Van Rysel 2023

[Mr.Gib]

Regarding the frame sizes I have questions marks. The RCR frame is for the "normal standard European" men with a height of 180cm exactly between two sizes. The one is too small in the Stack and the other is too long in the reach.
I don´t understand this decision. Other brands make frames which are for 180cm people right in the middle of a size, e.g. the classical frame size 56 guy.
Don´t understand the Van Rysel sizing here. What do you think?

Sometimes a brand just doesn't land on your numbers. The size L is pretty much the typical 56. Indeed the 26mm jump in stack from the size M is pretty big. I don't have any experience with frames smaller than 56, but it seems to be that the size M is relatively long and low. If your body is not built for an agressive position, choose your poison - a short stem or a pile of spacers under it.

Never thought of Van Rysel for me but that size L is right on my numbers.

@Maddie, is the SL8 is at the agressive end of the spectrum? At least the gaps between sizes are consistent.

[KalleWirsch]

I would call myself a classical size 56 guy. Most brands (not all) offer something around a 56X stack and a 391 to 393 reach for me.
SL8 fits into this with a slighlty longer reach.
RCR doesn´t fit, because my size would be between M and L. That´s my point.

RCR Size M, stack 546, reach 388,2
versus
Canyon Ultimate M, stack 560, reach 393

You see, RCR stack is lower, but if you go up to size L, the reach is too long (for me).
Also here compared to an Ultimate, the RCR would be between M and L.

[Mr.Gib]

Maybe the amount of stack on the size L puts the bars a bit higher than you prefer, but how much do you have to bend your elbows to accommodate bars that are 1 cm too high? There is probably three times that amount at play among various bar choices. It's doable. A bunch of AG2R guys of various shapes ride the size L. I get that the size M would mean 2mm of spacers more than you run now, but if you are slammed at 56x stack, that won't be bad. 20mm of spacers, even 30mm seems very common these days even at the most elite levels or racing. I've seen upturned stems this year as well on the pro tour. And if you already have some spacers with 56x then the size L comes back into play.

It's nice when a frame lands dead on your numbers so you just slap on your preferred stem length with the minumum spacers, etc. But I think we can get hung up on a few millimeters when there so many adjustments that can be made, some of which might leave us better off in the long run. eg reach a few mm long? Move the cleats back and the saddle forward. Presto problem solved. Don't want to mess with the cleats? Just move the saddle. 10mm won't overload the hands.

The RCR is a great value. I wouldn't forsake it for being a few millimeters off.

[BalticSea]

I would call myself a classical size 56 guy. Most brands (not all) offer something around a 56X stack and a 391 to 393 reach for me.
SL8 fits into this with a slighlty longer reach.
RCR doesn´t fit, because my size would be between M and L. That´s my point.

RCR Size M, stack 546, reach 388,2
versus
Canyon Ultimate M, stack 560, reach 393

You see, RCR stack is lower, but if you go up to size L, the reach is too long (for me).
Also here compared to an Ultimate, the RCR would be between M and L.

Canyon frames are larger than usual, I'm 178cm tall, on most brands I'd be on 54/size M, but on Canyon I'd have to go with size S.


Also, RCR size L -572mm stack and 395.6mm reach

Tarmac SL8 size 56 (aka L) - 565mm stack and 395mm reach.
Reach is almost identical and RCR actually has more stack. But even then, difference between 393 and 395.6mm reach is marginal and can easily be covered by shorter reach handlebar

Regarding RCR vs FCR - aesthetically, I prefer FCR, it looks a lot less like a generic modern day lightweight aero bike than RCR. It's a shame about tyre clearance though.
P.S. Not every country in Europe has Alps or similar mountains, so there are more important factors than irrelevant couple hundreds of grams when it comes to choosing a bike.

[Lina]

Are you guys aware that there are stems with different angles? And that it's possible to have spacers under the stem?

[C36]

While I do think it is a good thing to have « real » racing geometries on WT bikes (and i don’t think it is that extreme), all those geometry charts never include the bearing cover that on the RCR case seems to be a solid 20mm minimum.

[robbosmans]

You can route the cables fully internal with deda superbox dcr stem to achieve the lowest possible stack. Like this

[alanyu]

While I do think it is a good thing to have « real » racing geometries on WT bikes (and i don’t think it is that extreme), all those geometry charts never include the bearing cover that on the RCR case seems to be a solid 20mm minimum.

Compared to the stem, the cover is maximum 15 mm

[toxin]

The top spacer looks mandatory

[Mr.Gib]

The top spacer looks mandatory

Or at least something similar. My guess is 15mm. So that moderates both stack and reach numbers. If you can't make an RCR fit without going to crazy spacer towers or silly short stems, then you are probably shopping in the wrong category.

I like everything about this bike except that the fork crown is not integrated into the head tube/seat tube shape. Maybe that might have broken the budget on the manufacturing end because otherwise why not go for the sleek look up front.

[C36]

If you can't make an RCR fit without going to crazy spacer towers or silly short stems, then you are probably shopping in the wrong category.

Clearly, I am on a FB page about the RCR and I am amazed how many people jump on the bike coming from more relaxed geometries and totally miss that it has a “reasonably agressive geometry”

I like everything about this bike except that the fork crown is not integrated into the head tube/seat tube shape. Maybe that might have broken the budget on the manufacturing end because otherwise why not go for the sleek look up front.

Actually they did tested the integrated fork in the wind tunnel (the FCR has it) and it was not bringing anything.




Few frames lost the integration, the SSevo4 lost the integration, so did the tarmac (versus the venge)

[alanyu]

More about the look. I also prefer the sleekness.

[Mr.Gib]

More about the look. I also prefer the sleekness.

I suspected the integration didn't add much speed, but hell yeah, I want it to look fast. Sometimes I just sit in my bike room and stroke the head tube and fork crown on my Ostro.

[tymon_tm]

that spacer thing indeed is sort of a problem unless (like me) 572 stack is too much, and 546 a bit too short. but i found similar problems with other bikes, namely BMC Timemachne - i could get one but it had this idiotic 30mm spacer and distributor wasn't very helpfull, so i ditched the idea.

IMHO aero(ish) bikes with integrated bars etc look absolutely awful with spacers. one doesn't hurt, pros use spacers too, but a tower of them just hurts my eyes and makes me wonder why have they bought a bike that doesn't seem to fit them at all. it's like buying a porsche and putting 16" wheels for better comfort. just stupid.

[alanyu]

The QC or/and QA of the vietnam factory is pretty bad, sadly.