Over the weekend in Berlin, new bike maker Rondo rolled out a broad new line of variable geometry Ruut gravel road bikes. Based around the same full carbon fork with a set of flip chips at the front thru-axle, the bikes can quickly swap back and forth between a paired setup of either endurance or race focused geometry. Combine that with a family of fat tire gravel road frames in either carbon, aluminum, or steel and the Gdansk-based company has a wide range of off-the-beaten-track bikes that can fit either 700c or 650b wheels…

Rondo as a company was founded by a couple of guys who had been working for other companies designing mountain bikes for more than a decade, and decide it was time to take those lessons learned and apply them to the growing gravel category that was still lacking much innovation. Sure gravel bikes have started offering the variable wheel size for a little while, but the variable geometry that has become common on top full-suspension mountain bikes could have a nice application off-road as well.

All of the Ruut (pronounced route, btw) bikes work off the same fork. The two position thru-axle at the fork tip allows Rondo to get what they call Vario Geo, offering either an endurance-focused ride, or a more race-oriented feel. By moving the axle up and down about 10mm, the headtube and seattube angles only shift by about 0.5° each. But of even greater impact is decreasing the bike’s trail by 13mm, lowering the bottom bracket (and your center of mass) by a few mm, and dropping the bar for a more aggressive fit. All of that means a noticeable change in the ride feel, so you can go from upright and relaxed, to more snappy yet stable handling just by flipping the chip.

Ruut CF1

At the top of the family is the Ruut CF1, with a full carbon fiber frameset that pairs most all you could want in a top of the line carbon gravel bike with the dual personality of the flip chip Vario Geo fork. The carbon frame itself gets a fairly rigid front triangle and large, asymmetric chainstays paired to a thin set of seatstays that loop behind the rear thru-axle dropouts and extend past the seattube to put more shock absorbing flex in the rear before it gets to your saddle.

The top CF1 will sell for 3700€ and come spec’d with a SRAM Force 1 hydro disc groupset, Rondo’s own color matched alloy 700c wheelset, Panaracer Gravel King 40mm tires, and Easton cockpit.

Of course besides the adjustable geometry trick, the Ruut family also takes advantage of the ability to run multiple wheel sizes. The founders come from a mountain bike background, and they clearly see this as a mountain biker’s do-it-all road bike. Each of the Ruuts can fit a 700c wheel with up to a 40mm tire, or go even bigger to a 650b wheel and up to 2.2″ tires.

All of the complete bikes we saw were setup for SRAM 1x drivetrains, but they do include a d set of bosses on the seattube to mount a removable front derailleur tab. They also all get modular internal cable routing and graphics to remind you to “Stop F-king Around” and ride your bike.

Ruut CF2

forest photos courtesy Rondo

The Ruut CF2 shares the same frame and fork as the top bike, but brings the price down to 3000€ with a Rival 1 group.

Ruut ST

The steel framed Ruut ST shares the identical overall geometry and the same adjustable, 1.125″-1.5″ tapered carbon steerer fork as the more expensive carbon bikes but with a lower 2300€ price tag. The complete steel bike also gets built up with a Rival 1 hydraulic disc groupset with the same Rondo alloy wheels, but swaps in a less expensive crankset and some other down spec’d components to keep the price down.


The wide Ruut fork looks a bit broad for the thinner steel tubing, but the bike keeps the same wide tire flexibility and adjustable geometry. Out back Rondo worked hard to keep the chainstays just as short on the metal bikes, and sticks with a dropped asymmetric chainstay layout to make everything fit. There’s a good bit of tube shaping and crimping in there, but Rondo managed to make it all work out.


Out back the Ruut ST gets a machined thru-axle drop out that helps keep stiffness while keeping weight in check. The Tange chromoly frame opts for an external threaded BB (instead of the Press Fit on the carbon bike) and sticks with external downtube cable routing.

