[Closed] Ragley Ti - Owner's Opinion[s] ?

the expense of a "non-specific all-round frame" is lower by definition, surely?

I'm a bit concerned about the slacker head tube geometry. What about running this kind of bike with lower forks e.g. wound-down or a lot of sag, the equivalent of 100mm? Is that going to steepen it up enough to make it more all-round?

Don't suppose any Bristol shops are planning to stock one for test riding?

cynic-al - Member
...I wonder how long the market will bear this type of frame and what the next cycle will be.

Well they are designed by the guy who was responsible for all those On-One frames you see everywhere, so I expect the "market" will be quite happy to buy them.

lol @scruff.
fwiw, i'm not having one - i'm overly happy with my Ti456, but VERY interested in comparison.
my 18" Ti456 runs with Van32 15mm BT's on a short Thomson 50mm stem and is a perfect fit (i'm 6' tall long arms and legs).....new 2010 FLOATS on their way as they're lighter , equally as strong and new, so i'll grant you that one 🙂
the notable difference i can see is the HA on the Ragley is slacker.
what I like about the 456 is the short HT and directness of input, even on a 70mm stem, it is massively direct.
however, I'm really interested to read comparison of the Ti456 and Ragley as they're designed and fabb'd by the same guys.

I'm a bit concerned about the slacker head tube geometry

Concerned? How so?

Don't suppose any Bristol shops are planning to stock one for test riding?

I'm sure we'll have a dealer in Bristol in the next couple of weeks. Rocky Mountain Cycles in Cardiff have them though - that's not TOO far away.

no dealers in NE Scotland then Brant ?

Are there any people in NE scotland? 🙂

no dealers in NE Scotland then Brant ?

No dealers in NE Scotland *yet*.

[i]Concerned? How so?[/i]

Well I've never ridden a bike that slack up-front so I don't know how it's going to feel on my normal trails. A few people have commented that they don't really like the steering feeling - I guess they are used to 69 degrees, as am I. But I intend to run a 90-130 U-turn fork so maybe it's more normal feeling with the fork wound down, just winding it out for steep bits. I was also thinking of getting a small with big 2" riser bars despite me being 5' 11", because of the long top-tube.

Yes I might consider a little trip to CwmCarn via Cardiff for a go before I buy a frame (mmmbop or bluepig) 🙂

BTW. I do think the frames look nice and I'm excited by some of the innovations.

69deg head with a 100mm fork at ride height (25mm sag).

BB drop goes to 31mm which is 12in exactly.

Seat angle is 75degs! Wow! Time trial all the way home.

great angles on paper , just dinnae ken how it all 'synergises' 🙂

paulosoxo - Member
Are there any people in NE scotland?

They're still trying to find their way back from Dalby...

Are there any people in NE scotland?

Too many white settlers from darn sarf that's for sure. It's pants here stay away. Have you tried Wrexham?

Buzz do you really worry about it that much..? seems like a load of angst. I recently bought a Chameleon, I don't think I'd be able to talk sensibly about the geometry/tube lengths of the thing.

I intend to run a 90-130 U-turn fork so maybe it's more normal feeling with the fork wound down, just winding it out for steep bits.

Why not just run it out at 130 all the time? Much less hassle, more fun. Betterer.

my ti456 is betterer @ 140mm............

are you suggesting the Ragley's better @ 130mm than 140mm or just better longer in general ? [i assume the latter]...

Why not just run it out at 130 all the time? Much less hassle, more fun. Betterer.

thats what will be doing, albeit on the steel or ally version.

It's pants here stay away. Have you tried Wrexham?

He's right. You wouldn't like it. Really. St Austell would be a better bet.

nickc - I've seen your cham on here; it's lovely. Saw one in the flesh recently too - short looking - and rad.

I'm already infatuated with the look of the Mmmbop. But slacker geometry is unusual so it seems a bit of a risk. I just don't want to be disappointed with the ride I guess.

Now if I could test ride one at CwmCarn, that would be very worthwhile

are you suggesting the Ragley's better @ 130mm than 140mm or just better longer in general ?

If he's got a 90-130 fork, running it at 140 is going to be hard.

But slacker geometry is unusual so it seems a bit of a risk. I just don't want to be disappointed with the ride I guess.

OK - here's one we discussed on tonights ride. When was the last time you wished your head angle was STEEPER during a ride? When did you wish your steeering was faster/more nervous/more twitchy?

Now even on my Ragley, on the Steps of Death tonight, I wished "heck, I wish it was a bit slacker". But I can't build a bike JUST ride down the Steps of Death. That's silly. I need to man up, and get used to it. And sure enough, I got down it just fine.

Tim was out on his on-one Super Slack Summer Season Sample I made at on-one. Remember the Summer Season was 2degrees slacker than the 456? Well this Slack version is 2 degrees slacker than the Summer season - so 4degs slacker than a 456.

And he's running it with Fox 36's at 150mm.

And it's ace.

Slack headangles just flat out rock. High speed, low speed (with a nice short stem and wide bars), it's ace.

It's like cheating. Honest.

Slack just works. Especially on long travel hardtails. Point. Ride. Smile.

Dead good.

