needs 36's with a 1.5 steerer and stem, otherwise, i fail to understand the provision of the 1.5" HT ?????????
options yes, but, FFS, build it as it was designed ! ? !
1.5 HT lets you get lots of lovely weld area, and a nice short headtube, keeping the downtube nice and big, without having to ovalise it. It's more about that for me than running 1.5in forks.
Also the top bearing can sit inside the headtube to stop the bars being stupid high.
Also makes the front end stiffer under fatigue testing so transferring load to TT to save DT stress.
All good.
And I didn't have any 1.5's in my garage this afternoon.
needs 36's with a 1.5 steerer and stem, otherwise, i fail to understand the provision of the 1.5" HT ?????????
Bigger weld area.
Lots more 1 1/8 stems/
Lots of bikes about with 1.5i HT and reducer headsets.
and the option of fitting the new 1 1/8 1.5 tapered steerer forks too.
1.125" equipment into 1.5" HT looks bl00dy stoopid.
ovalising looks cleverer 🙂
tube manipulation is king...
and c'mon - get me the iscg option on the Ti and we're a go'er 🙂
chainstays look lush.
chainstay/dropout junction looks bent,like they've welded an FSR pivot, dunny like, hope the steeler looks better
[img] 
[/img]
I want one, though it may mostly be the colour ..
whats the hole next to the downtube head gusset for?
Nice colour, reminds me of this.
[img] 
[/img]
😀
alt.cableguide routing, but it's all wrong.
You can either go over the top or down the downtube. D/t on that model missing several guides and the guide that's there is in the wrong place, top tube routing not right either (it's all going underneath).
Correct chainstay profile junction thing here - http://www.shedfire.com/2009/05/09/mmmbop-modified-chainstay-junction-for-production/
Why were stems so long back in the day?
how stoopid does that 1.5" HT to 1.125" steerer interface look.
puny to say the least - get the bloody 1.5" kit on there to do it some justice and to distract from the kermy colouring 🙂
ah, chainstay looks a lot better in that link Brant
how stoopid does that 1.5" HT to 1.125" steerer interface look.
oh it's about the look, I see 😉
Obviously this had to come along exactly 3 weeks after I spent too much money on a Soul 👿
Surely Soul and Ragley are completely different geometry/end use?
The are indeed very different. Though I guess, if you wanted a lightweight trailbike, there might be points that are similar.
aye, it's about the look , as a rule of thumb, if it looks daft, it usually is !
c'mon brant - slap a pair of 36's on it and a stubby 1.5" stem. DO IT JUSTICE 🙂
[i]oh it's about the look, I see[/i]
If the only assessment you can make (as a potential buyer) is based on a few photos, the strapline "Designed by award winning designer Brant Richards" and a forum fwap fest then I guess looks are kind of important......
I guess looks are kind of important......
We were (in that bit) talking about the merits of the look of 1.5 vis 1.125, not the frame as a whole...
Of course looks are important.
The engineering principle that bigger diameter tubes make for stiffer/stronger structures is quite a basic one. So aesthetics is the only reason that I can think of to explain why when Fisher introduced the 'evolution' headset in 89 that it was pooh-poohed by the magazines.
Now who was working for a mtb magazine back in the early 90's?
hilldodger - Member
If the only assessment you can make (as a potential buyer) is based on a few photos, the strapline "Designed by award winning designer Brant Richards" and a forum fwap fest then I guess looks are kind of important......
Actually that's just my thinking, seeing as I'm the happy owner of a couple of Pompinos, an Inbred 29er, and a Scandal. I figure Brant may know something about designing a decent frame.
and you think yo do? how do we know you are an arbiter of good frame design?
you could just be a brand whore swayed by the STW masses and the 'marketing'
you could just be a brand whore swayed by the STW masses and the 'marketing'
I'm starting to think Brant has some sort of mind control device. I'm as jey as jey can be, but started to really want/need a Blue Pig after seeing the videos and photos the other week. The craving only went away when Brant mentioned a superlight rigid-specific 29er and I started to find reasons for buying one of those instead.
Am I being blamed for the decline of the Evolution headset, and now doing an about turn?
Anyhow.
Killa Skillz on the mmmbop...
brant - Killa Skillz on the mmmbop...
clearly the massive head tube puts too much weight at the top end creating a bike with a high / unstable centre of gravity.
[i]I figure Brant may know something about designing a decent frame. [/i]
I'm far from qualified to diss Brant's design skills and didn't mean to, I had a 456 bought mainly on the basis of forum fwaperry, but found it heavy and too long for my liking so I sold it.
Lesson learned, I wouldn't personally buy another bike I couldn't try first - fit and feel are my main criteria for buying bikes, not viral marketing hype and street cred.