Ruut AL

The 6061 T6 aluminum framed bike is the most affordable option as part of the 1900€ Ruut AL. Again it shares the same geometry and adjustable fork as the other bikes. The complete alloy bike steps down to an Apex 1x group

Like the steel bike, the aluminum Ruut AL forgoes the kink in the toptube for a more traditional design better suited for an alloy bike.

The aluminum frame does keep the same asymmetric chainstay layout, and sticks with a threaded external bottom bracket. The larger tubing diameters also allows for a mixture of internal and external cable routing.

Each of the three different frame materials is available in the same four bike size range.

Geometry wise the fork offset gives any of the bikes the option of two different ride characters. Like most flip chip suspension mountain bikes, we thing that most riders will pick one position and leave it at that. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. While many riders have gravitated to more upright, relaxed endurance geometry for gravel bikes, I personally have been a fan of a slightly quicker feel. This may just be a good option for riders who might otherwise be afraid to try a more road race geometry for fear of getting locked into quicker handling geometry for getting off the asphalt.

And you should be giving your bike some good cleaning and a once over a couple times a year. Why not be able to swap over to an endurance position for more relaxed winter riding, then back to something racier for the summer?

That’s a pretty big offering for a new company, but it is nice to see that they are offering a wide range of materials and price points from the get go. These new fat tire gravel bikes will go on sale later this spring, likely through a dealer network that is being finalized now, with availability of the bikes slated for June 2017.

And on top of that, we’ve heard rumor that they have a line of road bikes in the works too. Details are super thin on those, but we’re been told to expect something similar to the variable geometry, and still room for large volume road tires. We’ll definitely keep our eyes open for more info on Rondo and see when we can get ahold of one to ride…



  1. Mircea Andrei Ghinea on

    low bb-drop and smaller trail (from steeper head angle along with bigger fork offset) for the “racing position” sounds very weird to me.
    opposite, high bb-drop and bigger trail (from slacker head angle along with smaller fork offset) for the “endurance position” sounds very weird to me.
    i don’t understand the logic behind that bike. to me, it should be totally opposite.

  2. mudrock on

    Mixing such a low BB with steeper angles is an odd choice. it gives you quicker handling, but I wouldn’t want to try any off-camber turns with a 74mm BB drop. But, to me, the longer offset, and shorter trail, of the racing position is correct.

    Love the color of the AL model – too bad they cheapened it with an Apex group.

  3. mudrock on

    And that dropped chainstay – another great idea from mountain bikes. Why should Open Cycles, which start at $2900 for the frame, be the only ones to do that?

  4. toffee on

    I run an adjustable stem on one of my bikes, lets you go from fully slammed Cadel style to fully upright, and anywhere in between. A lot more options than this bike offers, on any road/ gravel/cross bike, for a small amount of money.

    • EcoRacer on

      Adjustable stems are often (not always) less stiff, heavier, bulkier and cheaply made. Not for everyone, but if you like yours, more power to you.

    • typevertigo on

      I don’t think they needed it on these bikes. Otso’s Warakin bike uses a rear flip chip system to give riders three effective chainstay lengths, partly because it allows fitment of wider rubber. Ruut adopted the kinked drive-side chainstay likely for the same reason.

      Just my two cents – I could probably be wrong.

  5. Mircea Andrei Ghinea on

    WRONG GEOMETRY DESIGN (although it looks like a beautiful bike).

    for “endurance position” they did: higher bottom bracket and bigger trail (from slacker head angle along with smaller fork offset).
    for “racing position” they did: lower bottom bracket and smaller trail (from steeper head angle along with bigger fork offset).

    should be totally opposite. you need higher bottom bracket for racing (to be more agile in turns), and lower bottom bracket for endurance (for more stability on rough terrain). you need bigger trail for racing (cause higher speeds), and smaller trail for endurance (cause lower speeds).

    this bike will be pain in the ass to ride.

    if you wanna have two bikes into one, for the “racing position”, along with the drop in the front of the bike (of the fork dropout), the rear of the bike (of the frame dropout) should allow to raise too so that the bottom bracket remains more or less the same. and regarding the fork offset it should be the other way around.

    what i say above is more or less the same thing that Felt did with their “Paris-Roubaix Edition” some time ago, in 2012. to get into the “endurance” they altered their road bike like this: longer fork and more fork offset along with longer chainstays and higher frame dropout so that the entire frame drops at the rear. all for some slacker angles, longer wheelbase, lower bottom bracket, smaller trail.

