Twenty Nine Inches has learned that Ragley, the brand started by the genius behind the On One Inbred and so many other On One designs- namely Brant Richards- is going to be introducing a 29″er titanium hard tail bike made by Lynskey design in Tennessee, U.S.A. The frames feature many of Mr. Richards newest ideas including the odd looking “Three Fingers” chain stay “bridge”.
Here are two of the first prototypes Mr. Richards has received for approval. Mr. Richards had this to say about the new frame:
Lynskey made these samples – we’re planning alloy and titanium versions. Maybe steel too for the more recreational version (steel is a bit heavy to be competitive in the weight stakes for a race bike, but nice for trail riding of course).
The frames are race oriented and also not suspension corrected. This is to make for the lightest race frame possible using a shorter axlle to crown rigid fork. The “Three Fingers” design, shown above, is claimed to help prevent chain suck, a big issue with U.K. riders.
The frames are not priced nor is their a time frame for their availability as far as we know. Twenty Nine Inches will stay on top of this story and bring you any updates that we find.
GT-Do you know if Mr. Richards is also working a non-suspension corrected fork? I am assuming that the frame was designed with a 390-430mm axel-to-crown length in mind?
Maybe for true race only weight weineedom, he should offer a V-brake only model.
What fork does Mr. Richards recommend?
Love the old school……………keep up the good work!
In a word: Wow.
A non-suspension corrected geometry. Nice. I have the same question as Willie in respect to a fork… or would it be a Bontrager/White, etc., carbon 26er fork?
Also, one other question: Any word on how much tire clearance there will be with that cool-looking chainstay bridge?
But I love the looks… that downtube/BB looks beefy!
Very interested in more details as they come out.
V-brakes? Not a chance sorry.
Also not mentioned above is we’re evaluating 2 head angles. One is 72deg, one is 70deg. The 70deg one uses a long rake custom fork. The 72deg one uses a stock 26in wheel type carbon fork.
Both bikes are being raced this weekend, with feedback and revisions thereafter.
I sure would like to see a tire in that CS bridge. Until you mentioned the chainsuck thingy, I was wondering what the point was. To me it looks like less tire room. SO all that just for chainsuck? Now what can happen, if the chain really gets wrapped/stuck on the CR, is that it will continue to wrap and rip the rear der off, like the old elevated chainstay bikes would do.
Hmmm…well I suppose he knows better than I. I sure don’t have folks coming to me to design bikes for them. To me it looks ugly, at least on paper (so to speak).
respecfully, as always,
grannygear
These are our first 29in prototypes and as such, I expect a bunch of things will change once they’ve both done a 24hr race this weekend.
Certainly we’d NOT be looking for LESS tyre clearance with this design, and at the end of the day, I’d rather that area was a 1/4in plate, than a very ovalised tube, but perhaps things need jiggling around a little bit more. 29in wheels historically sit closer to the BB than a 26in tyre (444mm chainstays, vs 420mm on our 26in bike, which is effectively, what 10mm or so closer?)
@brant, thanks for the reply. No worries. I live in a mud free zone, so I filter things through a brain that is dessicated by the dry climate.
Everything is a compromise in design, I suppose. Thanks for giving us another choice!
grannygear
Since these Ti frames are aimed at the race crowd – wouldn’t they weigh less if the dropouts weren’t paragon sliders? Maybe a slotted droput or just a single speed horizontal droupout and geared vertical dropout?
I see the versatility in the sliders and all, but I’m assuming they add a bit of weight no?
I look forward to seeing the prototypes all built up at some point – especially the front forks you are pairing up with them for testing etc.
Dedicated vertical dropout frames would be lighter, but not by much. I’ll weigh them up at some point.
My racers were enthused by the ability to pull the back wheel right in for short chainstays (you know the racers love those, as it’s scientifically proven that shorter chainstays make you go faster), or pull it right back for huge mud clearance and stability in those slippy races.
Or certainly tune for tyre size.
Or equally make sure that wheels fit in incase I did something dumb on the chainstay bend.
THEY ARE PROTOTYPES
Obviously the Paragons also give an easy way to go either geared, SS or both. Versatile. They?e my dropout of choice because of that.
Told ya so MMcG!
Perhaps he’s picking up on the line “This is to make for the lightest race frame possible using a shorter axlle to crown rigid fork. ” – which didn’t come from me.
They have short forks because they’re rigid only. And also because if I want to do a long rake 70deg head angle, there isn’t a suspension fork out there that’s going to work with them.
I bet I would love the 70 degree head angle. Sorry if I missed this though but will that slack h/a still be in a full rigid too? Man, I hope so. And would the fork have to be more than 470mm a/c?
Thanks Brant
I bet that chainstay bridge would help in getting the best chainline for ss too. I have a 36 t on my single speed and I have NO clearance by in the chainstay area. I had to space it out a bit and that is with an internal bb.
Captain Bob – the 70deg head angle is acheieved at the point of manufacture of the frame – not by sticking a 2in too long fork on it. So the BB, seat angle, chainstay etc geometry of both frames is identical, it’s just physically the head angle of one is 2deg slacker than the other.
Mr. Richards-Would it be possible for you to post some “competition” photos of those two bike when they are built up and running? I realize that they are still prototypes, but the non-suspension corrected thing is throwing us all off. When you were drawing the 70 degree HT angle frame up, either on paper or in your head, you must have used some type of fork dimensions. 470mm a-t-c, with 60mm of rake perhaps?
Keep up the imaginative thinking and the true “out of the box” concepts.
The frame is designed for a 440mm fork. The 72deg one, with a short rake (circa 40mm), the 70deg one with a very long rake (circa 55-60mm).
Because my fork didn’t arrive yet, we’re running a singular hummingbird fork – 450mm, 55mm rake.
Thank you!
Built pic here – http://www.shedfire.com/2009/08/07/td-1-slacker-built/
More pics here – http://40psi.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/ragley-ti-29er-prototype/
I’m curious, the two different models, will they basically have the same trail numbers given the different fork length and offsets?
Yes – that’s the plan. We want to ride two largely identical bikes with different steering geometry but similar trail.
If it all goes to plan, then the next step is making a nice long rake short length carbon fork.
@brant: All the Raliegh XXIX owners will thank you for that should it come to fruition.
Whats the head angle on that bike?
@ brant: With the short fork the rigid bike came with it is 72 degrees.
Right – so for a 72deg head angle, a short fork rake is correct. With a long fork rake the ride would be too twitchy.
@brant: Says who?
I podiumed on the first 24 hour race on the Ragley. Brant’s definately got something right.
Any more word on this bad boy? A Ti short-fork 29er with sliding dropouts is awfully appealing…
Still in “evaluation” though Mark Lynskey nudged me about this last night – we are set to finalise. It’s happening, just not sure on front end yet.