Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434

    Ragley 650b excitement

    https://posterous.com/getfile/files....Euo5/photo.jpg

    This makes me quite excited.
    Although the idea the the mmmbop and blue pig have the same clearance makes me even more excited.

  2. #2
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,366
    I think Brant mentioned on 650bpalace that the bikes would do 650b.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    I didn't specifically design it for 650B, but always figured it probably would fit ok.
    When I set about designing the frame shape and detail for Ragley, I wanted a rear stay configuration that was easily identified and unique, so the "plate at the top of the seatstays" was an obvious one to do. It was actually something that came from the early Planet X mountainbikes I designed about 8yrs ago.

    More on 650B here - http://www.great-rock.co.uk/blog/?p=476

    Personally I am a huge fan of 42A maxxis tyres, and their exclusion from 650B at the moment means I'm not going to be an adopter myself too soon I'd have thought. that said "another" bike is always good :-)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847
    Brant, what fork is that on the Spooky?

    <img src="https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3800786438_b9811d846f.jpg">

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    My guess is the fork is a Magura Thor - or possibly a Wotan. But my best guess is the Thor model.

    http://www.magura.com/en/products/su...od/thor-1.html

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434
    so given that the ragley's are built arount longer travel forks, which to be honest are a bit much for what I ride, around where I live. My plan is to run a 29 wheel up front, and a 650 in the back with a 110 fork up front.
    Although it might not work.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    I really wouldn't recommend a 29er up front with a suspension fork.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by brant
    I really wouldn't recommend a 29er up front with a suspension fork.
    even a shorter one say 100 travel, especially if the rear was a 650b?
    Surely that would balance things out and keep the geometry somewhat similar? Or is it that the BB height that would start getting too high?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Head angle is 67.5deg. Doesn't match well to 29in wheels I don't think.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    Putting a suspension fork and 29er wheel on one of those would make for a pretty floppy front end.

    Why mess around with something designed to do something else - long travel 26er? If anything - do what the person in the photo did and slap a pair of 650bs on it and ride and smile happily.

  11. #11
    loud hubs save lives
    Reputation: sennaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    689
    hey brant (or anyone else) ... what size headtubes are on these bikes?

    poking around the flickr page, this looks pretty big:


    would be pretty sweet if it took a lefty and 650b right outta the box.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    That green frame is beefy - an updated take on the Compo perhaps Brant?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    That's a 1.5in headtube. 115mm long.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SuspectDevice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    647
    You honestly ride 42a's XC? I must be a racer geek or something, but I had 42a's on my XC bike for one ride and just could not deal with how slowly they roll... 50d is the softest i'll go for xc apps...

  15. #15
    loud hubs save lives
    Reputation: sennaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by brant
    That's a 1.5in headtube. 115mm long.
    so from the light reading below ... thats pretty much designed to fit a lefty with the cannondale SI headset/stem


    all cannondale frames are 1.5 so yes a lefty will go on any cdale frame....and any noncdale frame that has a 1.5 headtube that is exactly 4.5 inches high. then add in the lefty headset and a lefty/headshock stem

    the steerer tube is 1.56 so standard 1.5 headsets and stems wont work

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SuspectDevice
    You honestly ride 42a's XC? I must be a racer geek or something, but I had 42a's on my XC bike for one ride and just could not deal with how slowly they roll... 50d is the softest i'll go for xc apps...
    I would be reluctant to ride anything other than a 42A front tyre. I did move to a 60A rear earlier in the year, but am back on 42A's front and rear right now.

    Horribly draggy on lots of things, but so much fun on the downs. I'm not really riding "XC" as you know it right now.

    Have a watch of this - these are the trails I ride most.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdlXypUQNg

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434
    Humm, Still exciting stuff all round.


    But will some one please correct me as to why I'm being an idiot, who would end up with a bike that was too floopy in the front, if I

    1) took a 26er bike designed for a 150mm fork

    2) then rose the front 28mm by using a 100m fork with a 29er wheel

    3) and then rose the back 38.1mm by using a 650b wheel.

    Surely that would make a bike that was less floopy infront, rather than more?

    I've got a 69er conversion with a rigid front end and a 69 degree head angle that I love. I know the only real answer is to try it and see, but if there is a reason the logic behind my thinking is off, please tell me where I'm going wrong with my armchair geometry.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    How are you going to raise the back of the bike by 38.1mm by fitting a 650B wheel?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434
    Well, a 650b wheel is about 38mm larger than a 26er one, isn't it?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jencks
    Well, a 650b wheel is about 38mm larger than a 26er one, isn't it?
    Well you're the expert (?), but according to people I ride with a 650B wheel - http://www.singletrackworld.com/2009...rway-roadtrip/ (about 40seconds in) - they're the same size as a 26 x 2.55 WTB shod wheel.

