I were looking for a good History write up on Ringle, from the early beginning on, but can't find anywhere. I know it started with the Trialstem and the bizz took really off with the CanTwist, but what happened before? I know that mulitple CNC bike parts manufactures had a backgound of manufacturing for the military. Was that also the case with Ringle? What brought them to the idea to start manufacturing bike compenents? What ties with other partners in the bike industry/scene did they have?
How did Ringle evolve?
- Thread starter Elev12k
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
I'll add links for others as I'm sure you know them
http://mombat.org/Ringle.htm (brief history from where you mention)
Part Info (from Elite504)
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... 614#364614
for the rest of the part, click on his signature links.
Over to others to answer what you asked fro though.
http://mombat.org/Ringle.htm (brief history from where you mention)
Part Info (from Elite504)
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... 614#364614
for the rest of the part, click on his signature links.
Over to others to answer what you asked fro though.
Hi Elv12k,
apologies for the delay in posting up a response to this.
What can I offer about the early days? All I can really offer is info I have gleaned from conversations with Geoff himself- and as I'm sure you appreciate, the business was very personal to him, and he was obviously immersed into the business, but I don't think it would be appropriate to go into too many personal insights, or information on how the business evolved. Suffice to say, Like John Parker, the Yeti founder (who is also no longer involved with his original business), business didn't necessarily evolve in directions that either of them necessarily liked, and both John and Geoff have moved on to other things. Ringlé Components was of course a success for Geoff, but he has moved on to subsequent successful ventures.
When I asked Geoff some time ago about the origins of the company he has said to me, and I paraphrase, that in the early 1990s, mountain biking was still really in it's infancy, and "what you took up a mountain, you couldn't be sure would make it all the way back down again". Stuff was still very much an evolution of road bike technology, or heavy motorcycle crossover.
The Trail stem was a case in point. At the time, Geoff had a Fisher Mt. Tam. Fillet brazed with now what would be considered an unusual (but stock from the factory) fork steerer arrangement. The fork column was threaded for a conventional headset, but featured a plain diameter piece of column above the threaded portion. On to this plain section, a steel stem pinched around the column- much like todays A-head systems- except that the stem didn't interface with the headset system at all. I have this stem in my collection and believe it to be the only "pinch fitting" trail stem. What this stem did was solve several problems. First, it saved a heap of weight over the steel bullmoose bar and stem, and secondly, the aluminium of the Trail stem did a damn good job of damping the vibration from the trail, that was otherwise passed directly to the rider with a stiff brazed bar/ stem combo. Secondarily, there had been many instances in the early days of chest injuries from the protruding stem/ steerer features (early freewheels slipping or breaking, transmissions breaking under high load, poor traction from early tyre designs and from chains breaking), so it was seem as imperative to create a surface that wouldn't harm the rider should they fall on to it. A first principle of good design is consider the end user. This clean and user-friendly design philosophy was further reflected when the Trail was surpassed by the Zooka, and the smooth aesthetic continued throughout the rest of the product range.
The QR lever was something that Geoff found at the time, to be of particularly bad design. We've all had it, a certain component that fails on the trail and makes you "nervous" about it, so you may choose to carry a spare. Well, Geoff had numerous QR failures, from vibration loosening, to simply coming apart in use when fixing a flat on the trail, so the cam twist was born. Properly tightened, it applies great tension to the wheel retention system, and proved to also be a whole heap lighter than contemporary QRs of the day. And the styling matched the Trail stem.
Suffice to say the Cam twist, and follow up Ti version (the Ti-stix), pretty much propelled the company forward with great strength. Continuing to concentrate on wheels, the Bubba hubset was next, using sealed bearings more familiar to motorcycle riders than cyclists of the time. Lubricating grease stayed put, and replacement was simply a press-out/ press-in affair. No adjustment necessary. And with aluminium (aluminum) axles, weight again was shed from the system. These product were all great successes, and moved the company forward, whist evolving in their own right also, over time.
Whilst CNC machining had been a technique in mass production use for many years, in my opinion, it was this that was the differentiator for Ringlé products. Bicycle manufacturing had been for a long long time, about volume production, using associated techniques such as casting and pressing. What Ringlé components did, was to apply a manufacturing technique from a different arena, into the bicycle arena, where indeed it was new, and produce essentially parts with a "lower volume" technique for an emerging market. Up to that point, it was undeniable, that cycling was a very traditional market. Even when the CNC boom was in full swing in the mid 1990s, you rarely saw a Cooks Bros Racing crank or a Ringlé road stem on a road bike. Traditional roadies didn't go for it. But mountain bikers, new to cycling, lapped it up. In fact we've seen that renaissance in road cycling recently, Rotor cranks and CNC hubsets for high-end road machines are now often seen. Who here on Retrobike saw this emerging in the early 21st century and though "we were doing that on MTBs 10 years ago"? I certainly was. And Ironically, as the boutique CNC brands were bought up and watered down (with conventional/ mass manufacturing techniques), CNC products on MTBs have become more rare, just as CNC for road bikes is ramping up. Thankfully manufacturers such as Paul Components are keeping the CNC candle burning. Its for this industry innovation that I think Geoff Ringlé could do with a place in the MBHoF.
Needless to say also, machined high-strength billet aluminium parts were also able to be anodised, where as cast parts of your, could not. This further contributed to the great aesthetic.
For those further interested in Ringlé parts, click on the links below in my signature.
apologies for the delay in posting up a response to this.
