You’d think that being a mile from the heavily disguised and fortified Ragley Design HQ we’d see a lot of Ragley prototypes whizzing past on the canal path, but no. We have to trawl around the internet like the rest of you in order to find the really juicy stuff. Unlike most people, though, we also have Brant’s phone number so we can call him to confirm details before making wild presumptions based on a quick look at a photo.
So, first, here’s the bike:
And now for the facts:
This is a mechanical prototype of the new Ragley FS. This is similar to the mules that are made by many other companies. Their purpose is to check that mechanically, the bike and the suspension bits all work as they should. This is done without particularly paying attention to the fine details of the rest of the bike and certainly not to the aesthetics. This bike, therefore, isn’t geometrically correct, and things like the angles and handling will be looked at in further prototype runs, but the suspension system is near-enough what the final models will have when they’re launched at Eurobike in September.
The suspension uses a Dual Link system, developed by Ragley and its Taiwanese factory that is very experienced in the suspension field. The shock is ‘floating’, although the lower link moves the shock laterally, rather than vertically. Interestingly, and getting the thumbs-up from most of the Singletrack test-crew is the speccing of disparate travel. So there’s more travel at the front than the rear; a concept we’ve found to work very well on modern bikes.
There will be two different travel versions: a 100/140mm bike and a 130/160mm bike. Pictured is the 130mm rear bike (though in keeping with the rough and ready nature of this prototype this has a 130mm fork, not a 140.)
The finished range will have two 26 and a 29in and all will feature disparate amounts of travel
There we are…
See www.ragleybikes.com for information on its 2011 range – and keep your eyes on Singletrack for more juicy stuff in the coming months.
I’ve always run longer travel forks on hecklers (past 13 years!?!) works fine when you have a reliable rear end (i.e. whatever the front lets you get through the back should cope with provided it’s a good rear system). However, the downsides are the heavy rider will blow shocks quickly if they are not up to the job and rear wheels take an absolute hammering!?! Tis a good idea and I reckon we’ll see a lot more of this.
Tube profiles look a bit like a Transition Covert. Tidy.
I have never understood why there is any controversy/excitement about “mismatched” travel. Emperors new clothes IMHO. HTs did it as soon as any suspension fork was added.
As a 140mm travel hardtail rider the idea mismatched travel appeals, 140mm at both ends is too much day in day out for the riding I do, but it’d be nice to have 100mm or so travel in the rear to take the edge off.
The lower link probably moves the shock longitudinally rather than lateraly?
excellent – well thought out and without bowing to any corporation marketing BS 🙂
my VF2 rums 127mm rear / 150mm front and is sublime.
i’m liking the ragger 🙂
Sounds more like a Pace RC405 than a Trance IMHO. Tiny differences in pivot locations can make it ride completely differently though.
Need to see the leverage ratio graphs etc. 🙂
“I have never understood why there is any controversy/excitement about “mismatched” travel. ”
Agreed, although I’m not sure there is much of either tbh.
I think the DFS thing is meant tongue in cheek (correct me if I’m wrong).
Ooh the 130/160 29″ might be an interesting machine.
Hmm, my old stumpy with revs is 100 rear 130 front.. It’s ace.
[quote]The lower link probably moves the shock longitudinally rather than lateraly?[/quote]
I thought that too – if there was lateral movement on a suspension system it would make for some very interesting rear axle paths.
My Pitch has more travel at the back than the front….Bugger I have obviously been riding it back to front
the current geometry greatly resembles that of 2011 marin eastpeak which i’m riding with a 120/140mm setup. stock was 120/120mm.
and btw, it looks like the wordings are “photoshopped” onto a bare frame ;p
What we hope to get with the mismatched travel thing being designed in, is that we’ll avoid the high BB and slack seat angle that either fitting a longer fork, or shorter shock to achieve the same can give.
I’m off out for a play shortly. It’s survived a night ride under Ben from Recycle.
so Brant, what does the axle path do – intrigued.
Oh – that lower link thing – yes – what I mean is that the shock isn’t “squashed from both ends” as much as some of these styles of linkage bikes. The bottom shock mount doesn’t (in itself) compress the shock as much as the top one does. If you see what I mean…
pace compresses from both ends – trek moves the bottom link down a little – all interesting stuff. what does the axle path do?
I think I’m running 150mm front 110mm rear on my Hemlock. Match travel trail bikes always feel under forked to me. A personal thing though, I’m sure.
It’s certainly the lack of fork travel that’s more noticeable/limiting on a shorter travel full sus bike (compared to the rear) IME.
Having recently converted a 26″ 100mm forked SS hardtail to a rigid 69er I can see the appeal of mismatched travel doing similar things. I wonder though just how much better say a 100mm front and rear travel would be on a full sus 69er as an all round bike? Along flatter rough sections I’ve always found well matched and balanced travel just feels nicer, on a full sus at least.
I run my 100mm ’93 Blur with a 140mm fork and it rides much better like that – big fan of disparate travel.
Lyric and Angleset turning up today.
At last. Ive had around 20mm minimum extra up front on a few bikes over the years and they all ride better than what they were supposed to have had.120/120mm etc.The most noticebale was a Whyte E120 (didnt own) but the thought of riding that or owning it with a 120mm fork on up front would have been awful.
Cant wait for the company that comes out with a frame similar to a 2006 Turner Flux designed around 125-130mm up front.Slightly steeper seat tube built into the same geometry of that very bike would be a good start.
I can only dream.
Chipps wrote: “Disparate travel works pretty well on a hardtail doesn’t it?”
It works pretty well,yeah. Ive also been dreaming about hardtails starting to appear with an axle to crown length of a 140mm fork but with around 80-100mm travel instead of the horrible sensation of a plush 140+ fork on a hardtail! Does anyone like a long travel fork working away whilst the rear end sits there doing nothing? It feels like a pivot point for uneccessary 140mm movement up front.Ive just never got into the whole feel of it on my hardtail. Hence why i put a 29er fork on it with short travel (similar axle to crown length) and a 26″ wheel. Same height up front but less crash-dive un needed travel.Perfect! So whose going to start making decent length short travel 20mm bolt thru forks? Sorry,going off the OP here.