    I suppose they could be 38mm larger DIAMETER than a really skinny mountainbike tyre, but even if that were the case, you'd only raise the back of the bike by half that by fitting a larger tyre at the rear.

    As far as I can tell, the difference between what I'd class as a "proper" trail bike tyre (2.3-2.5) and a typical 2.1in 650B tyre is really quite small in terms or radius.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: John Jencks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    434
    Morning Brant!
    Certainly no expert, I think I'll let this one lie, thanks for talking some sense into me.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jencks
    Morning Brant!
    Certainly no expert, I think I'll let this one lie, thanks for talking some sense into me.
    No problem. Thanks for looking.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    93
    I've just checked my 26" wheel with a brand new wtb 2.55 tyre against my 650b rim with a well worn 2.25 racing ralph and the difference in diameter across the knobs is an just over an inch - it's about 1 1/4" difference taking out the knobs.
    I would assume that a 2.35 tyre on the 650b could be in the region of 1 1/2 inches larger.
    And it does make a noticable difference.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Mederz
    I've just checked my 26" wheel with a brand new wtb 2.55 tyre against my 650b rim with a well worn 2.25 racing ralph and the difference in diameter across the knobs is an just over an inch - it's about 1 1/4" difference taking out the knobs.
    I would assume that a 2.35 tyre on the 650b could be in the region of 1 1/2 inches larger.
    And it does make a noticable difference.
    The crucial dimension would seem to be "loaded axle to ground at ride pressure".

    It's still not a 38mm difference in ride height there.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SuspectDevice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    647
    The advantage that I keep prattling on about is weight and tire pressure. I hate heavy wheels... and a 2.5 26" tire is too damn heavy to be ridden on flat ground, let alone uphill by a princess like me. Weight, weight, weight. And rolling resistance. Trailbikes for the the XC racer crowd... And for that matter, none of my XC riders, when given the option, choose to ride 26" wheels, even when they have super nifty ultra, ultra light wheelsets available...

    Rad to see one of our bikes in Norway!

  26. #26
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Just look at the rims, don't over-complicate things!!!
    650B gets a 25mm larger rim. Half of that is added to axle height, supposing the same rims. There will be slight variances between rim makes of course.

    If you drop that 29" 100mm fork as low as possible (unsafe tweaking when done wrong) and use a Fox with 51mm offset, the bike will probably ride just fine 650B/29". Possibly better than 26/26, for you. Just more XC that "jump".
    To be really anal, the added height of the 29" fork and wheel (I didn't measure, in part sits at an angle. You need to measure vertically to be sure :-) Oh, and with 100mm you'll sag the bike less, I would assume.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Ragleys have a 67.5deg head angle. Sagged. At 30% compressed ride height with a 140mm 26in fork. They will ride like **** with a 29er front end. End of.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Brant -

    Any plans for a distributor in the States?

    Any idea on the cost to have one sent over...I guess minus VAT, plus oversees freight.

    Could you comment on the ride of the blue pig vs. the mmmbop? Do they follow the standard steel and Al HT stereotypes? I'd lean towards the mmmbop, but fear it will be a little harsh.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    ChainReaction Cycles have the most comprehensive stock and lowest overseas shipping price I know of. I think orders over $250 are free shipping to the USA?

    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/B...px?BrandID=971

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ragetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    582
    hey brant,

    your ti frame apparently has good clearance for a 2.3" neo-moto in the rear, while a post here for a 650b blue pig indicates that a 2.1" is about as big as one can go ...

    should the 2 frames be identical in this respect?

    thanks ... ragetty

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by ragetty
    hey brant,

    your ti frame apparently has good clearance for a 2.3" neo-moto in the rear, while a post here for a 650b blue pig indicates that a 2.1" is about as big as one can go ...

    should the 2 frames be identical in this respect?

    thanks ... ragetty
    Construction details do vary between the Ti and Steel frames as they're made several thousand miles apart. I've not noticed any huge differences with 26in wheels, but if you're using areas outside the normal tyre clearance zones then differences could be exaggerated.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20

    Rear tire clearance

    With regards the rear tire clearance for 2.35 vs 2.1, it's not so much the frame clearance but the contact between the tire and the front D that's the issue. I run a 2.1 650b nevegal with an XT front D and in the granny it's pretty close - on occasion when I'm really mashing it up a steep pitch there's the odd rubbing (that might be due to my 'semi-clyde' like status though!!!). I did put a 26er out back one time, plenty of clearance for a 26-2.35 as the tire doesn't extend as far into the chainstay but the handling with a 650b upfront became quite ponderous....(see Brant's comments about running a 29er upfront).

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.