Home > Reviews

Ritchey Logic C260, C220 & 4-Axis Stems – Weighed & First Impressions

25 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Ritchey-Logic_C260_C220_4-Axis_WCS_aluminum_stems_clamp-openings

At Eurobike and Interbike last fall we got a first glance at some new stems from Ritchey but wanted a deeper look. Their range of stems now includes three variations on how much the stem body wraps around the 31.8mm clamping surface of your handlebar. The thinking goes that the more the wrap, the smaller the faceplate needs to be, the lighter the faceplate bolts can be, all while creating a stem/bar interface that is lighter and stronger. The only problem is that more wrap creates some mounting complications. To test out how user-friendly each stem was and how they worked on various bars, Ritchey let us try one of each: the 180° wrap carry over 4-Axis stem, the 260° wrap C260 that was brought to market back in 2012, and a newly introduced 220° wrap C220.

Follow past the break to see what our experience has been and how we’ll likely use each type…

Ritchey-Logic_C260_C220_4-Axis_WCS_stems_cyclocross-test-sizing

I’ve long felt that the standard 2014 alloy aluminum Ritchey 4-Axis WCS stem was a great multi-use stem, as it balanced low weight, affordability, and performance quite well. It has essentially been my go to stem for small fit adjustments on road, cyclocross, and XC mountain test bikes for years. The only issue I’d really ever had were with some of the early 4mm ti bolts, so I was curious about the switch to torx bolts on some of the new stems. While strength was never really a problem, a little extra stiffness could always be good, especially for wider mountain bars. And with the advent of the new 2014 alloy C220 stems, the 4-Axis is being phased out at the WCS level. Stock still seems readily available, but as of model year 2015 the 4-Axis will only be a comp-level 6061 alloy item.

Ritchey-Logic_C260_C220_4-Axis_WCS_aluminum_stems_clamp-opening-comparison

We had been a little reluctant (as apparently some readers seem to have been as well) about the development of the newer C260 which wraps 260° (almost a full 3/4s of the way) around the bar. The idea of a more secure grip on the bar seemed good, but the complication of getting a wrapped road bar or any shaped bar into that clamp seemed daunting. Even just squeezing the 31.8mm section of a mountain bar in looked like it could be difficult (which in reality we found it was not an issue.) Well, to address the issue Ritchey developed the new C220 which as expected wraps 220° around the bar. By splitting the difference between the C260 and 4-Axis, the new C220 becomes a lot more versatile and still keeps the better retention and stiffness.

To look at usability of the stems, first we measured the stem body/face plate opening on each to get a sense of how much space would be available to install different bars. Next, we measured the dimensions of several handlebars representing typical bars, which we already had mounted on bikes, 7.5 & 10cm (3&4”) from the center of the clamping surface. (We measured at 7.5cm, because this was about the farthest distance any of our bars had the tape wrapped, and by 10cm most bars had transitioned to their final top dimension.) Then we tried each stem on the tapered low-rise mountain bar, the gradual-taper aluminum road bar, the abruptly-tapered round carbon road bar, and Ritchey’s own Evocurve shaped-top carbon road bar.

Ritchey-Logic_C260_WCS_aluminum_stem_110mm_actual-faceplate-opening Ritchey-Logic_C220_WCS_aluminum_stem_80mm_actual-faceplate-opening Ritchey-Logic_4-Axis_WCS_aluminum_stem_100mm_actual-faceplate-opening

Stem body/face plate openings:

C260 – 25.3mm
C220 – 31.4mm
4-Axis – 31.8mm

Handlebar dimensions 8/10cm from the clamp:

Low-ride mountain- 27/24.5mm
Aluminum road – 27/24mm
Carbon road – 25/24mm
Ritchey Evocurve carbon- 31×32/34.5x29mm

Ritchey-Logic_C260_WCS_aluminum_stem_installation_detail Ritchey-Logic_C220_WCS_aluminum_stem_installation_detail

As was pretty clear from the measurements we took, the C260 had the most compatibility issues. It was only possible to install it on the mountain bars and a single tapered carbon road bar without any adjustment. The aluminum bars and the other straight carbon bars were all pretty simple to install the C260 with the bar unwrapped past the first bend, but with the levers still in place. But the shaping of Ritchey’s own Evocurve bar (and previous Evolution model) made it a bit of a puzzle twisting back and forth to get the stem on even with one lever and all the tape removed. It was complicated enough that Ritchey apparently produced a video showing you how to do it. The clamp body of the stem is a little bigger than the 31.8 of the bars so it does freely slide onto all bars and then is cinched down tight when the face plate is bolted on.

