Opinions on Raleigh Roker

Caliper wrote:

For me at least, it's the stack heights. The 56 has roughly the stack that I measure in my 60cm road bike, and I'm likely sizing down there on my next frame. Meanwhile, the reach doesn't change very much across the range of sizes that I would conceivably by riding. Raleigh would recommend a 58 or 60 for my height. I'm 6 feet, but 1/2 leg, so 36" from the tender parts to the ground, barefoot.

56: 586 stack, 381 reach
58: 607 stack, 384 reach
60: 621 stack, 394 reach

For me anyways, I'm looking for a more roadie fit on this bike, so that's why I'm looking at the smaller frames. I'm almost tempted to blow up the budget and try a Noble GX5 in 56cm, since that's apparently the same frame designer.

I did find one Raleigh dealer near me. Unfortunately they don't advertise any road bikes on their site, but I'll see what they have in stock.

Caliper, this is a comparison tool useful to adjust/correct the “reach” measurement at a given stem height (headtube plus any needed spacers).—- http://www.bikegeo.net/.
Basically, raising or lowering your stem 20mm changes the reach number by ~6mm (~71 degree headtube angle).

Caliper wrote:

For me at least, it's the stack heights. The 56 has roughly the stack that I measure in my 60cm road bike, and I'm likely sizing down there on my next frame. Meanwhile, the reach doesn't change very much across the range of sizes that I would conceivably by riding. Raleigh would recommend a 58 or 60 for my height. I'm 6 feet, but 1/2 leg, so 36" from the tender parts to the ground, barefoot.

56: 586 stack, 381 reach
58: 607 stack, 384 reach
60: 621 stack, 394 reach

For me anyways, I'm looking for a more roadie fit on this bike, so that's why I'm looking at the smaller frames. I'm almost tempted to blow up the budget and try a Noble GX5 in 56cm, since that's apparently the same frame designer.

I did find one Raleigh dealer near me. Unfortunately they don't advertise any road bikes on their site, but I'll see what they have in stock.

Caliper I would have to agree with Mark on here who is the bike designer. If you have a 36" inseam I think 58 cm is the bike for you.

Zman

Mark_Landsaat wrote:

Hi Caliper, with a saddle height of 800mm I would say you that you would likely have a much better fit on a 58cm than a 56cm in my opinion. Please check out the two screenshots of a 56cm out of the box and a 58cm out of the box. With the 56cm you would have a saddle to handle bar drop of 108mm, that is quite a lot and puts a lot of strain on your wrists, elbows shoulders and neck and would probably uncomfortable on longer rides. Also measure your current cockpit combination. Horizontal from center of the bar to center of the seatpost. Even though reach difference is only 3mm between sizes the cockpit combination is a 28mm difference. My guess would be that your current bike is closer to the 678mm cockpit combination.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers. 
   

Thanks for the sketches! (I miss my copy of Solidworks!)  I didn't mean to drift away, have been checking measurements on bikes and doing some rides over the last few days. 

I do have a few questions actually, sorry to be a bother. 
Are the drops shown the lowest possible without changing the angle of the stem? 
Also, is the 559mm ETT on the 56 a typo? I had thought it was 570. 
Can the GX5 mount a clamp-on front derailleur? I'm another one on the fence about 1x.
I don't suppose there is any way for a Michigander to easily get a test ride on a GX5, is there? 

108mm of drop looks fine if that's a max. My road bikes are right in that range when I'm in shape and that's kinda the fit/feel I'm looking for. I find around 100mm drop lets me make good use of both the hoods and drops during a ride and too tall a handlebar a bit limiting for power when I get out of the saddle. 

You are right on about my typical cockpit dimension, +/- 10 or 15mm depending on the bike. What was tripping me up is I am always thinking with a 100-110mm stem in mind and most of my bikes run a 570 TT. I've been reading up on the forward geometry from what I see in MTB articles but it's a new concept for me and I guess I don't have a firm grasp on what that would feel like on the bike as compared to a typical road bike type geometry. 

Skldmark wrote: Caliper, this is a comparison tool useful to adjust/correct the “reach” measurement at a given stem height (headtube plus any needed spacers).—- http://www.bikegeo.net/.
Basically, raising or lowering your stem 20mm changes the reach number by ~6mm (~71 degree headtube angle).

Thanks, that's an awesome tool! I notice that one has to include the stack height of the headset and half height of the stem to be accurate, but the overlay is great. 

Was looking for some stats on my Roker today when I found a 54 cm Roker on Ebay used for $1400 or $1450 forget which. That seems to be a great price to me.


