# New Ram Bikes USA, DH (UPDATE!)



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Let me know what you think. Thanks


----------



## Felpur (Jan 22, 2004)

AH! the infamous non-drive side...... Bike looks much cleaner now that it's been painted. What's the specs on it , wheelbase, geometry, head angle, seat tube angle, weight.. shock lenght...stuff like that.... .how did it/you do with the bike at sea otter?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Felpur said:


> AH! the infamous non-drive side...... Bike looks much cleaner now that it's been painted. What's the specs on it , wheelbase, geometry, head angle, seat tube angle, weight.. shock lenght...stuff like that.... .how did it/you do with the bike at sea otter?


would love to see the close ups of the linkage


----------



## shoredad (Apr 26, 2005)

i don't like it. doesn't seem too strong. most likely i'm wrong, but that's the impression it gives


----------



## COmtbiker12 (Jan 12, 2004)

Looks pretty sweet. What would you compare it to as far as how it rides?


----------



## Renegade (May 10, 2004)

shoredad said:


> i don't like it. doesn't seem too strong. most likely i'm wrong, but that's the impression it gives


I believe the common expression that's used around here for what you're saying is, "looks flexy".
I do like the simplicity of it's appearance.


----------



## cdub (Feb 27, 2005)

whats rear wheel travel?


----------



## JBsoxB (May 18, 2004)

looks flexy.......


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

JBsoxB said:


> looks flexy.......


Check your PM's.


----------



## BigBadHucker (Mar 31, 2005)

sorry to say but that is the most stupid looking bike, and the ugliest


----------



## PaulM (Jan 21, 2004)

*I'm seeing a URT*

looked good right up to the point when I saw the bottom bracket attached to the swingarm. Or am I just seeing things? 
Show us a pic of the main pivot.


----------



## BigBadHucker (Mar 31, 2005)

buy a real bike


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

BigBadHucker said:


> buy a real bike


Your an idiot.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

BigBadHucker said:


> buy a real bike


"Praise ingenuity, don't pejorate it."

_-Stephen Williams_


----------



## mr plow (Mar 22, 2005)

shoredad said:


> i don't like it. doesn't seem too strong. most likely i'm wrong, but that's the impression it gives


I remember that he said it's made of chromoly instead of alu, therefore it doesn't need to look as beefy as most alu DH rigs do.

I dig the white frame with black parts, looks suhweet to me!!!
Plus how many do you see around?? That may be a good thing and a bad thing i admit, however diversity is good. 
An action vid would be cool to see BTW!


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

JBsoxB said:


> looks flexy.......


Still needs seatstays ...........


----------



## scabrider (Oct 3, 2004)

nice...


----------



## zocchi ryder (Mar 22, 2005)

PaulM said:


> looked good right up to the point when I saw the bottom bracket attached to the swingarm. Or am I just seeing things?
> Show us a pic of the main pivot.


i think your right, Is the the BB on the swingarm?


----------



## themontashu (Aug 31, 2004)

That looks sick (unless the BB is on the swing arm) That center of gravity looks super low, and if you wanted to you could bring the stand over lower, looks like a good disighn to me(unless the BB thing)


----------



## cdub (Feb 27, 2005)

BigBadHucker said:


> buy a real bike


HAHA, this guys hilarious


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Damn, nobody likes a URT...


----------



## Chikity China (May 3, 2004)

id buy one if it had some more support near the shock area.......but that would hinder pedaling a bit. not that great of a design imo but a great start. also crappy tire clearance looks like. 

how much travel? 8?

im kinda interested in one tho.


----------



## jason3559 (Mar 10, 2004)

*Brrrrrrp!*

The sound of the rear tire buzzing the post, seat.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

if the bb really is connected to the swingarm, that thing would be crazy harsh on big hits........


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

is it me or dose that look some what like a RMX


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Chikity China said:


> id buy one if it had some more support near the shock area.......but that would hinder pedaling a bit. not that great of a design imo but a great start. also crappy tire clearance looks like.
> 
> how much travel? 8?
> 
> im kinda interested in one tho.


umm..............the top tube can carry the weight fine


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> if the bb really is connected to the swingarm, that thing would be crazy harsh on big hits........


and brake jack galore


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> and brake jack galore


That bike is going to ride like a Y-11 crossed with a pogo stick !


----------



## BigBadHucker (Mar 31, 2005)

eww.......


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

BB on the swingarm has nothing to do with brake jack. 

Pivot location will, though. It's a low pivot, so it'll squat a lot less under rear braking than the typical high pivot DH frame. You can call this "brake jack" if you like. I'm guessing I'd want more squat, but I don't ride pure DH so I can't make that call.

Also, the BB might be on the swingarm, but it's so close to the pivot that it won't make much difference to the ride. Assuming an 19" swingarm and a pivot 1.5" away from the BB center, that's just under 8% of the rear suspension movement that your feet will "see" at the pedals. For a 9" travel frame that's 0.7" if you bottom it out.


