[Closed] Need a 160mm Hartail frame - long and low

ON One 456 Carbon is what you're after. Great frame and a perfect match to your description. Someone's about to recommend you a BFe, as they always do, but they're wrong.

HTH.

Fancy a blue pig x?
Brant says its fine for 160 and it's certainly long and low.
I have a used 18" with maxle and both dropouts (qr and 142x12)

paulrockliffe - Member
ON One 456 Carbon is what you're after. Great frame and a perfect match to your description. Someone's about to recommend you a BFe, as they always do, but they're wrong

Correct, they are wrong.

Here's what you want [url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=55498 ]right here[/url]. Rides great with a big fork. If the Carbon 456 is anything like my Summer season it will take 160, but works better with less.

[img] [/img]

A Ragley is what you want, everything else is all wrong with a big fork

If only you weren't looking for a tapered head tube..
I've just put my Ragley Ti up for sale (large 20") suitable for 160's. :o(

Ragley Ti (large 20")

I guess it'd make him an expensive garden gate, if nothing else.

Kingdom [url= http://www.kingdombike.com/FOIAV2.html ]Foia[/url]?

[img] [/img]

I just ride bikes that fit my friend..(my girlfriend only buys bikes she likes the colour or looks of too so don't feel bad!)
I think he said a 17 was too small because of his body shape so makes sense to me..
That would be a posh gate though! The front triangle of a ti frame as your garden gate. (I can't discount but I have what you need :-))

He definitely said

i also don't really want a long seat tube....

I'd have it though, they look great.

Fair point but he is 6'2 same as me. He can run an 18 but you will be running a whole load of seatpost if your actually pedalling it.
I sacrifice a little aesthetics for some piece of mind..(usually :-)) more seat tube or more seatpost; 2 extra inches of seat post in your seat tube sounds better to me (just my opinion)
But he's looking for a tapered so no drama anyway.

I can't help but think that [b]Euro[/b]'s bagger looks ace. It'd look even better with a set of raw carbon wiser's on it mind.

That Ragley looks mank as the frame only picture on CRC but built up, that is very nice indeed. ...

I really like my Ragley Troof 8)

[img] [/img]

I'm 6ft and this is the 17".

Fair point but he is 6'2 same as me. He can run an 18 but you will be running a whole load of seatpost if your actually pedalling it.

The last thing I'd care about when using 160mm forks on a hardtail is how high I could get the saddle. 160mm forked hardtails are for downhill only.

160mm forked hardtails are for downhill only.

Nope. My Troof is my xc bike... frame weighs less than a Soul, fork weighs less than a Pike... hustle's along the trail just fine, and when your at the doonhall you can unleash the [b]Beast[/b] 😈

Sounds shit 😈

Mr Taylforth, You are talking nonsense! A Ragley Ti 'a downhill only frame' utter nonsense.. (in my opinion of course :0)

Messiah: I don't reckon someone 6'2 would ride that 17 around with that 5 inch droppper in the down position :wink:; it would have to be in the max position or very near to cope with long trail rides (just my experience of trying to run a smaller frame for trail riding). And you should see those droppers flex when they are maxed... 😯

It all depends on what the OP wants.. I was assuming he wanted a trail bike but he might be happy with a hardcore downhill or play bike in which case he can ride a 16 if he wants to. If he wants a trail bike for all types of riding then I wouldn't skimp on the seat tube.. (just my meaningless opinions.)

Check out the Genesis Alpitude, it's rated for a 160 fork and comes in 3 different sizes.

If he wants a trail bike for all types of riding then I wouldn't skimp on the seat tube.. (just my meaningless opinions.)

I wouldnt run 160mm forks either.

Then this thread obviously ain't for you. 😀

I guess not.

But on the flip side, I think its time for you to bow out.

Downhill riding with a 20" seat tube? The 1980's has been and gone old man! 😀

Thanks for the advice.
Let me repeat 'a Ragley Ti is definately not a downhill frame'.

Old and wise my friend. 🙂

I wasn't saying the OP at 6'2" should ride a 17"... I was saying that at 6' I ride a 17"... Which I did for indicative sizing awareness to help the OP make an informed decision.

Sheesh 🙄

PS. I had an Mmmbop with Revs before the Troof, it was nice but I didn't like the fork flex and I eventually broke them. The 160mm 36's and the Troof are my xc bike for a reason.

Re Ragleys- I ran my Mmmbop for a little while with 160 Lyriks. It wasn't very good. I wouldn't say it was downhill only though- I'd just say it wasn't very good, it worked better for downhill with the forks wound down.

I'm assuming you already have the 160mm forks- if so, I'd recommend you shorten 'em.

I really like the looks of the Ragley troof and bagger, but do they pedal well, i prefer the downhill, but i don't want to push up hills..

As Northwind says, my Mmmbop was best at 130-140mm. The fork being 160mm travel is not a problem as long as the frame is designed to work with it, a frame which can take a long fork but rides like poop with one is another kettle of fish... 😉

I thought the picture was a bit misleading.. you may be 6' and you might ride a 17 but you definately don't ride xc/trail with that dropper down there.
That's why I mentioned it.. wasn't having a go.
Just trying to help the OP make an informed decision as you put it 😉

[img] [/img]

XC... Post slightly higher due to spd's.

i should've been a bit more specific i suppose.... i'm thinking of building up a cheap, burly dh-style hardtail for dicking about on... so when i said i don't want a long seat-tube, this was because i don't want to use it for xc or general trail riding...
i does need to be a long top-tube though. i ride an xl remedy (21.5").
i don't think a frame exists with the geometry i'm after though...

if you wan a HT to dick about on why the hell do you want 160mm forks?

most suitable HT frames are HEAVY. fur shits and giggles get a lighter more manouverable bike.

I had a DMR EXalt it was nice but was considerably less fun than my revell 450r. it felt more like a big bike than a fun ripper.

for woodsy razzing, jumps, drops, etc that revell was properly fun.

most suitable HT frames are HEAVY. fur shits and giggles get a lighter more manouverable bike.

This is probably the most sensible answer yet.

if you wan a HT to dick about on why the hell do you want 160mm forks?

I have a 160mm fork knocking around and I fancied trying it on a burly hardtail.

thanks for all your comments. end.

I would say a DB Alpine. My frinds always refer to mine as the longest bike in the world, and my Mk1 is plenty low enough.