Interesting review, but what of the 'benchmark' ti 456??? Surely a missed opportunity comparing Ragley/456?? (or am I missing something...?)
Haven't seen it Clink - give us a 30ssecond review of the review
well ?
lol
The Ti456 is a 10.
So the Ragley Ti is an 11.
Although the Ragley needs an ISCG and better rack mounts.
ISCG and better rack mounts.
freecore shopping?
🙂
"Ragley are mainly about 'The Nadge'"
"Ragley are mainly about 'The Nadge'"
I knew yorkshire folk spoke funny but ffs, it's a whole new language!
nadge, braap ....
[i]"Ragley are mainly about 'The Nadge'" [/i]
I know it makes no sense, but I'm hearing the Gaslight Anthem song "Miles Davis and the Cool" at that point. 🙂
Haven't seen it Clink - give us a 30ssecond review of the reviewwell ?
lol
Sorry if I'm missing something here?! 🙁
I would seem obvious (to me) to review the ti 456 when reviewing modern ti hardtails and a tad starnge that it was omitted. I'm tired and probably reading too much into nothing.
It's not just you Clink - I read the review this afternoon and I too think it's odd that the Ti456 wasn't included
Saxon. Very lol 🙂 but... Stryper, in a good way?!!
me too. In fact it's starting to piss me off that nobody seems to admit to the existence of 'benchmarks' whether they're real or perceived.
Not necessarily reviewing it, or saying 'a' is better than 'b', but it's a frame that's had a huge amount hung on it, what with WMB's and the_lecht_rock's reviews, and a few words about how Brant's newer designs compare might have been useful to a lot of people.
Same with the likes of the Orange 5- to a huge number of people this is the benchmark UK trail bike, and it might be more worthwhile writing a sentence or two about how another trail bike compares to that, than assigning an uninformative 'personsa' to a bike.
A bit confused this post, but I'm sure people get my drift!
The medium Lynskey would also have given a better comparison. The large would be a gate to me at 6', but the angles sound about right.
a few words about how Brant's newer designs compare
Do you presume I'm getting worse at things? 😉
it sounds more like folks just want a googlefight
Do you presume I'm getting worse at things?
Obviously it would be better for my bank balance if you were.
The medium Lynskey would also have given a better comparison. The large would be a gate to me at 6', but the angles sound about right.
So yes, you'd need a medium.
But surely the ride is the same as reported? Ben is taller than you.
I thought the Bionicon review was very good
I thought the Bionicon review was very good
I was dissapointed it didn't mention goats.
I am dead proud about what Dave, Me, the rest of the team at Planet X/On-one and Lynskey achieved with the Ti 456. I really think it restarted the hardcore Ti hardtail, and without which the Ragley Ti (perhaps even Ragley itself) wouldn't exist.
I fail to see what a comparison against another bike adds unless the reader has ridden said bike. Orange 5 as a benchmark? Give me a break.
perpetuation of myths druidh!
And means folk can just perceive bikes on a 1-10 scale...which is just about all certain magazines do!
Orange 5 as a benchmark? Give me a break.
On what grounds?
Largely praised, seldom criticised.
Benchmark does not necessarily imply best in class anyway.
perpetuation of myths druidh!And means folk can just perceive bikes on a 1-10 scale...which is just about all certain magazines do!
Twaddle. There's no need for that. Just a bit of 'this bike/frame/component seems to do this a bit better/differntly/worse than that bike/frame/component which we tested last month/year rather than sticking them in isolation. Hardly a 1-10 scale is it.
The medium Lynskey would also have given a better comparison. The large would be a gate to me at 6', but the angles sound about right.So yes, you'd need a medium.
But surely the ride is the same as reported? Ben is taller than you
But is the rest of the "test squad" taller than me? Only real neg in the review is about standover and seatpost dropping which would be taken care of by a 17". I'm guessing the ETTL is like 23.5" on the medium of both bikes which is about right for me.
All this is arithmetic anyway ... yer mmmBop is more on my horizon.
swayndo - the Ti456 takes care of standover nicely................ 😀
and the Ti456's ultra short HT gives incredible steering input, especially mated to a 0 deg thomson 50mm stem on 711mm bars 😯
Do you presume I'm getting worse at things?
IMHO it's not about whether the ti456 is "better" or "worse" than the Ragley, it's about how it differs. Surely anyone in the market for a hardcore ti hardtail is likely to have the ti456 on their short list by virtue of it's extremely competitive price and glowing reviews, the question then is how does the Ragley differ in comparison, how would I choose between the two. I agree it's an obvious comparison to do and frustrating that it wasn't in the review.
As a ti456 owner(well chuffed still!) it would have been good to see it in the mix but it also have meant 3 brant designed lynskey built frames!
