Rick's Rolling Carry-On Disappointment

Edited post.
Welcome to the forum. There are lots of posts reviewing luggage. I’m sure you will get replacement ideas from those. Or posting here for recommendations.

Sorry you didn’t like your Rolling Carry-On. I have used mine on three Europe trips plus domestic. It fits easily in plane and train overheads and holds a lot, enough for a month in Europe if you do laundry (but that’s another discussion). It also held up well when expanded and checked. Are you going on a Rick Steves tour? Since this is your first post, maybe you can tell us a bit about your travel style and why 1” is so important to you.

With some airline carry on rules getting smaller, it’s better to be 1” short in the sizer so you don’t have to gate check. Turning my suitcase upside down to measure so it’s resting on handle instead of the wheels, it measures 21”. If you measure it resting on the wheels, it appears to be 20” because of the curve of the molded frame and doesn't add handle measurement.

Last trip the handle extension failed (thankfully from airport to home). RS stood behind their warranty and replaced the suitcase. I didn’t expect that since it was 6 years old. FYI the replacement suitcase weighed 5 lbs out of the box according to my handy dandy luggage scale, so lighter than stated.

Sorry you didn't like your bag. I hope you did a trial pack as his bags are easy to pack carryon with plenty of room. Mine is not 20" including wheels, but rather 21" when the wheels are included. I wish it were 20" in full.

Check out the numerous bag discussions for other suggestions for two wheeled bags. But beware, no matter how detailed one looks online, the measurements are often wrong...although not usually smaller, but rather bigger!

It may also be a difference in how one measures a bag. Most dimensions are intended to be overall dimensions with items in the bag (but not crammed to bursting) So you need to account for that handle on the top, and the furthest extent of the wheels, making the actual "bag" somewhat smaller than 21", or at least my speculation.

That said, I have been left scratching my head sometimes at how companies arrive at sizes, usually the liter capacity, but oh, well. If an inch of bag is a deal breaker, then you probably need to re-evaluate your packing. On the way over, you want plenty of room anyway, the contents usually grow.

Are you sure you measured the bag correctly? That 21” includes handle (collapsed) and wheels, because that is how the airlines will measure it with their “sizer box”. If the airline you are flying requires a 21” carryon, the RS bag will fit.

Other brands claiming 21” may have a larger capacity, but the handle and wheels may not be included in that measurement—-and the bag may not fit in the sizer.

The inside dimensions of luggage are expressed as capacity, in either liters, cubic centimeters, or cubic inches. The inside capacity of the RS bag is stated to be 2430 cubic inches, which means the interior is 20x9x13.5. So the product description is not incorrect.

Sometimes you don't like a product; sometimes you eat a little shipping charge. Amazon has acclimated us to the idea that one can reject a product for any reason at all and not pay return shipping. Non billion pound gorillas though can't always match this same policy.

Are you looking for a 21” case or 21” in total?

Travelpro has some two-wheeled bags (“rollaboards”). A lot of companies seem to have stopped making two-wheeled bags.

I have the 22” Travelpro Maxlite Rollaboard. Be aware it is actually closer to 23” tall when you include the handle (Their website notes the overall dimensions are 23” x 14.5” x 9”). This bag is fine for the major U.S. airlines. It is too big for some of the European airlines. It has a very spacious interior.

Travelpro has some smaller versions for international use.

I'm sorry you didn't like you bag, but I think you are mistaken about the dimensions. I also believe their refund policy is fair, and is clearly stated - see this page: Shipping & Returns, under "Returning Merchandise". I think the policy is pretty clear:

What is your merchandise return policy? If you are not satisfied
with your purchase for any reason, you may return it in new and unused
condition within 60 days of the purchase date to qualify for a refund.
Please note you are responsible for the cost of shipping items back to us.

As for the dimesions of the bags, I bought two of the Rick Steves Rolling Carry-On bags in December 2023. I've measured them - repeatedly, carefully, precisely (some would probably say obsessively).

On the two I bought, the stated dimensions are correct (within roughly 1/4 inch). I measured the actual, overall dimensions - the way an airline using a "sizer" box would, including every bump and protusion. I measured mine packed full (but not stuffed to the point of bulging). I measured them when they were brand new (I picked them up in person at RSE HQ in Edmonds, WA), several times while packing for my last trip where I used them, and measured them again a week or two ago, after returning from the first trip where we used them. I am highly confident the stated dimensions are accurate, at least for the two that I have.

Overall, I like the bags a lot. My spouse does also - we recently returned from a trip to South America where we used them, and more than a couple times while using them, she told me "these new bags are great, I'm glad we got them."

I'm not sure why you say yours are under-size. I suspect you must be measuring them "wrong" and not accounting for the wheels, the handles, and/or other bumps. The stated dimensions on the website are not for the "bag" (container) itself, they're for the overall device, including the supporting structure, wheels, handle (when fully collapsed), etc. – because that's the size that matters when you're getting the stinkeye from the gate dragons and other people are being told their bag is too big, they need to check it, and pay a surprising penalty. I did not measure the bag's internal capacity, can't vouch for that, but it seems correct to me (and can be expanded when you need to, by unzipping the expansion feature - I have not used that yet but like having the option).

