right side up and dropped, abnormal pressure is put on the structure that tensions the rotation. The little stop breaks off of the die casting and the derailleur is rendered useless. Anyway, once it is off the bike, wrap it in a shock absorbing material (bubble wrap, foam, etc.) so that it doesn't contact anything.


----------



## ebaumann

*frame sizing*



flatlander_48 said:


> question for you about sizing on your 60cm frame...


 hey! i am currently back and forth between the 58 and 60cm framesets. Ritchey lists the effective top tubes as 58cm (60cm) and 57cm (58cm). The effective top tube on my current cx race bike (which ive also done 120mi/14000 ft on--D2R2) is 57.5cm with a 100mm stem, compact drops, and zero setback post --- 58.7cm on my road bike with same component setup (minus the compact drops). Either I'm very flexible fit-wise or someones advertised measurements are off haha.

Just curious as to how you have found the fit compared to other bikes you own, as I would really like to avoid exchanging frame sizes after purchase! Wish I could test ride but there are no breakaways in stock at my local shops.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## 55x11

flatlander_48 said:


> 2 points:
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Wipperman chain with a quick disconnect link. This allows me to remove and reinstall the chain at will. Therefore I can take the chain off and put it in a plastic bag.
> I remove the rear derailleur. I do not touch the cable; I only unbolt it from the hanger. Northwest (now Delta) broke 2 until I realized that the derailleur is at the bottom when the bike is packed. If it is right side up and dropped, abnormal pressure is put on the structure that tensions the rotation. The little stop breaks off of the die casting and the derailleur is rendered useless. Anyway, once it is off the bike, wrap it in a shock absorbing material (bubble wrap, foam, etc.) so that it doesn't contact anything.


Excellent points, both! Not sure I will go with Wipperman chain (married to Shimano), but I may consider taking derailleur off for travel!


----------



## burgrat

Great suggestions! I read elsewhere about removing the rear derailleur (from the hanger) and that makes sense. I, like 55x11, prefer a Shimano chain. Thanks again for all the tips!


----------



## 55x11

ebaumann said:


> hey! i am currently back and forth between the 58 and 60cm framesets. Ritchey lists the effective top tubes as 58cm (60cm) and 57cm (58cm). The effective top tube on my current cx race bike (which ive also done 120mi/14000 ft on--D2R2) is 57.5cm with a 100mm stem, compact drops, and zero setback post --- 58.7cm on my road bike with same component setup (minus the compact drops). Either I'm very flexible fit-wise or someones advertised measurements are off haha.
> 
> Just curious as to how you have found the fit compared to other bikes you own, as I would really like to avoid exchanging frame sizes after purchase! Wish I could test ride but there are no breakaways in stock at my local shops.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I find frame sizing of Ritchey BAB to be fairly close to other framesets I ride. They do publish full geometry numbers (it appears you are quoting Cross, rather than Road frame numbers) - I would go with 58cm frameset - you can always offset 1cm difference by going to 110mm or even 120mm stem (and tweaking saddle position a bit), but this being the travel frame, smaller size may be a good idea.


----------



## flatlander_48

55x11 said:


> Excellent points, both! Not sure I will go with Wipperman chain (married to Shimano), but I may consider taking derailleur off for travel!


Alternatively, you could just just the Wipperman Connex or Forster Super Link III quick disconnect links. I believe SRAM also makes a quick disconnect link, as well as KMC.


----------



## flatlander_48

ebaumann said:


> hey! i am currently back and forth between the 58 and 60cm framesets. Ritchey lists the effective top tubes as 58cm (60cm) and 57cm (58cm). The effective top tube on my current cx race bike (which ive also done 120mi/14000 ft on--D2R2) is 57.5cm with a 100mm stem, compact drops, and zero setback post --- 58.7cm on my road bike with same component setup (minus the compact drops). Either I'm very flexible fit-wise or someones advertised measurements are off haha.
> 
> Just curious as to how you have found the fit compared to other bikes you own, as I would really like to avoid exchanging frame sizes after purchase! Wish I could test ride but there are no breakaways in stock at my local shops.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I bought my bike as a Frame and Fork and had it built up with the components I chose. The shop I bought it from was one of the few who sold bare Frames at the time. I gave my measurements to the guy who built my bike and he selected a 56cm Frame. He also sized the Stem and Handlebars. It all worked out VERY well.

After I had been riding the bike for 2 or 3 years, I had a fitting done here in Taiwan. The original component selection was dead on.