Good luck and success to those who design and produce bikes, it's the sheer variety of designs that makes it interesting for the rider and it means there's a bike 'out there' for everyone - finding it is the problem....
thepodge - Member
brant - Killa Skillz on the mmmbop...
clearly the massive head tube puts too much weight at the top end creating a bike with a high / unstable centre of gravity.
Clearly pointing a camera at yourself whilst riding causes crashes, or punctures in my case if you are carrying a camera...
I've got the mmmBop at my house for someone to have a demo ride on Tuesday. I'm fighting the urge to put a pair of 36s on it just to see....
I wouldn't personally buy another bike I couldn't try first - fit and feel are my main criteria for buying bikes, not viral marketing hype and street cred.
Hurrah for LBS's and Hotlines staffed demo days who will have Ragley test bikes in the near future.
Frame weight on this is 3.7lb btw. Top tube long, but designed for 50-70mm stem.
3.7lb on an 18"?
3.7lb on an 18"?
Yup.
I dont know why, but I hate the look of it?
-the dropouts look out of proportion with the chainstay, i understood and thought it was clever on the SS on-ones, but why on an aloy hardtail, even from an engineering oint of view surely having the calliper on the seat stay makes more sense (if you add another brace to the chain stay especialy)
-1.5 headtubes look out of place on hardtails, they may make engineering sense, but they just lok out of proportion with everything else on that bike.
- And why route cables under the TT? Thy dig in if you try and shoulder the bike? Either on top of the TT, or under the BB (which IMO gives the better shifting with very little outer to fill with crap).
It would take some very special handling to convince me to get that over something similar.
1) By running the caliper on the chainstay, the seatstays can be lighter and add (a touch) to the compliance of the rear end.
2) I think it looks ace, and blends well with the big downtube. And as you say, it makes engineering sense.
3) Cables on top "I'll catch me nuts on them", cables on side - "I'll catch me knee on them", cables underneath "i'll catch my shoulder on them". Bearing in mind I can't actually remember the last time I shouldered a bike under the top tube, I'll go this way.
The handling is ace (so long as you look where you want to go, not where you don't ;-))
[i]
3.7lb on an 18"?
Yup.
[/i]
warrantied for fat b***ard mincers?
warrantied for fat b***ard mincers?
CEN tested and all that. Hell yeah.
cables run under the TT of my fuel ex and my P.A., never had any issues, as long as they don't go under the BB i'm happy
The rigid 29er is going to be very, very fast 😉
The rigid 29er is going to be very, very fast
Have I done my "Bike only go as fast as you pedal them" quote recently.
But yes. I think it will go quite fast, and for a long time hopefully 🙂
terrahawk - Member
The rigid 29er is going to be very, very fast
It depends who is on it. 😉
yea, on the side is rubbish, but the mind boggles what exactly you'd have to be trying to do to your bike, while remaining legal, to catch your nuts on top tube mouted cables?
Is it a yorkhshire thing, you know, a bit like the welsh and their sheep?
I seem to remember an outcry when the first Ti456 appeared with cables on top of the top tube.
so they were moved underneath.
I might be wrong, but I'm sure that's what happened.
Perhaps some folk moan for the sake of moaning.
Blimey, dunno about "design by committee", this is more like "design by lynch mob".....
I think it looks pretty good and I think the 1.5inch headtube is a good idea, it aint fun snapping a headtube off a frame so anything that makes it stronger is a good idea.
I still reckon the steel version is nicer and it seems like a bargain for a decent frame that looks like its had some thought put into it.
Surely Soul and Ragley are completely different geometry/end use?
They are, but I can only afford one decent bike, and if this'd been around at the time I think it'd probably have got the vote. Not suggesting they're the same, don't worry 😉
How about a BB30 bottom bracket shell to co-ordinate with the head tube?
Can you do ISCG with BB30?
What's the theory behind not dropping the TT for more standover clearance?
Looks like a serious filling rattler with those huge tubes.
is it harsher than the Armadillo you designed brant? as that frame must have cost people a fortune in Chiropractors to sort their backs out after riding them.
I don't remember the Armadillo being particularly harsh, what with a 27.2mm post and I did get a 3.0in Gazzaloddi in the back of mine (briefly).
I've still got it in the garage actually, I should have a rebuild.
But seriously, we've got quite a lot going on in the rear stays there, and the main tubes are quite clever.
It's definitely a more rigid chassis than the steel one though.
whats the geo like compared to a 456?
i was in the market for a 456 but since they are like rocking horse poo in 16" this (or the steel equivalent) may be the next best thing?
will the 16" look less like a gate as well?
cheers,
whats the geo like compared to a 456?
I think the Ragley is a bit more brrapp. or something 😉
I should imagine that it will be better than the next best thing.
Cables on top "I'll catch me nuts on them", cables on side - "I'll catch me knee on them", cables underneath "i'll catch my shoulder on them".
Which is why I prefer them all under the down-tube. Then the bolt on cable guides make sense too.
