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)
The Ragley, titanium 'grrrrrr' bike, designed in Calderdale by a man in a shed built in the US by Lynskey in a bigger shed.This is the 16" Ragley, looks suitably slack and low to us even with 140mm forks.Proving that someone has been sweating the details is this hidden away chainstay bridge.You're now 98% less likely to catch your jeans on your disc caliper when doing supermen, something we are always doing. Ahem.Fell off the back of a sea container and into the back of a van.
53 thoughts on “Shed Fire Ragley visits Singletrack”
‘Fraid I’m going to be riding in West Cumbria this weekend or I’d take you up on that Edwardo.
whats the point of that chainstay gubbins if theres no tyre clearance anyway? looks like a handy mud basket.
The driveside chainstay looks rather minimal at the BB junction, me thinks there will be problems with flexing.
I can dig it. Can you deliver to Tassie?
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.
That would make a nice commuter. Is that rack bosses on there?
come on then brant how much?
why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?
Thats some serious beardage in the picture of the WhatMTB Journo’s photoshoot
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
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.
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
I bet the Commencal is a few quid more expensive though.
Can’t believe how many people bitch about it not looking pretty enough, its for riding for **** 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.
[i]why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?[/i]
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.
here here barney!
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.
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).
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 ?
‘Fraid I’m going to be riding in West Cumbria this weekend or I’d take you up on that Edwardo.
whats the point of that chainstay gubbins if theres no tyre clearance anyway? looks like a handy mud basket.
The driveside chainstay looks rather minimal at the BB junction, me thinks there will be problems with flexing.
I can dig it. Can you deliver to Tassie?
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/
If thats not a VW T4 then Im sorry this isnt a brand that I will invest in. Need lifestyle-products dammit! 😉
Really interesting. Geometry charts anywhere? Thank you.
I’ll do a geometry chart today and post it on http://www.shedfire.com
That would make a nice commuter. Is that rack bosses on there?
come on then brant how much?
why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?
Thats some serious beardage in the picture of the WhatMTB Journo’s photoshoot
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
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.
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
I bet the Commencal is a few quid more expensive though.
Can’t believe how many people bitch about it not looking pretty enough, its for riding for **** 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.
[i]why appoint a PR consultant when singletrack will do it for you?[/i]
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.
here here barney!
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.
Bang on HH. That’s the plan.
New pics/finishing info.
http://www.shedfire.com/2009/03/28/is-that-a-scratch/
Some of you are going to love this 😉
Rear-facing Seat-Post slot. Tut, tut, tut.
>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).
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 ?