Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:33 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:03 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Calder Valley
FluffyChicken wrote:
But wouldn't it be even easier to ride with a suitable suspended rear end to match ?

If you're going to go modern for that sort of thing then why not just go the whole hog ? Cost ?

I know people have been going down Snowdon etc on Rigid and front sus. bikes since BitD. The travel just makes you less tired and well safer. Good when your not so fit.

I know I rode Helvellyn and probably others on my Red/Yellow bike I have with my MAG21's (none Long Travelled format at the time ;) ) and Dad and Bro where riding Rigid. I know we had fun.
Different strokes and well it would be easier now with a new bike.

Still rather pick a nicer looking frame one in my eyes.


Flffychicken, i have a full sus, its a Cube Stereo XC / All Mountain, and since i bought the Ragley the Cube has never been out, full susses ae boring and correct everything you do wrong, i really love the natural feel of a hardtail, i dont think its the bike in alot of cases as i can go down a narly footpath twice as fast on my RIGID Orange Clockwork as my mate can on his Carbonfibre Scott 20 full sus
HAMSTER that is not heavy, we are talking about an all mountain hardtail here not an XC bike, these bikes are no good as an Xc bike as the are too stiff, These frames have been tested and will handle and stay in 1 piece when the forces would shatter both the riders legs, these frames will cope with anything a rider could possibly put the bike through, its not an On-One or Cotic which i would class as being a long travel XC bike. The Ragley frames are possibly the toughest frames money can buy and if you consider the Bluepig frame only weighjs 200g more than an on-one or Cotic it makes the frame fairly light.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:58 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23175
Location: Retrobike HQ
graham1975 wrote:
These frames have been tested and will handle and stay in 1 piece when the forces would shatter both the riders legs, these frames will cope with anything a rider could possibly put the bike through, its not an On-One or Cotic which i would class as being a long travel XC bike. The Ragley frames are possibly the toughest frames money can buy and if you consider the Bluepig frame only weighjs 200g more than an on-one or Cotic it makes the frame fairly light.



Tested by whom? Any results for us? Do you mean the CEN tests? If so the current Cotics and one would assume On Ones will also have passed these tests.

If you are hitting something with force enough to shatter your legs I'd imagine the frame staying in one piece would be the least of your concerns. If my legs were shattered I'd certainly not care too much for my Ragley frame. One might also imagine the wheels would possibly fail long before the frame.

180mm hardtail is interesting though. Wonder if it'll catch on. By the time you have this much fork up front I'd have thought you'd want similar out back to best exploit it....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:06 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Calder Valley
Here is an insight to the new CEN regs for frames
Yes the wheels would fail before your legs and frame but we arnt talking about the strength of the wheels this topic is about the strenght of the new ragley frames!


You might have heard about the new CEN regulations that are coming into force for mountainbikes in the near future. They are to protect customers from dangerous bikes, but due to an odd fatigue test – with high forces, there was a rumour going around that steel frames weren’t going to pass, or would be horribly heavy.

We put a lot of time and thought into the construction of the Blue Pig frame to ensure that it passed this new test. And in doing so, having to sit down and think about how we design and weld steel frames, we’ve made something that’s better than any steel frame I’ve done before.

Now, it’s pretty clear than the more you do something (like designing frames), the better you get at it (as you remember what broke before and where, what didn’t break, what flexed, what didn’t). But designing something to pass the new CEN regs was tough, as lots of people in the industry were getting awfully upset about it.

Even as late as the Taiwan show, I was taken to one side by one manufacturer and asked to join a group to push for the standard to be lowered, to make it easier for steel frames to pass.

As I’m incredibly grumpy, quite bad with people, and just like to sit in my shed in Calderdale, I carried on anyhow, as I enjoyed the engineering challenge of trying to get something through a tough test without simply throwing lots and lots at metal at it.

What we did with the Blue Pig (and I say we, as it’s me and my factory, the engineers and welders there too), was to look at the three tubes at the front of the bike (headtube, downtube, top tube) and really analyse what was going on during riding, and during the tests that they were using to simulate riding. We examined videos of frames in testing, and quickly realised that there was a whole heap of flex going on in the headtube area, that was concentrating stress on the downtube/headtube joint.