There are plenty of bags out there to choose from. We are quite happy with this one, I hope you find one that works for you.

Some years ago, Consumer Reports did a study on the actual size of bags advertised as "carry-on" and found that most bag so advertised at the time did not fit within the airline carry-on dimensions limits. As I remember, one of the worst places for "violation" of the dimensions was in the height, where the actual bag, including wheels and handle, was often greater than the regulation height by several inches.

Bag manufacturers, being, shall we say, less than honest and wanting to sell bags, wanted their bags to be as large as possible and still call them "carry-on" bags. So, without checking what the airlines actually called regulation dimensions, they decided to say it was carry-on size if the packable container fit the regulation dimensions ignoring wheels and handles. At least RSE is being honest (maybe too honest). Looking at the bag in question, I can see where the extensions of the wheels below the bottom or the "feet", plus the grab handle, even when pushed down to the top of the bag, could add an inch to the total dimensions, so a bag that was of "regulation" height of 21 inches might have a packable container of only 20 inches.

Dimensions: 21" x 13½" x 9" (including wheels)

Presumably you mean this bag(?) ---https://store.ricksteves.com/shop/p/rolling-carry-on

I’m sorry this didn’t meet your needs! I know you will be able to find a bag that seems like the right bag for you.

the interior is 20x9x13.5

Ah, Lola. If the outside dimensions (W & L) are 9x13.5, as stated in the description, and the inside dimensions are 9x13.5, doesn't that mean that the front, back, and side walls have zero thickness and, therefore, don't exist?

doesn't that mean that the front, back, and side walls have zero thickness and, therefore, don't exist?

You have to take your engineer's cap off.😂

As has been noted many times, dimensions are rounded off in many cases to half inch increments. So, the bag may actually be 13.7 inches outside and 13.4 inches on the inside. So, rounding off, it becomes 13.5.

The truth is that Rick’s advice to take a carry-on actually works better with his bag than the one you’re looking for.

Ricks bag is sized to fit much more carefully on what some of the budget and international carriers allow. Now granted if you’re flying Delta, as long as you can figure out a way to shove the steamer trunk in the overhead been you can bring it on, but other carriers are more strict, when you go up to that 21 inch you’re probably looking at a 22 inch suitcase and that’s going to be over the limit for some people some carriers

Baggage companies very rarely count wheels and handles, airlines always do

Lee, you will have to ask Rick about that.

I was simply comparing the external dimensions with the internal capacity as both are stated in the product description. The point was to demonstrate that the description is not incorrect as the OP claims. That 2430 cubic inches reflects a reduction of the height from the external 21” overall to 20” for the internal dimension. That is what you get if you multiply 20 x 13.5 x 9. That is not likely to be just a coincidence.

! am pretty sure all measurements are rounded off for simplicity, and allow for a few mm thickness of the fabric sides and the frame. Maybe the external dimensions are actually 21.015 inches x 13.215 inches x 9.135 inches. Who knows—-and who cares?

Wonder bearsncubs5 will come back to let us know what bag he found. I’m curious why 1” was an issue or did he just not like the Rolling Carry-On. Either way, I hope they have fun in Europe or wherever they travel.

Baggage companies very rarely count wheels and handles, airlines always do

There, folks, is the quote of the day.

And, Frank II, I suspect that those numbers are all meaningless - not measured nor calculated, just pulled out of their, well you know where. That's the difference between marketing and engineering.

How many times have we seen a bag manufacturer claim that their carry-on bag's capacity is far more than the 2772 in³ that you get with the regulation 21"x14"x9"?

Thanks very much to everyone who has replied to my post about the carry-on. I appreciate all of the comments, they were polite, insightful and very helpful. We love Rick's advice, videos, etc. and know that travelers who resonate with Rick are the kind of people whom it is a pleasure to travel with. (The next trip is to Japan, where we will be on our own and lugging our carry-ons all over the place.)

I noticed you paid $14 for return shipping. I purchased the same size suitcase. They charged me $14 for shipping. However, it was smaller than I anticipated so I went to UPS to return with the shipping form I received from the RS store. The UPS clerk measured and weighed the box and said the cheapest fee to ship the suitcase back to RS would be $77! That is almost half of what I paid for the suitcase. I called RS customer service and they said there was nothing they could do. Beware to all before you order from RS. They won't have this customer again!

@dgroce30,
Many of us have done well with RS products. I wonder if shipping through post office would be cheaper. I can see where shipping a suitcase, rather than a backpack, can get expensive due to size and weight, Buying anything online can be tricky, if one doesn’t understand exactly what is being purchased. That’s why I don’t buy shoes or clothing online.
It sounds like the suitcase was not defective. You simply prefer a larger case. Many of us are going with smaller cases due to modern airline luggage policies. There are ways to supplement a smaller carry-on suitcase with underseat bags.

USPS for a 10 lb 22x14x10 is less than $30

https://postcalc.usps.com/Calculator/LargePackageProperties?country=0&ccode=US&oz=94545&omil=False&dz=98020&dmil=False&retail=False&mdt=4%2F9%2F2024&mdz=19%3A29&m=7&hscode=False&p=10&o=0&rect=True&l=22&h=14&w=10&g=0

Paying $70+ at UPS is not necessary