Zman

Zurichman wrote:Was looking for some stats on my Roker today when I found a 54 cm Roker on Ebay used for $1400 or $1450 forget which. That seems to be a great price to me.


Zman

It sure is (I noticed that eBay listing also), but 54 is certainly too small for me! Trying to figure out places to find bikes for test rides but few opportunities and a full schedule, this past weekend was booked so maybe next...  

ChillyWilly wrote:The Roker Comp is a great bike and I love mine a lot. But you said "race bike" and I think that might mean that the Roker is not quite for you.
The two issues I see are the geometry and the groupset. 

The first thing to consider is geometry. The Roker has a 440mm chainstay length, a fairly slack head tube, and a lot of stack. That makes it a great bike for a long comfortable ride on gravel roads. But it's not exactly racey. 
The Salsa Warbird or the Jamis Renegade aren't really all that much different, but they lean more towards the fast and race-like than the Roker. They don't have as much headtube and stack at least, and will give you a faster position for sure.  (Also look at Noble bikes. The guy who designed the Roker is doing those. But I think they're 1x only, so maybe not?)

And then there's drivetrain/groupset. I love my 1x group. Love. But it's not really race appropriate. Go read Guitar Ted's rants against 1x. (Sorry, GT - it's a rant. But you're not wrong.) You don't get as wide of a gear range. You get bigger hops between gears. I am totally happy with 1x for myself. If it's a >10% grade hill I'll probably be walking it if it's longer than 100 yards. And I'm okay with that. And on the downhills I'm perfectly happy coasting at 30mph - I don't need to pedal to get the last little bit of speed out of my downhill run. 
But if you're going to be racing on anything other than practically level gravel, you're going to want the range of gears that 2x gives you. Hopping off to trudge up the side of the road while getting passed by people is not cool. And you're going to want the efficiency of being able to pick the gear to get you just the right cadence. 

Geometry and 1x drivetrain make the Roker Comp a poor choice for gravel racing?  What do you consider “race” geometry on a gravel bike and what are the advantages?  I consider a slightly taller stack height to be a good thing when it comes to all-day comfort and speed.  It seems like most people negate any perceived or real benefit of a short stack height by putting 40mm of spacers under the stem anyway.  I also consider a relatively slack head angle and longer chainstays to be a good thing for a gavel race bike, i.e. stability and predictable steering/handling on fast gravel descents.  I don’t need or want my gravel bike to handle like a crit racer.

1x vs 2x?  Different strokes for different folks.  Either is fine for gravel racing and 1x has plenty of range.  My previous gravel bike was 2x (30/42 x 11-34) and I prefer my current 1x setup (40 x 11-46) in nearly every situation.  I believe all the Dirty Kanza winners were on 1x this year—that must count for something.  

squak wrote:

Geometry and 1x drivetrain make the Roker Comp a poor choice for gravel racing?  What do you consider “race” geometry on a gravel bike and what are the advantages?  I consider a slightly taller stack height to be a good thing when it comes to all-day comfort and speed.  It seems like most people negate any perceived or real benefit of a short stack height by putting 40mm of spacers under the stem anyway.  I also consider a relatively slack head angle and longer chainstays to be a good thing for a gavel race bike, i.e. stability and predictable steering/handling on fast gravel descents.  I don’t need or want my gravel bike to handle like a crit racer.

1x vs 2x?  Different strokes for different folks.  Either is fine for gravel racing and 1x has plenty of range.  My previous gravel bike was 2x (30/42 x 11-34) and I prefer my current 1x setup (40 x 11-46) in nearly every situation.  I believe all the Dirty Kanza winners were on 1x this year—that must count for something.  

I really don't know what a race bike is suppose to feel like. I come to this gravel riding with a cheapo Schwinn mt. bike that probably weighed about 30 lbs. I started out witht he 2016 Raleigh Tamland 1 because of the killer price and not sure if I would luv gravel riding or not. It weighed 25 lbs and if only riding in Kansas and that area it would be great. For the massive hills here on the East Coast it is too heavy for me. I will also admit that I am out of shape so that plays in it some. At my end I plan on riding some longer rides over 100+ miles so the Roker works for me. What I really dislike at bout my Roker is the 1x but maybe that is just me. My last ride/race kind of confirmed this to me. We were riding on a rails n trails road. We weren't going that fast but I was shifting my gears all over the place to try and stay the same speed as him. I would guess that the bottom 4-5 gears has too much jump and gaps in them. You could get the Sport that has the 2x and only weighs 2 1/2 lbs more. Had I had it to do over that is what I probably would have done. Good luck


Zman

where are Raleigh frame manufactured? Taiwan or mainland China?

