Ed O, Singletrack’s favourite pirate impersonator, owner of local guiding company www.great-rock.co.uk, and Shed Fire test rider, popped round for coffee and to show us his new Shed Fire Ragley. He reckons it’s more fun that boarding canal boats with a cutlass, we’re not so sure about that, but it does look fun.
We’ll get some more details from Ed or Brant and hopefully get a ride on one soon. (Pun intended)
Â
Related posts
Comments (54)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bomberman March 26, 2009 at 4:36 pm
if that rear tyre isn’t already touching the chainstays, it probably will do under cornering
jupiter March 26, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The 18” frame looked big and gate like, this 16” looks fantastic, although I’m still not totally onboard about the rivnut thing. That aside this could be ‘the’ bike, well done Brant!
Ed-O March 26, 2009 at 4:57 pm
It’s a 2.5 High Roller on the back. If you look from above there’s enough room for a bottle of rum in there.
Ed-O March 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Some more photos on my site now http://www.great-rock.co.uk
jupiter March 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Much as I would like the ti frame, I think it will have to be either steel or aluminium. Will the steel frame be powder coated, and will the alu frame be anodized?
topangarider March 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm
That plate in the seatstays still looks poo I reckon. Forgiveable on a cheper steel or alu frame, but not on Ti. It’d be better if it had some detail machined in it.
Freezie March 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Man that looks sweet
MrSmith March 26, 2009 at 6:05 pm
in what way would it be better with some detail machined in it?
prettier to look at? (it’s not exactly a looker)
something to make a cnc machinist break out in a wry smile?
somewhere for the sycophants to keep their lipsalve?
a bottle opener perhaps?
rs March 26, 2009 at 6:50 pm
that hose routing on the top of the downtube looks terrible
brant March 26, 2009 at 6:51 pm
For me, machined detail is just pretty pointless foof. I was offered it, but declined. It’s all 100% functional. I think there’s a certain beauty in that.
brant March 26, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“that hose routing on the top of the downtube looks terrible”
Keeps coming back to looks. Which is a shame. I think we’ll be changing that one though. I don’t tend to look at that when I’m trying to put a new line in down a trail 🙂
ChunkyMTB March 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I still don’t get it.
rs March 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm
if i’m paying close to a grand for a frame I want it too look good, it might make no difference to the ride but it is enough to stop me buying it. But hey its your frame, its up to you.
NewRetroTom March 26, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Looks a shade agricultural from those pics. Would be interesting to see it in the flesh.
brant March 26, 2009 at 8:34 pm
That plate at the top of the seatstays is getting a revision for production as the 1.5in of welds at each side are a bit of a head-messer for the welders. It’ll be modified to be attatched by a couple of tabs at each side, so if they sneeze it won’t write the frame off.
Ed’s bike has a 2.5in High Roller in the back, so we’re happy with clearance, but I revised the chainstay bend (at 11:45pm last night) so it’s got a touch more on the non drive side.
The bolt on cable guide positions are being finalised this week, and we’ve got some lovely CNC ones coming for it.
And finally, it goes up and downhill better than anything I’ve ever ridden. But then I guess you’d expect me to say that!
ctk March 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Cant really tell how it rides from the pictures lol so will comment on the looks… Looks good I reckon!
Papa_Lazarou March 26, 2009 at 8:57 pm
long travel Ti hardtail, mmmm, IMHO we are getting close to the perfect MTB here.
Loose the bash gaurd, get some forks not made by RS, fit a set of magura louise brakes I’d be proper drooling
darkside March 26, 2009 at 8:58 pm
will anyone actually be using those rear v-brake bosses?
james March 26, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“Looks a shade agricultural”
What does that even mean?
I presume referring to agriculture from sometime in the last century?
terrahawk March 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm
looks nowt like a tractor.
buzz-lightyear March 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Fan bl00dy tastic
Not sure what fork that is.
Want one
brant March 26, 2009 at 10:14 pm
It’s a Revelation 20mm through axle thingy. Seems fine to me 🙂
Ed-O March 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“NewRetroTom says:
Looks a shade agricultural from those pics. Would be interesting to see it in the flesh.”
All welcome to come and try the 16″ or 18″ just let me know, email in profile.
” darkside says:
will anyone actually be using those rear v-brake bosses?”
No v-brake bosses. Just the temporary cable clip.
Fork is a Rock Shox Revelation.
Sim March 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Can I have a go please Ed? 🙂
Metasequoia March 26, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Lynskey construction is definitely not agricultural, it’s among the best! Fantastic looking bike, even like the name! Looks low stable and agile, I’d love to try one but guess I’m too lanky for the 18″ frame 🙂
Ed-O March 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Lee Quarry on Sunday Sim?
Sim March 26, 2009 at 10:36 pm
‘Fraid I’m going to be riding in West Cumbria this weekend or I’d take you up on that Edwardo.
bigrich March 26, 2009 at 11:22 pm
whats the point of that chainstay gubbins if theres no tyre clearance anyway? looks like a handy mud basket.
Goz March 26, 2009 at 11:25 pm
The driveside chainstay looks rather minimal at the BB junction, me thinks there will be problems with flexing.
kiwijohn March 27, 2009 at 12:00 am
I can dig it. Can you deliver to Tassie?
brant March 27, 2009 at 6:50 am
bigrich – I’m sorry if you think I’m an idiot or just doing fun for shits and giggles.