----------



## ebaumann

*thanks for the feedback!*



55x11 said:


> I find frame sizing of Ritchey BAB to be fairly close to other framesets I ride. They do publish full geometry numbers (it appears you are quoting Cross, rather than Road frame numbers) - I would go with 58cm frameset - you can always offset 1cm difference by going to 110mm or even 120mm stem (and tweaking saddle position a bit), but this being the travel frame, smaller size may be a good idea.


Yes, I am looking at the Ti CX framesets, sorry forgot to mention that detail. I suppose my biggest concern (besides top tube length) would be the headtube size, at there is a 20mm difference between the 58 and 60 frame sizes. 

Ive bought similarly proportioned frames in the past and ended up with a cockpit that was far lower (in relation to my saddle) than I would have liked, as I am not a fan of a huge stack of spacers under the stem (usually stick no more than 25mm on there).

For that reason alone I am almost inclined to just get the 60, throw a 100mm stem on there and see how it feels, worst case scenario I swap out the 100 for a 90mm stem. 

Just out of curiousity, what are the dimensions of the other frames you usually ride? Just looking at the photo you posted of your bike I would guess you are probably 6' 3-4" or so? How long is that stem you have on there? Looks like a 120 to me...

Thanks again for the input, I always like to hear from current owners before dropping this kinda $$ on a frame, its just so hard to find these bikes in real life for a test ride!


----------



## 55x11

ebaumann said:


> Yes, I am looking at the Ti CX framesets, sorry forgot to mention that detail. I suppose my biggest concern (besides top tube length) would be the headtube size, at there is a 20mm difference between the 58 and 60 frame sizes.
> 
> Ive bought similarly proportioned frames in the past and ended up with a cockpit that was far lower (in relation to my saddle) than I would have liked, as I am not a fan of a huge stack of spacers under the stem (usually stick no more than 25mm on there).
> 
> For that reason alone I am almost inclined to just get the 60, throw a 100mm stem on there and see how it feels, worst case scenario I swap out the 100 for a 90mm stem.
> 
> Just out of curiousity, what are the dimensions of the other frames you usually ride? Just looking at the photo you posted of your bike I would guess you are probably 6' 3-4" or so? How long is that stem you have on there? Looks like a 120 to me...
> 
> Thanks again for the input, I always like to hear from current owners before dropping this kinda $$ on a frame, its just so hard to find these bikes real life for a test ride!


I am 6'1" to 6'0". I ride 58cm in other frames, and in the past 5 years rode two road bikes with effective top tube of 57.3 and 56.4 cm, respectively. I use 120mm stem.
I like short headtube and relatively low handlebar (lowered it over the years gradually).YMMV


----------



## ebaumann

55x11 said:


> I am 6'1" to 6'0". I ride 58cm in other frames, and in the past 5 years rode two road bikes with effective top tube of 57.3 and 56.4 cm, respectively. I use 120mm stem.
> I like short headtube and relatively low handlebar (lowered it over the years gradually).YMMV


thanks again for the info, you are the first person i have found that owns a 60cm ti cx so your 2c is highly valuable to me. 

based on your stats and previous frames, I would think you would have gone with the 58 vs. 60 frame? what made you pick the 60?

also, how do you like the bike? anything to share from your experiences with it?


----------



## 55x11

ebaumann said:


> thanks again for the info, you are the first person i have found that owns a 60cm ti cx so your 2c is highly valuable to me.
> 
> based on your stats and previous frames, I would think you would have gone with the 58 vs. 60 frame? what made you pick the 60?
> 
> also, how do you like the bike? anything to share from your experiences with it?


I am not the one riding 60cm Ti frame, I ride 58cm steel XC frame (so your assessment is right on!). You may be confusing me with stinkydub, he rides 60cm ti XC, or maybe someone else.


----------



## ebaumann

*your right! sorry!*



55x11 said:


> I am not the one riding 60cm Ti frame, I ride 58cm steel XC frame (so your assessment is right on!). You may be confusing me with stinkydub, he rides 60cm ti XC, or maybe someone else.


you are absolutely right, sorry about that! you have the white/red one correct? i have been scouring the internet for photos of 58/60cm frames and remember yours well, great build! 

i wonder if stinkydub is around to chime in about his 60...which I think would probably fit me better but would have more flex and be harder to pack due to the large size. my main concern is headtube size on the 58, as its fairly small compared to my other cx frames...oh well, seems both will have their pros and cons.

thanks for your 2c regardless, nice to hear back from the BACX owners out there!


----------