[i]"When did you wish your steeering was faster/more nervous/more twitchy?"[/i]

ah now I recall a choice bit of slotted, twisting, smooth singletrack on down the Quantocks I first rode on my big barred HT which is inclined to have solid but bus-like steering characteristics.

And then the first time riding it on my TranceX - I swear it cornered twice as fast - it was like a rollercoater ride - out of control - brain only caught up when I got to the bottom - goggle eyed.

Now I cannot really attribute the difference to headangle, BB height, top tube length, whatever.

Heck, I'm just going to have to test ride one aren't I?

Point. Ride. Smile.

Dead good.

nickc - I think that's the best summary I've ever read.

Love it!

nickc - I think that's the best summary I've ever read.

Love it!

I thought it sounded cringe worthy

you know, I've never worried about geometry when out on a ride.

See this is the thing, I can well believe that slacker is better for steep, Calderdale down hills and doesn't make much difference to the slow slog back up, but what I can't quite fathom is how it is going to work slicing through woodland singletrack? Most of my local riding is gently undulating forest trails, all twisty and narrow but fundamentally lacking in elevation changes, which I would imagine is the complete antithesis of the riding in Calderdale. I guess the shorter stem helps speed up the steering a bit, but still, I quite like having fast, responsive steering so that I can weave my way between the tree trunks a fast as possible.

Steps of Death

any pics

you know, I've never worried about geometry when out on a ride.

I am sure a lot of the time it's just a bike-designer worry thing I do.

any pics

Video?

slicing through woodland singletrack?

We have that too.

Steps of Death

Of course, not to be confused with "the gentle steps of slight bruising" 😉

aptly named then!

I - briefly - rode a Ragley Ti back to back with a Hummer, that was quite interesting given that it wasn't really Ragley-friendly terrain. The Hummer felt very conventionally sweet and balanced and quite 'ti like', if that makes any sense. The Ragley was more of a blunt weapon sort of thing, kind of more solid up back and the steering definitely needed slightly more heft and it felt sort of longer and, strangely enough, slacker, but there was something intriguing about the Ragley, felt like there was a really interesting, slightly different bike in there itching to get out on the right terrain - steep things mostly. Reckon it'll work well on steep, rocky, techy things, but probably pointless if your main riding is sweeet, smooth, singletracky stuff.

Hmmmm... you can tell I don't test bikes for a living eh. On the steepness front, I've mainly been riding my Pace RC405 recently, with quite a lot of sag out back so the front is slacker than it would be. When I bust the brake hose - under BB routing - I was back on the Rockyvento for a few rides and was quite shocked by how twitchy it felt in comparison, though I did adapt to it, which is human and what generally happens. Anyway, I'd love to run a Ragley in the Peak for a few weeks and see what it did, I suspect it'd be really, really good on the techier things, but equally if you want 'classic titanium', it's probably not the frame you need.

Those Calderdale steps really are an acquired taste aren't they...

Steps of Death

any pics

any grid references/google map locations?

there are some fun steps up by the molehills, I think you lot call the same area Mario Land or something.

theflatboy - any grid references/google map locations?

The Calderdale steps scare me just looking at them. Fair play to you guys.

horses cant get up steps and so maybe those are not on bridalways...

i didn't mean i wanted to cycle down them, they look like a nice walking spot. 🙂

theflatboy - i didn't mean i wanted to cycle down them, they look like a nice walking spot.

good news. now we've got that sorted, if anyone fancies divulging where i might find these lovely looking steps when i'm up that way in a few weeks then that would be lovely.

See this is the thing, I can well believe that slacker is better for steep, Calderdale down hills and doesn't make much difference to the slow slog back up, but what I can't quite fathom is how it is going to work slicing through woodland singletrack?

I've been riding my Ragley Ti a lot at Lee Quarry where there's some great flowing singletrack as well as berms. Short stem / wide bars and aggressive riding style is where this bike is at and that combination means sharp handling fun and the option of hitting rock sections and way steep stuff as well.

Wow, it's the "Jesus Bike"

Will it bring an end to world hunger and a cure for cancer as well? 😉

have I ever wanted a steeper head angle?

yes!

IMO there comes a point where the bike just falls from side to side as your turn the bars. Very confidence inspiring at high speeds, but felt woefull climbing in anything other than a straight line, felt like i was wrestling it upright after corners!

ed-o : interesting as i've said the same thing about my ti 456.

140mm Fox 32's on a thomson 50mm stem + cnt dh 711mm's 🙂

hmm, i've checked and according to the figures, the ragleys chainstays are the same length as mine - 16.5". Not sure why they felt longer, they certainly looked longer - the f. mech was definitely further away from the tyre. Maybe it was the steeper seat angle??

I'm pretty sure slack angles have been around for a while. My old Cove Stiffee had them back in 2002.

I recommend building the test/demo bikes with a longer steerer and some spacers though. Takes a bit too much getting used to for people on non-on-one bikes otherwise (unless thats the idea, like making people use a shorter stem?)

horatio - the ragley's HT is longer than the [very short @ 105mm] ti456's......and my ti456 run's a 50mm thomson 0 deg rise x4. 20mm of spacers currently - i do intend to drop to 10mm one day !