Tell me about the Ragley Bigwig

Ive been eyeing up various 29er frames to build up and have been offered a near enough new Bigwig frame.

Tell me all about them and what they are like to ride.

Be interesting if you have experience of the On one Parkwood to as a comparison.

Thanks

It’ll be too small for you!

They’re pretty short bikes. Have a look at the reach compared to your five29. I think the five29 was about 430mm reach for the large.

Have a look at the Last Fast Forward

450mm reach on the large. Roomy.

Hardtails seem suck in the 2009 era, there’s not many with modern geometry.

Also. The Orange Clockwork or Nukeproof Scout 290 might be appropriate for you too 🙂

edit: just seen you got a Parkwood, the large one is pretty short too. So interested if you get on fine with that.

Mines the older model, absolutely love it, goes like a scalded cat when pointed downhill. I sometimes forget it’s got no rear suspension. This is the older model though..
When I bought it, it had 120mm forks, since gone to 140 and it climbs just aswell but is much better descending. I’m 6’2″ on a 20″ running a 50mm stem and 780mm bars. Great fun, but would like some wider wheels for it next.

Thanks fo rthe info.

I sold the parkwood as it felt too short to be honest.

Looking at the reach of the large Parkwood and it was listed as 419mm and the Bigwig is listed as 435mm so its a bit longer which is what I was after(Longer reach than 5 too )

I could also build it up using the bits of my stumpy, so 140mm Revs and 142 back wheel !

Bear in mind that hardtails get longer once you’re on them but full-sus bikes get a little shorter (in terms of reach that is – add about 10mm to a hardtail’s static reach figure and take about 5mm off a full-sus, to compare sizing accurately).

I’m finding I prefer my hardtail being longer anyway – the extra length helps compensate for the instability caused by the lack of rear suspension and the full-sus has wider bars so still fits well.

Hardtails seem suck in the 2009 era, there’s not many with modern geometry.

What’s modern?

Everyone will hate the cliche, but long, low and slack.

Medium with a 440 reach, less than 66 degree HA, ~620 ETT, less than 18″ seattube.

My Bird Zero TR fits that criteria and a bike smaller would feel cramped, I hate having to buy a large bike, with a 19″+ seattube that feels like a gate, and has a higher CoG, just to get a roomy reach and TT.

I was at a crc demo day a few weeks ago. I wanted a go on a bigwig as they bloke from CRC was raving about it (maybe biased, I dunno) but never got a chance to ride it as it was always out with other riders.

Got one in medium and I love it .I have plus size tyres on mine there’s some pics of it on the 650b+ thread .Very capable going down the steep stuff but all depends on what you want it for.
A friend of mine has just built up a new Solaris which is lovely and probably what I would suggest if you wanted something similar the parkwood which I also used to have.

I liked everything about the Parkwood apart from the short reach, the Bigwig goes some way to correct that by being 1.6cm longer.

Its pretty much the same reach and top tube length as the 5 29 I had too that fit me well.

Ive got everything to build up a 29er now from my stumpy as that is getting stripped and new bearings etc.

Unless you can give me any more ideas!!

Just do it.

Everyone will hate the cliche, but long, low and slack.

I thought that’s what Ragleys were.

Ragleys are low and slack just not that long

20″ seatube on the large is not low.

Ragleys are low and slack just not that long

Ah I’m probably confusing reach and length.

I can’t comment on the Bigwig but I have a new Marley and have no complaints about the quality. Paint is good, everything lines up and it was a doddle putting it together.

Great frames build into nice bikes

20″ seatube on the large is not low.

I thought the low bit referred to the bottom bracket height which in turn drops the bike height regardless of the seat tube length and makes you more sat in than sat on? The seat tube length is just the bike size right, or am I missing something?

Had the latest bigwig, absolute rocket downhill, hated it an any climb. Sold it on

Ah I’m probably confusing reach and length.

Still pretty short on both counts really.

Anything else to consider then ?

Steel – Last FastForward.

Alu – Nukeproof Scout 290.

You’ll find it hard to find a longer, more modern geometry couple of hardtail 29ers.

Although, if you’re happy with the geometry being the same or a bit bigger tan your five29, then sounds ideal.

I have a set of 140mm revs are either of the last Or nukeproof suitable for these?

I thought the low bit referred to the bottom bracket height which in turn drops the bike height regardless of the seat tube length and makes you more sat in than sat on?