Twaddle. There's no need for that
If a bike is included in a test as a benchmark, i.e. presumably having been tested before, then it gives the perception that it is the best bike in the market. Tends to be done when bikes are rated out of 10 IME. If it's done in the manner you suggest then fine, I don't think I've seen that very often though.
the Ti456's ultra short HT gives incredible steering input
How does a short head tube effect steering input? Surely it's the stiffness of the front end?
stiffness is there as a result of it being incredibly short @ 105mm......
also means you're closer to the axle to really pin it through the bars / front end 😈
Sorry but I think you've been sucked in there. TT/DT are closer together which negates any benefit of the shorter HT
eh?! A smaller triangle is a stronger triangle cynic, all things being equal.
Unless I've read that wrong, you're wrong.
😉
eh?! A smaller triangle is a stronger triangle cynic, all things being equal.
Thats true if you're point loading the triangle.
Which isn't what a fork is doing to the head tube.
also means you're closer to the axle to really pin it through the bars / front end
Well, yes, if you run no spacers and a flat stem.
I really don't believe that the physical length of the head tube has a great effect on it, compared to overall stance (ie: headtube, headset, stem, spacers, bar etc).
IMHO it's not about whether the ti456 is "better" or "worse" than the Ragley, it's about how it differs.
I think the STW test gave a quite clear indication of how the Ragley Ti rides. Other tests of the Ti 456 gave clear indications too. I think from comparing the tests, you can see how the frames compare, and where each of them is "positioned" in terms of ride.
Each of the STW reviews could be read in isolation and conclusions drawn about the frames. Much better than plotting against some arbitary benchmark (even if I designed it).
eh?! A smaller triangle is a stronger triangle cynic, all things being equal.
Even if it is...we're talking about stiffness are we not?
i don't think there's much between them, other than a slacker HA (not noticeable dependant on sag setting) and the Ti456 has better standover and different chainstays, seatstay design, etc.
tyre clearance is the same (i get 2.4" NN's in mine) and the finish is different.
same DT technology and the Ti456 has much nicer cable routing imo.
it's basically a Ti456 for Ragley..... n'est ce pas ?
I think from comparing the tests, you can see how the frames compare, and where each of them is "positioned" in terms of ride.
Fair enough, I'm never sure though about how to compare reviews from different reviewers in different publications, much easier to compare two reviews by the same people. Different reviewers can have very different preferences/agendas.
Won't a slacker head angle improve fork compliance by reducing sideways loading of the bushes, thus reducing binding?
Is this a 'substantive' factor over just a few degrees?
officer - doubt 1 deg or so will make any difference !!!!!
don't think there's much between them, other than a slacker HA (not noticeable dependant on sag setting)
not quite sure what you mean here?
tyre clearance is the same (i get 2.4" NN's in mine) and the finish is different.
tyre clearance is not the same. Ragley has bigger tyre clearance and chainring clearance due to use of "meccano".
456 = better standover - yes, I guess so, but I didn't consider it an issue on this one - the 456 Ti had a curved top tube to allow identical geometry with steel models. See also chainstay length and head tube length.
the Ti456 has much nicer cable routing imo.
I really do like the new bolt on guides 🙂
Slacker head angles actually increase bushing binding.
FWIW. In the metal the routing works and looks far better thank i expected, was one of my major doubts and am really pleased with it. Angles are different enough to be worthwhile in my opinion, 2 degrees and a slightly lower bottom bracket is not minimal, don't think trail centres would be the most fun tho.
For a bit of balance though that headtube is long. I don't like my bars massively low but am running a 70mm 0 rise thomson, Easton Low risers and even then i'm going to either end up with no spacers or 5mm. Great for me as it looks really good but if you like low bars just check first.
mmmmm......
ragley ti in no good for trail centre scandal 😀
pritcsa - are you suggesting it's only a 2 hour bomber bike ?
quick thrash round the woods and steeps then hometime ?
sorry 😳
talked myself out of it.....
If they had reviewed the ti456 alongside the Ragley then people would be saying (rightly) that Brant was getting too much love from his pals at ST.
But I see Clink's point that a few words in passing on the comparison might have been interesting.
I suppose the mag might be aimed more at general readers than obsessives like TLR though.
I suppose the mag might be aimed more at general readers than obsessives like TLR though.
TLR is in denial.
No, i think i'm saying it's an all day technical riding bike. Light as can be and great at steep climbs and steep downs and jumps. It'll be ok at trail centres but you'd be kidding yourself if you think you need something like this anywhere outside of the black sections, the vast majority of trail centres would be just as much fun on my scandal with 100-120mm forks. Depends what you ride.
Disclaimer: I've only skim read the article sat on the library this morning.
