http://shedfire.posterous.com/visual-sample-only-do-not-ride-yeah-right

Looks reet.

needs 36’s with a 1.5 steerer and stem, otherwise, i fail to understand the provision of the 1.5″ HT ?????????
options yes, but, FFS, build it as it was designed ! ? !

1.5 HT lets you get lots of lovely weld area, and a nice short headtube, keeping the downtube nice and big, without having to ovalise it. It’s more about that for me than running 1.5in forks.

Also the top bearing can sit inside the headtube to stop the bars being stupid high.

Also makes the front end stiffer under fatigue testing so transferring load to TT to save DT stress.

All good.

And I didn’t have any 1.5’s in my garage this afternoon.

needs 36’s with a 1.5 steerer and stem, otherwise, i fail to understand the provision of the 1.5″ HT ?????????

Bigger weld area.

Lots more 1 1/8 stems/

Lots of bikes about with 1.5i HT and reducer headsets.

and the option of fitting the new 1 1/8 1.5 tapered steerer forks too.

1.125″ equipment into 1.5″ HT looks bl00dy stoopid.
ovalising looks cleverer 🙂
tube manipulation is king…
and c’mon – get me the iscg option on the Ti and we’re a go’er 🙂

chainstays look lush.

chainstay/dropout junction looks bent,like they’ve welded an FSR pivot, dunny like, hope the steeler looks better

I want one, though it may mostly be the colour ..

whats the hole next to the downtube head gusset for?

Nice colour, reminds me of this.

😀

alt.cableguide routing, but it’s all wrong.

You can either go over the top or down the downtube. D/t on that model missing several guides and the guide that’s there is in the wrong place, top tube routing not right either (it’s all going underneath).

Correct chainstay profile junction thing here – http://www.shedfire.com/2009/05/09/mmmbop-modified-chainstay-junction-for-production/

Why were stems so long back in the day?

how stoopid does that 1.5″ HT to 1.125″ steerer interface look.
puny to say the least – get the bloody 1.5″ kit on there to do it some justice and to distract from the kermy colouring 🙂

ah, chainstay looks a lot better in that link Brant

how stoopid does that 1.5″ HT to 1.125″ steerer interface look.

oh it’s about the look, I see 😉

Obviously this had to come along exactly 3 weeks after I spent too much money on a Soul 👿

Surely Soul and Ragley are completely different geometry/end use?

The are indeed very different. Though I guess, if you wanted a lightweight trailbike, there might be points that are similar.

aye, it’s about the look , as a rule of thumb, if it looks daft, it usually is !
c’mon brant – slap a pair of 36’s on it and a stubby 1.5″ stem. DO IT JUSTICE 🙂

oh it’s about the look, I see

If the only assessment you can make (as a potential buyer) is based on a few photos, the strapline “Designed by award winning designer Brant Richards” and a forum fwap fest then I guess looks are kind of important……

I guess looks are kind of important……

We were (in that bit) talking about the merits of the look of 1.5 vis 1.125, not the frame as a whole…

Of course looks are important.

The engineering principle that bigger diameter tubes make for stiffer/stronger structures is quite a basic one. So aesthetics is the only reason that I can think of to explain why when Fisher introduced the ‘evolution’ headset in 89 that it was pooh-poohed by the magazines.

Now who was working for a mtb magazine back in the early 90’s?

hilldodger – Member
If the only assessment you can make (as a potential buyer) is based on a few photos, the strapline “Designed by award winning designer Brant Richards” and a forum fwap fest then I guess looks are kind of important……

Actually that’s just my thinking, seeing as I’m the happy owner of a couple of Pompinos, an Inbred 29er, and a Scandal. I figure Brant may know something about designing a decent frame.

and you think yo do? how do we know you are an arbiter of good frame design?
you could just be a brand whore swayed by the STW masses and the ‘marketing’

you could just be a brand whore swayed by the STW masses and the ‘marketing’

I’m starting to think Brant has some sort of mind control device. I’m as jey as jey can be, but started to really want/need a Blue Pig after seeing the videos and photos the other week. The craving only went away when Brant mentioned a superlight rigid-specific 29er and I started to find reasons for buying one of those instead.

Am I being blamed for the decline of the Evolution headset, and now doing an about turn?

Anyhow.

Killa Skillz on the mmmbop…

brant – Killa Skillz on the mmmbop…

clearly the massive head tube puts too much weight at the top end creating a bike with a high / unstable centre of gravity.

I figure Brant may know something about designing a decent frame.

I’m far from qualified to diss Brant’s design skills and didn’t mean to, I had a 456 bought mainly on the basis of forum fwaperry, but found it heavy and too long for my liking so I sold it.

Lesson learned, I wouldn’t personally buy another bike I couldn’t try first – fit and feel are my main criteria for buying bikes, not viral marketing hype and street cred.

Good luck and success to those who design and produce bikes, it’s the sheer variety of designs that makes it interesting for the rider and it means there’s a bike ‘out there’ for everyone – finding it is the problem….

thepodge – Member
brant – Killa Skillz on the mmmbop…
clearly the massive head tube puts too much weight at the top end creating a bike with a high / unstable centre of gravity.

Clearly pointing a camera at yourself whilst riding causes crashes, or punctures in my case if you are carrying a camera…

I’ve got the mmmBop at my house for someone to have a demo ride on Tuesday. I’m fighting the urge to put a pair of 36s on it just to see….

I wouldn’t personally buy another bike I couldn’t try first – fit and feel are my main criteria for buying bikes, not viral marketing hype and street cred.

Hurrah for LBS’s and Hotlines staffed demo days who will have Ragley test bikes in the near future.

Frame weight on this is 3.7lb btw. Top tube long, but designed for 50-70mm stem.

3.7lb on an 18″?

3.7lb on an 18″?

Yup.

I dont know why, but I hate the look of it?

-the dropouts look out of proportion with the chainstay, i understood and thought it was clever on the SS on-ones, but why on an aloy hardtail, even from an engineering oint of view surely having the calliper on the seat stay makes more sense (if you add another brace to the chain stay especialy)

-1.5 headtubes look out of place on hardtails, they may make engineering sense, but they just lok out of proportion with everything else on that bike.

– And why route cables under the TT? Thy dig in if you try and shoulder the bike? Either on top of the TT, or under the BB (which IMO gives the better shifting with very little outer to fill with crap).

It would take some very special handling to convince me to get that over something similar.

1) By running the caliper on the chainstay, the seatstays can be lighter and add (a touch) to the compliance of the rear end.

2) I think it looks ace, and blends well with the big downtube. And as you say, it makes engineering sense.

3) Cables on top “I’ll catch me nuts on them”, cables on side – “I’ll catch me knee on them”, cables underneath “i’ll catch my shoulder on them”. Bearing in mind I can’t actually remember the last time I shouldered a bike under the top tube, I’ll go this way.

The handling is ace (so long as you look where you want to go, not where you don’t ;-))

3.7lb on an 18″?

Yup.

warrantied for fat b***ard mincers?

warrantied for fat b***ard mincers?

CEN tested and all that. Hell yeah.

cables run under the TT of my fuel ex and my P.A., never had any issues, as long as they don’t go under the BB i’m happy

The rigid 29er is going to be very, very fast 😉