What can I offer about the early days? All I can really offer is info I have gleaned from conversations with Geoff himself- and as I'm sure you appreciate, the business was very personal to him, and he was obviously immersed into the business, but I don't think it would be appropriate to go into too many personal insights, or information on how the business evolved. Suffice to say, Like John Parker, the Yeti founder (who is also no longer involved with his original business), business didn't necessarily evolve in directions that either of them necessarily liked, and both John and Geoff have moved on to other things. Ringlé Components was of course a success for Geoff, but he has moved on to subsequent successful ventures.
When I asked Geoff some time ago about the origins of the company he has said to me, and I paraphrase, that in the early 1990s, mountain biking was still really in it's infancy, and "what you took up a mountain, you couldn't be sure would make it all the way back down again". Stuff was still very much an evolution of road bike technology, or heavy motorcycle crossover.
The Trail stem was a case in point. At the time, Geoff had a Fisher Mt. Tam. Fillet brazed with now what would be considered an unusual (but stock from the factory) fork steerer arrangement. The fork column was threaded for a conventional headset, but featured a plain diameter piece of column above the threaded portion. On to this plain section, a steel stem pinched around the column- much like todays A-head systems- except that the stem didn't interface with the headset system at all. I have this stem in my collection and believe it to be the only "pinch fitting" trail stem. What this stem did was solve several problems. First, it saved a heap of weight over the steel bullmoose bar and stem, and secondly, the aluminium of the Trail stem did a damn good job of damping the vibration from the trail, that was otherwise passed directly to the rider with a stiff brazed bar/ stem combo. Secondarily, there had been many instances in the early days of chest injuries from the protruding stem/ steerer features (early freewheels slipping or breaking, transmissions breaking under high load, poor traction from early tyre designs and from chains breaking), so it was seem as imperative to create a surface that wouldn't harm the rider should they fall on to it. A first principle of good design is consider the end user. This clean and user-friendly design philosophy was further reflected when the Trail was surpassed by the Zooka, and the smooth aesthetic continued throughout the rest of the product range.
The QR lever was something that Geoff found at the time, to be of particularly bad design. We've all had it, a certain component that fails on the trail and makes you "nervous" about it, so you may choose to carry a spare. Well, Geoff had numerous QR failures, from vibration loosening, to simply coming apart in use when fixing a flat on the trail, so the cam twist was born. Properly tightened, it applies great tension to the wheel retention system, and proved to also be a whole heap lighter than contemporary QRs of the day. And the styling matched the Trail stem.
Suffice to say the Cam twist, and follow up Ti version (the Ti-stix), pretty much propelled the company forward with great strength. Continuing to concentrate on wheels, the Bubba hubset was next, using sealed bearings more familiar to motorcycle riders than cyclists of the time. Lubricating grease stayed put, and replacement was simply a press-out/ press-in affair. No adjustment necessary. And with aluminium (aluminum) axles, weight again was shed from the system. These product were all great successes, and moved the company forward, whist evolving in their own right also, over time.
Whilst CNC machining had been a technique in mass production use for many years, in my opinion, it was this that was the differentiator for Ringlé products. Bicycle manufacturing had been for a long long time, about volume production, using associated techniques such as casting and pressing. What Ringlé components did, was to apply a manufacturing technique from a different arena, into the bicycle arena, where indeed it was new, and produce essentially parts with a "lower volume" technique for an emerging market. Up to that point, it was undeniable, that cycling was a very traditional market. Even when the CNC boom was in full swing in the mid 1990s, you rarely saw a Cooks Bros Racing crank or a Ringlé road stem on a road bike. Traditional roadies didn't go for it. But mountain bikers, new to cycling, lapped it up. In fact we've seen that renaissance in road cycling recently, Rotor cranks and CNC hubsets for high-end road machines are now often seen. Who here on Retrobike saw this emerging in the early 21st century and though "we were doing that on MTBs 10 years ago"? I certainly was. And Ironically, as the boutique CNC brands were bought up and watered down (with conventional/ mass manufacturing techniques), CNC products on MTBs have become more rare, just as CNC for road bikes is ramping up. Thankfully manufacturers such as Paul Components are keeping the CNC candle burning. Its for this industry innovation that I think Geoff Ringlé could do with a place in the MBHoF.
Needless to say also, machined high-strength billet aluminium parts were also able to be anodised, where as cast parts of your, could not. This further contributed to the great aesthetic.
For those further interested in Ringlé parts, click on the links below in my signature.
Thanks for the write up, Elite. I share the analysis you make on the CNC hause and what it contributed.
As I let you know through PM I am looking for Ringle history for an article. I am still looking for additional insights, especially on the matters put up in post #1. I think with that pretty much the full relevant Ringle history is covered.
Currently some people are working very hard on the new Wiki feature. Much new information is added. Of course Ringle deserves to be included with a very good write up. I hope to contribute to that too.
I emailed Sun-Ringle too. They didn't know anything on the early history, nor could they direct me to Geoff.
As I let you know through PM I am looking for Ringle history for an article. I am still looking for additional insights, especially on the matters put up in post #1. I think with that pretty much the full relevant Ringle history is covered.
Currently some people are working very hard on the new Wiki feature. Much new information is added. Of course Ringle deserves to be included with a very good write up. I hope to contribute to that too.
I emailed Sun-Ringle too. They didn't know anything on the early history, nor could they direct me to Geoff.