@involuntarysoul The Raleigh frames are manufactured in China as well as the assembly. There is also a Taiwan connection, because most of Raleigh's manufacturing partners are operating in China, but have Taiwanese ownership. 

Mark_Landsaat wrote:@involuntarysoul The Raleigh frames are manufactured in China as well as the assembly. There is also a Taiwan connection, because most of Raleigh's manufacturing partners are operating in China, but have Taiwanese ownership. 

that is what I am afraid of, most reputable carbon manufacturing factories are in Taiwan (Giant, Specialized, Trek, Canyon etc) mainland China is known for $500 open molds with questionable QC

@involuntarysoul While it is true that some reputable brands manufacture in Taiwan, it is also true that many reputable brands manufacture their carbon frames in China (or Vietnam for that matter) and they are not using factories with questionable QC.

Making carbon frames is very labor intense and the cost of labor is lower in China than it is in Taiwan. It is for this reason that a lot of Taiwanese manufacturers have facilities in China. The process, engineering and quality control is exactly the same as it would be in one of their facilities in Taiwan, but with less overhead. This means frames can be produced more cost effective, but to exactly the same standards as any other facility.

Where things get more questionable is if you purchase a no-name open model frame. I do agree that it is often unclear what the quality of this product is. However, if you purchase a carbon bike from a reputable company that stands behind their product it really doesn't matter where it is produced in the world. As long as the process, layup, engineering, QC and testing is done to a high standard.

I used to work for Raleigh, so I know this supplier quite well and based on my experience with many different suppliers, I believe that they are a great supplier with very good quality. And just for the record, that supplier is one of the Taiwanese owned facilities.

As long as you purchase from a reputable brand, I wouldn't be concerned one bit where the actual frame was manufactured.

I agree.  China makes some great stuff when the QC is there with a reputable brand.  Its when going off brand where I have no idea what (if any) quality control is applied to what I buy.   The latter can be hit or miss.

Mark_Landsaat wrote:@involuntarysoul The Raleigh frames are manufactured in China as well as the assembly. There is also a Taiwan connection, because most of Raleigh's manufacturing partners are operating in China, but have Taiwanese ownership. 

Mark I though there was a discussion on this before and that you said that the frames were manufactured in Taiwan but then the bikes were painted and assembled in China so yes they could put the sticker on them made in China even though the frame wasn't manufactured there.

Zman

@zurichman,

I don't recall ever stating that the frames were manufactured in Taiwan. Frame and fork are manufactured by the same company, they used to be located in the Shenzhen area and have recently moved to the Xiamen area.

Like I said in my post above, the company is Taiwanese owned, but the manufacturing facility is in China. As it is for many of the brands we know and love.

Somebody else must have wrote that. You being from Raleigh you should know where they were/are being manufactured. It might not be the fastest race bike out there but I am digging my Roker except for the 1x which I probably will switch out in the future. I went down South this weekend to get away from the tundra land here in Pa. to ride the Swamp Fox Gravel Fondo @ Huger SC. It was very nice organized ride/race.                    

Zurichman wrote:

Mark I though there was a discussion on this before and that you said that the frames were manufactured in Taiwan but then the bikes were painted and assembled in China so yes they could put the sticker on them made in China even though the frame wasn't manufactured there.

Zman

@Zurichman, that was probably me who said that. However, we were talking about the Tamland not the Roker. The steel frames are produced in Taiwan but painted & assembled in China. 😁

BTW, sweet pics!! 

DP

DPCX wrote:

@Zurichman, that was probably me who said that. However, we were talking about the Tamland not the Roker. The steel frames are produced in Taiwan but painted & assembled in China. 

BTW, sweet pics!! 

DP

Well Mark was the designer of both of those bikes at Raleigh before he left to form Noble bikes. So I guess he knows his stuff.

Luv the bike but at some time will go 2x Shimano.

Zman

Zurichman wrote:

Well Mark was the designer of both of those bikes at Raleigh before he left to form Noble bikes. So I guess he knows his stuff.

Luv the bike but at some time will go 2x Shimano.

Zman

exactly! And Mark was my boss at Raleigh and I help him with Noble too. 😉
Check your old private message's, that's where we talked about it. 

DPCX wrote:

exactly! And Mark was my boss at Raleigh and I help him with Noble too.
Check your old private message's, that's where we talked about it. 

My bad claiming Senior moment here.