By picking some new tubes, adding some reinforcement to stiffen the headtube area, increasing the downtube diameter, decreasing top tube diameter (to introduce some flex to dissipate the load) using our standard 0.9mm/0.6mm/0.9mm tubeset, we were able to get a frame to exceed the CEN test, even when fitted with solid steel “test forks”.

All this might be quite dull, and I might have lost you on the second line. But the deal is this. The Ragley Blue Pig passes stringent standards that aren’t even law yet, to ensure you get a tough reliable frame that will last. Sure a 5.5lb weight is more than some, but we think most of that extra weight comes from our chainstay bridge (which we love for tyre clearance and chainsuck issues), and our dropouts (which let us run lighter rear stays for better rear triangle compliance and cleaner disc brake mounting).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:13 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23175
Location: Retrobike HQ
graham1975 wrote:
Here is an insight to the new CEN regs for frames
Yes the wheels would fail before your legs and frame but we arnt talking about the strength of the wheels this topic is about the strenght of the new ragley frames!


Who are you quoting there? Brant Richards? A quote is almost meaningless unless you attribute it correctly.

Fair enough. Their frames exceed the CEN regulations. By how much? Unfortunately numbers don't lie so unless you can present figures comparing these frames to other manufacturers saying "they're stronger" although possibly true is meaningless.

A bicycle generally includes wheels so it seems worthwhile to consider these....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:46 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Calder Valley
Here are the results

http://www.ragleybikes.com/author/shedfire/

Cotics are not CEN approved, according to information on the net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:59 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23175
Location: Retrobike HQ
graham1975 wrote:
Here are the results

http://www.ragleybikes.com/author/shedfire/

Cotics are not CEN approved, according to information on the net


Cheers for that, interesting stuff. although I'm unclear if the CEN results simply show it withstood the specified number of cycles or whether this is the maximum is withstood. Assume the former. Reasonably sure I've read Cotic are CEN approved, this article alludes to it > http://www.bikemagic.com/gear-news/cotic-2010/7311.html .

Thought all new bikes had to be CEN approved? Assume some dispensation for custom builders though?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:46 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Calder Valley
Ah yes, it states it had extra gussets put in to pass the test for a 160mm fork, but i cant see the gussets anywere, wonder if they just stuck to the 140mm test results, or those pictures may be old bikes, also reading that it states some of the Cotics are made in Tiwan.
I couldnt answer questions regarding the pass results for Ragley, im not mechanicaly minded like that, all it states is there the results and thats it lol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:46 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:10 pm
Posts: 1489
Location: Skipton
graham1975 wrote:
Ah yes, it states it had extra gussets put in to pass the test for a 160mm fork, but i cant see the gussets anywere, wonder if they just stuck to the 140mm test results, or those pictures may be old bikes, also reading that it states some of the Cotics are made in Tiwan.
I couldnt answer questions regarding the pass results for Ragley, im not mechanicaly minded like that, all it states is there the results and thats it lol.


Gee.
The gussets are fillets of steel under the top and down tube where they meet the headtube.

Gee if you remember the ragley does not use the brace on the left hand chainstay for the rear brake like the cotic's etc as the brake mount is part of the dropout section. Looks better in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:43 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Calder Valley
Giant-one, Ah i know what you mean now, yes i have t agree with you on that one, my mate has an On-one but never really paid too attemtion to it.
I have never liked them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:38 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23175
Location: Retrobike HQ
graham1975 wrote:
Ah yes, it states it had extra gussets put in to pass the test for a 160mm fork, but i cant see the gussets anywere, wonder if they just stuck to the 140mm test results, or those pictures may be old bikes, also reading that it states some of the Cotics are made in Tiwan.
I couldnt answer questions regarding the pass results for Ragley, im not mechanicaly minded like that, all it states is there the results and thats it lol.


So what you're saying in a roundabout way is that you've absolutely nothing concrete which you can back some of your opening statements up with? Because it seemed to me you tried to make a comparison with other maufacturers which as it goes is utterly basless. Given you a) do not have a complete set of figures to back it up with and b) the figures you've presented you are unable to interpret.


graham1975 wrote:
the Cotics are made in Tiwan.


Is that near Tijuana? If you mean Taiwan then they are made there yes. Just like all the other bikes you've mentioned in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 02gf74 and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group