Lots of tyre and chainring clearance, easy construction, durability, triangulation. Mud problems? Well – the front mech’s generally caught all the crap at that point anyhow.
Pics here with a 2.35 High Roller.
http://www.shedfire.com/2009/03/24/up-the-bum/
hora March 27, 2009 at 8:13 am
If thats not a VW T4 then Im sorry this isnt a brand that I will invest in. Need lifestyle-products dammit! 😉
lorenzo March 27, 2009 at 8:17 am
Really interesting. Geometry charts anywhere? Thank you.
brant March 27, 2009 at 8:26 am
I’ll do a geometry chart today and post it on http://www.shedfire.com
ooOOoo March 27, 2009 at 9:25 am
That would make a nice commuter. Is that rack bosses on there?
jaycmx1 March 27, 2009 at 9:29 am
come on then brant how much?
theginjaninja March 27, 2009 at 9:32 am
why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?
richc March 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
Thats some serious beardage in the picture of the WhatMTB Journo’s photoshoot
Olly March 27, 2009 at 11:01 am
the brake hose would look better mounted under the seatstay reckon?
still with the caliper where it is, but symetrical to the seat stay.
tyre clearance looks “slim”
i also reckon it would look better with a shorter back end, but i know nothing about geometry design, and im sure its function over form.
other than that, sexy sexy.
will there be one in a 160mm travel adjustment?
that would be naughty
brant March 27, 2009 at 11:10 am
Tyre clearance is anything but “slim”.
Shorter than 16.75in back end, AND you’re moaning about tyre clearance? Puzzled.
It’ll take 160’s happily.
iain1775 March 27, 2009 at 11:42 am
geom looks similar to my Commencal Ti Flame except thats based on 100mm forks.
If this rides half as nice as mine it will be an awesome ride. Altough it is an ugly beast whereas the Commie has benifit of being beautifully sculpted especailly the back end which proves that bikes can be workmanlike and pretty
terrahawk March 27, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I bet the Commencal is a few quid more expensive though.
D0NK March 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Can’t believe how many people bitch about it not looking pretty enough, its for riding for fecks sake.
Oh and tyre clearance moans too – Ed-Os already pointed out those are 2.5″ high rollers tyres on there, dunno how they compare to other 2.5″s but sounds like there’ll be enough room for most peoples choice of rubber.
Bit pricey for me but sounds pretty good I reckon.
barney March 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm
why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?
Trust me, a PR consultant wouldn’t do what singletrack is doing. He or she might’ve done what Brant is doing though 🙂
But while we’re on the subject, why appoint a bike designer when singletrack will do it for you?
The ideal frame should be longer, shorter, taller, smaller, stiffer, flexier, steeper and shallower than whatever this one is. It should be made of steel, aluminium and carbon, and should run rigid, 80mm, 140mm and 220mm single double crown forks with QR, 12mm and 20mm bolt through axles.
At the same time.
love March 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm
here here barney!
HoratioHufnagel March 27, 2009 at 5:12 pm
good to see the 31.6 seattube – means it’ll work with Joplin style seatposts, and its dead easy to shim it down to 27.2 for comfortable normal seatpost.
brant March 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Bang on HH. That’s the plan.
brant March 28, 2009 at 9:41 am
New pics/finishing info.
http://www.shedfire.com/2009/03/28/is-that-a-scratch/
Some of you are going to love this 😉
jambon March 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Rear-facing Seat-Post slot. Tut, tut, tut.
brant March 29, 2009 at 5:00 pm
>Rear-facing Seat-Post slot. Tut, tut, tut.
Well I know what you mean, and what you’re thinking.
But.
1. There is more metal at the rear of the seat tube, so putting a slot in it has far less effect than putting it at the front – ie: ITS STRONGER THIS WAY.
2. I am far from convinced there is actually any difference in terms of “goop going down the seat tube” with front or rear slots. I know it’s something that’s often quoted, but I’m really not sure it’s any different, and bearing in mind point 1, I know what I’d rather do (which is why I did it).
the_lecht_rocks March 30, 2009 at 6:29 am
i prefer the design and oversized tube dimensions of my Ti456. i do however prefer the HA of the Ragley.
the cable routing is bloody awful on the Ragley though – I told you to stick to the 456’s design for routing !
would a Tech M4 caliper fit in the rear stays on the Ragley Brant ?
brant March 30, 2009 at 9:00 am
“i prefer the design and oversized tube dimensions of my Ti456”
But as you’ve not ridden a Ragley, how do you know how the straight slimmer tube and longer head tube works in comparison to the 456?
“the cable routing is bloody awful on the Ragley though – I told you to stick to the 456’s design for routing !”
1. Not much point in telling me anything.
2. It’s actually completely ace cable routing. You are mistaken 🙂
“would a Tech M4 caliper fit in the rear stays on the Ragley Brant ?”
can’t see why not. Caliper details here:- http://www.shedfire.com/2009/03/29/ragley-ti-re-clearance-caliper-position/
the_lecht_rocks March 30, 2009 at 6:35 pm
rumbled – tell you what, i’ll have one, just to see :0
bland March 31, 2009 at 7:22 am
I had a pootle on one last week and its well slack, feels like you are sat on a 150mm full bounce not a hardtail, i expect it will ride like its been stolen, just gives that relaxed confidence inspiring feel. However im not sure how it will climb but i reckon it will be fun in the hills of spain or the alps.
The tubing is huge too, it could have been made for £600 if the tubing was normal diameter! (kidding)