A short seat tube enables you to use a longer 150/170 dropper post. Seat tube length has nothing to do with BB height.
Seat up for climbing, seat totally out of the way for descending.
I would have considered the bigwig in a large even though the reach was a little short but it would have meant that i couldn’t even fit a 125 dropper.
Now got a 170 dropper on my hightower, even 125 seems a bit “in the way”
Long and low are totally linked to each other when it comes to reach and seat tube length…
A low BB and a long seat tube would be a bit pointless, pedal strikes and a seat that won’t drop enough. 😐

Long reach (for a given size), low BB, slack head angle are what that phrase is generally considered to refer to. You can misinterpret it to low seat tube if you like but then why not match that up with slack seat angle and long chainstays for some geometric novelty? 😉

The Scout 290 looks good but Im not sure what size I would need and the rear looks as though it would shake your fillings out !!

Tested a bigwig at Aston Hill demo day. I was impressed. If I was in the market for a 29er hardtail I’m pretty sure I would buy one.

Im a bit confused by some geometry Im comparing…

How can a bike have a longer reach but shorter ETT compared to another bike?

Has anyone got a Nukeproof Scout 290 that can give me a review of it?

Longer reach with a shorter ETT is because the seat tube is steeper. So you sit down and the bike becomes shorter.

Older geometry has slacker seat tube angles. So the bike appears longer, but you stand up to descend and it bloody shrinks!

How does that work with trying to get over the cranks correctly then, I always try and get my knee over the pedal spindle(as per sheldon brown) but need a layback post on most new stuff.

Or is it a thing of the past trying to set up a newer bike like this?

Am starting to like the Scout290

I’d forget that KOPS thing, it’s unnecessary and near impossible with modern geometry anyway. My Soul used to shrink a lot when standing, my Spitfire stays pretty neutral, my Zero AM gets longer. All three bikes are about 600mm ETT, sagged reach measurements are ~400, ~425 and ~450 respectively.

Ok thanks for that.

Will my legs get used to it then? When Ive tried to set it up without KOPS then I get muscle pain in my legs just above the knee… is that just because its not used to it?

Had my Bigwig for over 2 years and I still love riding it. I’m just over 6ft 1″ and the 18″ frame feels fine with a 45mm stem and 760mm bars, and although it’s shorter than the current trend I don’t feel constrained at all. 140mm forks suit it well.

Gratuitous pic. Now fitted with Vigilante front and Trail Boss rear combo.

A short seat tube enables you to use a longer 150/170 dropper post.

I’ve long legs, I can use a 170mm dropper with a 20″ frame 🙂

Given your history I wouldn’t buy anything you haven’t tried. Not a criticism, more a recommendation.

A short seat tube enables you to use a longer 150/170 dropper post. Seat tube length has nothing to do with BB height.
Seat up for climbing, seat totally out of the way for descending.
I would have considered the bigwig in a large even though the reach was a little short but it would have meant that i couldn’t even fit a 125 dropper.
Now got a 170 dropper on my hightower, even 125 seems a bit “in the way”
Long and low are totally linked to each other when it comes to reach and seat tube length…
A low BB and a long seat tube would be a bit pointless, pedal strikes and a seat that won’t drop enough.

Nah, low still refers to the stance of a bike IMO. Small is 14/16″ish, Medium 16/17″ish, Large 18/20″ish, XL 20″+, same as it’s always been.

Long reach (for a given size), low BB, slack head angle are what that phrase is generally considered to refer to. You can misinterpret it to low seat tube if you like but then why not match that up with slack seat angle and long chainstays for some geometric novelty?

This, explained better than I did.

When Ive tried to set it up without KOPS then I get muscle pain in my legs just above the knee… is that just becau

Knees are complicated. Maybe you need shorter cranks, maybe you need wider or narrower Q factor, maybe you do need your hips to be well behind the BB. But if you do need the latter you’ll struggle to get comfy on any of the more modern geometry bikes, where the sagged seat angle is in the 74-76 deg range, especially as most dropper posts have no layback.

What do you suggest then Chief?

New 2017 models fix the short reach issue.

They are longer in the reach and eTT by about 35mm, BB a bit lower and the wheelbase is longer. They’ve also made a 19″ size instead of the 18 or 20″. 140 forks and angles the same. Triple butted steel. Now boost rear bolt through.

19″ is now 455 reach and 637 eTT on a 483 seat tube. 66.5/74 sagged.

Quick correction they raised the BB a bit from 70 to 65 drop.