Van Rysel 2023

[reedplayer]

Tour magazin: rcr

Weight size M, carbon (looks like no paint, only lacquer? or black)
911/384/51 Gramm



https://www.tour-magazin.de/rennraeder/ ... r-im-test/

This is a prototype with different layup.

Hello,
"Tour" ist talking of different "finish", not layup.
regards,

[toxin]

Not talking about what tour said

[C36]

Tour magazin: rcr

Weight size M, carbon (looks like no paint, only lacquer? or black)
911/384/51 Gramm



https://www.tour-magazin.de/rennraeder/ ... r-im-test/

This is a prototype with different layup.

Hello,
"Tour" ist talking of different "finish", not layup.
regards,

Both seems right... Tour talk about finish (and at the time prototype bar) and I also understood VR kept developing the frames at the moment Tour tests were conducted, resulting in increased stiffness (I know directly from one Decathlon rider, his current frames is stiffer than the first one he tested... but I don't know where Tour frames used sits in the development timeline).

[alanyu]

Both seems right... Tour talk about finish (and at the time prototype bar) and I also understood VR kept developing the frames at the moment Tour tests were conducted, resulting in increased stiffness (I know directly from one Decathlon rider, his current frames is stiffer than the first one he tested... but I don't know where Tour frames used sits in the development timeline).

Did he say anything on comfort? One Chinese editor commented that the rcr (test ver. I suppose) is (much) harsher than SL7

[C36]

I didn't ask... I can ask next time he stops by the club.

[toxin]

I would be surprised if that weren't the case. RCR has a much more substantial rear end and the setback seatpost on the sl7 has a much more pronounced curve which allows a bit more flex.

[alanyu]

I would be surprised if that weren't the case. RCR has a much more substantial rear end and the setback seatpost on the sl7 has a much more pronounced curve which allows a bit more flex.

Not that simple. It hugely depends on the layup of the seatpost. My seatpost broke in an accident and bought a replacement, and the new one got reinforced as the wall is significantly thicker, 40 g heavier. It simply ruined the comfort, from old gen foil comfort to better-than-propel (old gen) level.

[toxin]

Intrinsically the depth of the seatpost will have the biggest contribution to comfort (2nd moment of area). You can easily make a shallower post stiffer with layup. Much much harder to make a deeper post comparatively compliant, far beyond the engineering complexity limitations of the cycling industry.

Especially the rcr being a reversible seat post it cant really have a side that's more compressible and a side that's more stretchy.

[alanyu]

You are simply wrong. 1. A deep seatpost/frame tubeshape can offer good comfort. Bross has done that with their final released version. A huge improvement from their alpha ver. 2. The RCR seatpost is not reversible. Even with a reveraible one, you don't need to make a full length flexible. Like some others do, make upper/non-insert part more flexible.

[toxin]

Now that I look better the rcr post is indeed not reversible. The rest I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

[C36]

Well all things equal, a larger 2nd moment of area will be stiffer, but... not all things are equal and the layup will have a drastic effect... and that is just the seatpost, an important element but that is not all.
Fyi found interesting that some riders did asked for a stiffer seatpost, particularly in torsion for both power transmission and downhilling (hips rotations in the curves), I want to say it was for Canyon but right now I have a doubt (cervélo?)

[KalleWirsch]

I have the Van Rysel RCR shoes and they are superb!
I compare them with Fizik shoes and the Van Rysel are super light, have a great fit and are very smooth at the top. I like them very much!

[KalleWirsch]

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?

[wheelsONfire]

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?

It is what it is, as with so many other bike brands. Nothing to do, get a frame that fit you better. I feel same, fit is Nr.1.

[Maddie]

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?

I consider myself a pretty normal standard European. I am 178cm but ride either 52 or 54. So clearly there is not a classic 56 size guy.

Let's have a comparison

RCR
Size S, stack 531, reach 385,7
Size M, stack 546, reach 388,2
Size L, stack 572, reach 395,6
Size XL, stack 596, reach 408


SL8
Size 52, stack 527, reach 380
Size 54, stack 544, reach 384
Size 56, stack 565, reach 395
Size 58, stack 591, reach 402

These values look pretty similar to me and certainly something that you can adjust by choosing the proper handlebar.