But... I found each of the reviews sort of under-whelming. They seemed neutral to the point of being flat. I'm not keen on reviews full of hyperbole either but these just seemed a bit too far the other way. Interesting conclusion that the best all-rounder was the Whyte but you might as well buy the Alu one.
I'll read it properly tonight.
but you'd be kidding yourself if you think you need something like this anywhere outside of the black sections
Doesn't stop sales of huge numbers of "skilz compensatorz" OMG111
(double post)
Can you stop the pissing comp and get back on topic. Some people obviously aren't as skillfull as you two. Have you done the red at Glentress on your 100mm travel Scandal? It's definately more fun on a "skill compensator".
So the geometry on the ragley is somewhere between the 456 and the 456 summer season?
sort of in denial but not really.
my Hummer broke and so did my heart at the time.
the Ti456 took it's place and is more adaptable and more suited to the Van32's.
it's a proper nutter tool with awesome singletrack handling.
obsessive, me........yes......that's why the cable routing and semi-finished finish don't appeal to me, although the slacker HA does. i wish it had ISCG as that may have swung it for me....although the routing.......
My last time at GT was on a Nomad - 6.5" essential on the red 😀
Sorry man, no p**sing comp. Am not a particularly good rider just think trail centres are mostly pants. If people want full sussers for trail centres that's fine, they make everything more comfortable. But not sure that a slacker head angle on a hardtail gives any advantage at all in that environment, you're still getting bumped around just with unneeded slower steering
Slacker head angle means you can ride over the front more (without inducing a too steep head angle) and get less bashed about by the hardtail rear end.
Sorry - too much coffee! Thought we were about to head down the "I ride the Fort william DH track on my rigid singlespped 29er and it's easy" route again.
I love hardtails but a 6" travel full suss is fun.
So, Ragley Ti or 456 for general mountain biking?
i'll stick some 36's on mine to slacken the angles - will i void the warranty @ 160mm 😛
So the geometry on the ragley is somewhere between the 456 and the 456 summer season?
The HEAD ANGLE on the Ragley is somewhere between those two.
The seat angle's steeper than both though. Chainstays shorter. Top tube different. BB Lower.
hugo - either - both brilliant 😀
i'll stick some 36's on mine to slacken the angles - will i void the warranty @ 160mm
Podge might be along with feedback on warranty. However fitting a long fork to artificially give a slack headangle gives 2 problems.
1. Seat angle is kicked back (problem for seated climbing)
2. top tube is "shortened" due to front end higher.
3. BB raised.
4. When the forks bottomed out, whatever length your fork, the head angle is the same.
5. When you counter in the sag with a 160mm fork, you end up about the same as a 140 fork anyhow, unless you run 'em hard.
Putting (too) long forks on a bike will raise the BB and may impare the handling significantly. I'd rather ride a 130mm forked bike with low BB than a 160mm forked bike with a high BB (full-sus or hardtail) 🙂
run em softer, increase sag and faster rebound.
drop them to 130mm for climbing (TALAS)...
podge - warranty ?
or simply keep what i've got as it's brilliant (fast show style).......
i think that's your best bet 🙂
Tlr i didnt like the 36's on mine much better with the 32 vans!
gamo - agreed - went out tonight for a quick thrash on the 5.1D's and Big Betty's ............ 😈 😈 😈
brilliant !
[url= http://www.ragleybikes.com/2009/07/review-of-ragley-ti-in-mbuk/ ]Here's what MBUK thought[/url]. http://www.ragleybikes.com/2009/07/review-of-ragley-ti-in-mbuk/
Only a 9! You're slipping Richards.
what did the whyte get
Looks like a 9 from the image on Brant's site (although hard to tell)
Seems like it's not a bike produced with across the spectrum ride appeal in mind (which would mean a mediocre). Good work (& somewhat brave too)!
Now if only it was available in the big wheels I'd be clamoring for it myself
The bike looks brilliant in that MBUK picture. 😀 It's interesting just how different it looks compared to my RC305. A hugely different setof ideas about design going on there.
Now if only it was available in the big wheels I'd be clamoring for it myself
I'm working on a big wheel version - just tried that one with a 29er front wheel but hated it. More to do.
Are you thinking of a big wheel version in all three materials? Because that would be very cool...
i do like the ti 456 frame,and have thought about p/xing my frame towards one.but as it is mail order to get an on one,i cannot do that!!!
mmmmmmmm........read the review.
my consensus (for my local riding) is the Ti456 is better than my Hummer , and the Hummer is better than the Ragley from what's specific to me in the review.....
stops me wondering anyway 😀
TLR - it's a new hummer btw. And the Ragley appears to be the best at going uphill, and going downhill. And equal anything else on singletrack. It's odd.
2009 hummer has same geom as my 2006 one..........