🙂
I've been umming and ahhing about saying this, so here goes (This is meant to be constructive criticism 🙂 )...
Brant you've designed some good bikes, and some good looking bikes, in your time, (and indeed probably one of the classics) but that is a horrible thing to look at, sorry. Maybe it's the colour, maybe the lack of graphics, but it looks like a cheapo motorists discount centre bike: Looks like it's over inflated. (And I like odd looking bikes like the Ti456 and my old Yeti 575)
I'd like to see one in a darker, classier colour I think.....
OK, flame me....
🙂
We like our tictac colours cos they are fun. The steel frame - blue pig - will be in an alt.colour of BLACK, and this model, the mmmbop will be in (it says here) Blue. Though I can't remember which blue.
1.5" headtube means the best of all worlds in my opinion, I can't think of a good reason NOT to have one on an alu frame. Why limit the adaptability of the bike because some people fear the look of change?
Is the 3.7lb with all the bolt-on guides and the paint? If so that's only half a pound heavier than my old Cannondale frame. Colour me impressed.
its a very impressive weight isn't it. You should be able to build up a nice play bike that doesn't weigh as much as your car 🙂
Just looking at the spec' sheets (for all that I'd be able to tell from them) but the Blue Pig and 456 Slacker seem quite similar (maybe a degree steeper HA?).
How does the ride compare between the two? Are there any other significant differences (is Blue Pig double butted rather than plain gauge?).
Cheers
ICSG tabs will fit around a BB30
[img] 
?v=0[/img]
How come you can pop these out so much cheaper then cotic or pace?
Cheaper tubes than the Cotic, and less overheads than Pace I should imagine.
good design costs less to make
this thread has been hijacked!
Never mind the ally ragley, i'm very keen to see the steel pig!
Cheap, tough, bit-o-give, 20" frame (?), geometry that works downhill, numbers that add up for climbing, room for big comfy tyres, shortish top-tube for a gate.
Brant, you're a bad man.
resume thread... - the ally ragly looks lovely. Daft colours are the new black.
now i just need re-inforced ankles before i get back on a hardtail.
What's the theory behind not dropping the TT for more standover clearance?
Yeah, I'd be interested in this too. I like low TTs for nad clearance, and the way they make the frame feel a bit more 'chuckable' and wotnot. And they do look better too, since we've mentioned aesthetics.
That's the only thing I'm not wild about. But Brant knows a lot more about bike design than me, so I'd be interested in the reasoning for not doing it on a bike like this...
Ed-O is shorter, but has bigger balls than me and has had no drama.
When I stand over a bike I'm generally more towards the front of the bike anyhow, and therefore bending the top tube makes very little difference.
We always recommend people run 400mm posts, and our frames have long top tubes.
I will probably end up doing 14in models at some point (next run) if we get requests.
Tic tacs? 8)
[img] 
[/img]
thing is brant good riders can easily compensate for frame issues, whereas crap (average) riders need all the help they can get, so a dropped TT and its illusion of less nad mashing potential is a nice touch.
I like the colour, it will be interesting to see how the frame looks when it has graphics on it.
Could someone please tell me if the bolt on cable guides suffer from the same stresses and points of weakness that have been mentioned in previous threads refering to bosses for a crud catchers?
As the positioning of one the cable guides looks quite close to the headtube.
Dropped TT look much better, but in terms of avoiding nad mashing I think Brant's obsession with short headtubes is probably as, if not more, useful.
That looks ACE Hora.
My Chumba XCL is in bright/tangerine orange! Love those two colours 😀
[img] 
[/img]
I used to have a Patriot that offered me absolutely no nad clearance whatsoever.
I've gone on to have 2 more kids.
It always looked dangerous, but in reality it never was. I always fell off sideways or over the bars 😉
As the positioning of one the cable guides looks quite close to the headtube.
Yes. But it's in a more neutral axis/area of less stress, and is surrounded by gussetry.
It's the top and moreso the bottom surfaces of the tube that are highly stressed in that region. Not the sides. Not that you can go drilling holes willy nilly.
Also a nice round hole is quite low on the stress levels.
Mr P-Shift, if this new frame can pass the new CEN force/fatigue tests, then you can rest easy.
if anything, its arguable that these tests are too agressive. frames which have stood the test of time/rocks/drops/sketchy-fat-lads have also failed the CEN test.
14in models at some point (next run) if we get requests
Go on then, I'll have one in 14"
I personally like the look of a low top-tube. I'm only 5'9" and can easy get the saddle up to pedalling height on a 14" frame (Dialled Holeshot with a 410mm Thomson).
I've never seen the point of the raised and braced seat towers you get on a lot of bikes: why not just have a longer post? Though I guess they would make sense if I had loooong legs and wanted a short reach
I use a long post on my DMR Trailstar and I find the post flexing most worrying...