The C220 was much easier to work with. Since it’s opening is just a shade smaller than the 31.8 bar clamping area, it actually kind of snaps onto the bar. That means it went on ALL of the bars WITHOUT removing anything, no twisting and trying to guide it through the bends of a bar. It only required a more careful snap into place, as once the bar was in the stem it took a bit of effort to reposition its angle.

The 4-axis of course went straight on, as well with no hassle.

Ritchey-Logic_C260_WCS_aluminum_stem_110mm_actual-weight Ritchey-Logic_C220_WCS_aluminum_stem_80mm_actual-weight Ritchey-Logic_4-Axis_WCS_aluminum_stem_100mm_actual-weight

Our final thought on setup?

The C260 is a stiff and reasonably light stem. Our aluminum 110mm weighed 146g, but installation is a chore. Ritchey claims about 130g for this size, so it is actually their heavier WCS option (due to the steep -25°angle) and our sample was again heavier than expected. If you are building a new bike or at least upgrading the stem with the bar, it makes for a nice secure interface. We struggled a bit to get it on the Evocurve which isn’t really an overly shaped bar. Be careful if you are picking out a handlebar with a truly flat top, as it very possibly will not be compatible with the C260.
Update: As I note in the comments, the weight of this -25° C260 stem should not be directly compared to the other 2 stems. The steep angle means the forging method is a bit different and the stem needs extra material to resist additional forces. In fact the layout of the steerer bolts are even different on this stem. The typical C260 stems are the lightest aluminum stems from Ritchey as a general rule.   

The C220 is a good compromise with added strength vs. a traditional clamp, with our 80mm sample weighing just 114g (close to Ritchey’s 111g estimate.) It offers a lot of the stiffness and security of the C260 without most of the hassle and has traditional forward facing stem bolts for those who prefer that aesthetic. The last push or snap that you do to put the C220 in place is a bit odd at first and requires a bit more work to finely adjust bar angle, but ultimately results in a secure connection and Ritchey’s lightest aluminum stem. It makes a good upgrade, and we are OK with it gradually replacing the 4-axis as an all-around use stem.

And in case you still feel like all of that is too complicated, the 4-Axis still makes a nice simple, well-performing stem. Our 100mm sample was the lightest of the bunch also at just 114g (about 12g lighter than Ritchey estimates), although the switch to the Comp-level will probably add about 30g. You will still see them show up on a lot of our test bikes, as they make it really easy to swap back-and-forth quickly to adjust to individual test rider needs, and they do seem to last.

Note: We include weights here, like all of our posts to give our readers some real-world data. Remember we are comparing different length and angle stems here, so jump to conclusions with caution.
Btw, we appreciate your comments and interest in the topic.
Thanks, that is all.

RitcheyLogic.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

25 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Calvin
Calvin
9 years ago

Would the use of carbon paste with a carbon bar in the 220 stem cause any issues? I have a feeling you’re going to have to slide it in from the side to get it either in or out, and as a result make long lengthwise scratches across the bar.

Bill B
Bill B
9 years ago

I have 2 of the C260’s in wet red. A 120 and a 130. The 120 weighs 118 gms and the 130 weighs 125 gms. Compared with 110 at 146 gms in the article, the weight variance seems unnecessarily large. Not that it really matters. But I do think consumers have the right to expect products to meet advertised weights.

Francisco
Francisco
9 years ago

My 80mm C260 weighs 97 grams, so I second Bill in thinking the C260 in the article seems too heavy. The probable explanation: stem angle. In the bottom picture it appears that the first stem has 17 degrees, while the other two stems are 6-degree.

Matt
9 years ago

Form follows function. I said on day one that this design complicates handlebar install/removal, doesn’t adds any benefit for that caveat, and it was not a good design… I suppose to each his own, and this over-clamped method doesn’t work for me.

Dave B
Dave B
9 years ago

Is this a solution to a non-existant problem? What’s the problem with standard 180 degree faceplates that this is supposed to solve? At some point this stiffness business becomes absurd.

maxx
maxx
9 years ago

The variance noted for the C260 is probably due to the one in this article being -17 degree one, versus a normal 6 degree one. Or at least a large part of the weight difference being from that.

maxx
maxx
9 years ago

Oops, that’s a -25 degree one !