      • Mircea Andrei Ghinea on

        no money yet for that 🙂

        the ideas i placed above are nothing new, it’s just common sense, it’s what mostly you see if you compare a Road bike and an Endurance bike from the same brand. to lower the bottom bracket and to make the trail smaller for the “racing position” sounds just crazy, that bike will wobble (shimmy) like crazy at high speeds and you will just fly-baby-fly off the bike.


  6. typevertigo on

    I quite like these bikes.

    Does Ruut offer frameset-only options? I find their frames intriguing, but not really a 1x kind of guy myself.

  7. jednobiegowiec on


    You might have problem installing front mech.

    There is no cable stop and seatube is kinked to allow more tyre clearance.

    Initially only CF version will be available as a frameset. Rest might follow in the future, if there would be demand.


  8. Colin M on

    “Fat Gravel” is that a thing now? Gawd the bicycle industry just keeps segmenting itself more and more. Does any other sport do this nonsense?

  9. jednobiegowiec on

    People were doing it all the time. Sticking 26×2.2 rubber into CX frames or mounting drop bars to fully rigid MTB frames.

    It was called monster cross 🙂

    New lingo keeps things fresh and interesting for gadget boys 😉


  10. patrick on

    I just don’t get it. Body position (hands, shoulders, hips, feet) relative to contact points will be the same either way. It’s a really short head tube which means a lot of spacers or a fairly acute/closed hip angle. So you’re leaning forward more with the same position in ‘race’ or leaning forward slightly less with the exact same body position in the endurance position. I fail to see how one would be more comfortable than the other unless you’re taking the time to adjust saddle and handlebar position as well.

    74mm bottom bracket drop seems like a lot for a CX bike. If go to 650 wheels and the ‘endurance’ geometry, you’re going to be right back at that low bottom bracket (relative to the ground) again. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

    I just can’t figure out the advantages anywhere. A somewhat diagonal/horizontalish ‘chip’ for the rear axle could raise the BB, shorten the chainstay and steepen the head angle for CX racing and then lower the BB, lengthen the chainstay while also *possibly* providing more tire clearance. Side note – CX bike makers need to take advantage of the 386 bottom bracket and build in tire clearance. The ‘chip’ would be kind of like what Pivot and Otso do for their fat bikes, but maybe a bit more diagonal. Plus, a rear based chip would likely have less potential for flex as compared to the fork. So, uh, just about everything opposite of this bike.

  11. Stephen Cuomo on

    Wow, these bikes are interesting. Obviously a lot of thought went in to them, but maybe the intention is a bit fuzzy (lost in translation?). Anyway, it’s always good fun to watch the haters go for the red meat here.

    This is all about what the chip flip does to the “trail”. Thirteen mm of trail change has a significant, noticeable effect on handling. Traditionally, racing bikes use shorter trail, because it results in quicker, more nimble handling. Increasing the trail makes for more stable handling (bike wants to go straight, harder to knock off course, and requires less attention from the rider), which is better suited to “endurance”.

    It’s logical to lower the front end and b.b. (center of gravity) for racing, but in this case the difference is not enough to have a significant effect on the bike’s performance.

    • patrick on

      But, uh….no. If you look at ‘endurance’ road bikes vs. ‘racing’ road bikes, the racing bikes have more trail. Not less. Same thing when comparing a cyclocross bike to a gravel bike. Generally more trail is better speed increases. That’s why motorcycles have more trail. A lower bb is nice for some racing, but not exactly popular on a cx bike.


COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.