Which will mean even more material needed !

tigoat
tigoat
9 years ago

C260 stems are for men while other stems are for boys. Because of the ingenious C260 design, I became a Ritchey fan for life. It is light, strong, and good looking, what not to like about it. One of my 130mm C260 stems is around 125 grams and this particular one measured 135mm long. It is not right to compare a -25 degree to a 6 degree. Can’t imagine a typical rider would swap a stem in and out that often that it become a problem installing a C260 stem. When I install a C260 stem, I don’t even slide it in from the side; I just spread the clamp and snap it onto the bar. Hope Ritchey will keep it alive for a long time to come, as I will continue to buy it as long as I am still riding. Most importantly, please keep innovating to make all other copy cats look stupid.

Poling Yu
Poling Yu
9 years ago

I am 185lb and these stems are way too flexy.

Matt
9 years ago

Ingenious design? Innovating? If anybody believes that, I have a bridge available for sale.

Rixter
9 years ago

And the point of this design is? Seriously millions of stems with a standard front plate. Tried and true. A clear case of a solution looking for a problem.

b
b
9 years ago

Who the hell uses a -25deg stem?

Darryl
Darryl
9 years ago

b, Small people on 29er bikes.

I find mounting the 220 to be the single best stem available, snap it in, no fiddling trying to hold the bars and faceplate and tools/bolts with only two hands.

Duke249
Duke249
9 years ago

C260 = pain in the a**. 3mm bolts for both the clamp and the faceplace? The angle of the faceplace bolts is a real PITA, especially if you travel with your bike and need to reposition the stem for packing. The 3mm bolts are a real PITA because they are made from potmetal and begin rounding out after 2 tightenings. Seriously. WTF? Why spec a 3mm bolt for a stem???

Avoid the C260 stem.

BTW, anyone want to buy a 100mm C260 carbon matrix stem? Kidding… I’m throwing it away. No need to make a few bucks to give someone else a big dose of frustration.

robo
robo
9 years ago

Initially, I was a huge fan of the C260. Stupid light and plenty stiff. But after countless frustrating installs where bars get scratched by the stems sharp corners, or getting a customer all stoked on one, only to find it’s impossible to mount their bars to it due to ovalized or flat tops, I’ve decided it’s just not worth the headaches. A cool bit of bike bling if you want it, otherwise there are plenty of less frustrating options out there. Intrigued by the C220…

K
K
9 years ago

I rounded my 3mm bolts immediately as well. Ritchey supplies torx bolts now. If you contact them about your rounded bolts they’ll mail you a torx set for free. (At least that’s what they did for me)

Bill
Bill
9 years ago

You say “snaps in” I say “Scrapes up your handlebars during install”

greg
greg
9 years ago

Isn’t that the 4axis 44 stem, and not the standard 4axis? It’s an important distinction. Wider bolt spacing, squared off extension, generally a stiffer stem than the original 4axis…

Rico
Rico
9 years ago

I remember saying this about the 260 over a year ago here on BikeRumor and getting a lot of heat over it. “Gee these comments on Bike Rumor are so negative”

jd1072
jd1072
9 years ago

My new bike came with the 260 stem. Holy smokes, what a PITA. Not. Worth. It.

Tomi
Tomi
9 years ago

Somehow I don’t feel comfortable by “snapping in” a carbon handlebar.

Heard about aluminum fatigue too. I know we are not supposed to put and remove bar every few seconds but wouldn’t that create stress concentrator to the point that a stem could crack suddently ? Or would we need thousands of bar swaps for a stem to crack ? Can a metallurgy expert chime in ? Part of me say Ritchey would have done their homework. However the rounded bolt issue show they didn’t do it right for the C260.

Aaron
Aaron
9 years ago

Pointless. Really, the stem is a truly pointless place to try to save weight.

Stephen R Prevost
Stephen R Prevost
5 years ago

Takes you back to the days of quill stems…remove tape, maybe a brake lever to install. Newer stems use T27 torx bolts which strip out VERY easily. Using Ritchey’s 4nM wrench…wait, wait, there’s no 27T tip! Not going to stay on the bike…

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.