----------



## East Coast Bender (Nov 25, 2004)

I don't really like the bike. The design doesn't look so good


----------



## flyingwalrus (Apr 14, 2004)

madtownfreerider said:


> is it me or dose that look some what like a RMX


maybe the fact that it has no seatstays makes it look similar, but I think it's mostly just you


----------



## flyingwalrus (Apr 14, 2004)

and unlike you apparent experts, I can't tell what a bike feels like until I've ridden it. This bike could ride sweet, and it looks pretty nice


----------



## Evel Knievel (Mar 28, 2004)

I would ride it!


----------



## Chikity China (May 3, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> umm..............the top tube can carry the weight fine


yea, and the top tube is connected to the downtube as well as the chianstay. the connection between the toptube and the downtube transfers the weight onto the downtube and the force of the impact...................i dunno wut ur talkin bout. notice how juanjos dt snapped although it was beefier than the tt?

but alas, i dont know jack bout how bikes work except how to fix em up and thrash em...


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

El Caballo said:


> .......Also, the BB might be on the swingarm, but it's so close to the pivot that it won't make much difference to the ride. Assuming an 19" swingarm and a pivot 1.5" away from the BB center, that's just under 8% of the rear suspension movement that your feet will "see" at the pedals. For a 9" travel frame that's 0.7" if you bottom it out.


think of this, your feet are now connected to a frame member that wants to cycle upwards while the suspension is active while you are pushing down on it while landing. very harsh on impacts compared to a bike where your feet are connected to the main frame that is pushing down while the swingarm is pushing up on hard hits....


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

seat post angle looks like itd jus seperate from the torque of jus riding it..... other than that, its a kool concept , kinda


----------



## Zonk0u (Jun 3, 2004)

zocchi ryder said:


> i think your right, Is the the BB on the swingarm?


looks like it to me


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Looks like the BB IS the pivot point. If so, how does it effect the suspension?

I don't even want to think about having to clean that shock unless there's a cover on it!

I would live in constant fear of that seat tube breaking clean off.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

I went to their web site and found the info on the frame. This explains it all.

RAM Bikes е проект на магазин BAS и фирма One Distribution. Идейно се заражда 2001 година, а практическата му реализация става факт в началото на 2002 година с появата на първите колела с марката RAM. Целта ни е да предложим пълна гама планински велосипеди с качество на световно ниво, подходящи както за прохождащите в спорта, така и за напреднали колоездачи, търсещи максималното от колелото си. Натрупаният професионален опит, качеството на компонентите и сърцето, които влагаме в направата на всеки велосипед ни позволяват да Ви предлагаме само най-доброто в света на планинското колоездене. Красноречиво свидетелство за доверието, което имаме в собствените си продукти, е фактът, че ние самите ги използваме ежедневно.

If you can read Bulgarian that is!! haha

http://ram-bikes.com/catalog.htm

Silly Bulgarians and their silly bikes.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

i thought they were domestic bikes?


----------



## konabiker (Jan 19, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> i thought they were domestic bikes?


Yeah whats the deal? I thought they were made in a garage in gnarcal or some shiz.


----------



## themontashu (Aug 31, 2004)

It might be a company out of were ever it is that makes bikes, and a guy here who makes bikes that hapen to use the same name?


----------



## imridingmybike (Jan 16, 2005)

Robot Chicken said:


> I went to their web site and found the info on the frame. This explains it all.
> 
> RAM Bikes е проект на магазин BAS и фирма One Distribution. Идейно се заражда 2001 година, а практическата му реализация става факт в началото на 2002 година с появата на първите колела с марката RAM. Целта ни е да предложим пълна гама планински велосипеди с качество на световно ниво, подходящи както за прохождащите в спорта, така и за напреднали колоездачи, търсещи максималното от колелото си. Натрупаният професионален опит, качеството на компонентите и сърцето, които влагаме в направата на всеки велосипед ни позволяват да Ви предлагаме само най-доброто в света на планинското колоездене. Красноречиво свидетелство за доверието, което имаме в собствените си продукти, е фактът, че ние самите ги използваме ежедневно.
> 
> ...


That's a different company altogether. Richard has been making variations of this DH rig since 2000 - that I know of - maybe even earlier.

If we can assume that the "freeride rig" is a similar design, then here's a good close up from their site:

http://www.rambikes.com/CP/freeride.html

We've discussed this before and decided it's a sort of vpp - though I think it's similar to a Maverick.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## singletrack (Feb 19, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> Looks like the BB IS the pivot point. If so, how does it effect the suspension?


 Nope, it's a VP-URT! It's different for the sake of being different. Pointless and inneffective are also words that come to mind.

Since it's steel I'm sure the frame is strong enough for the funky triangle, but remember that steel is nowhere near as stiff as aluminum.


----------



## ironhorsebike1 (Dec 5, 2004)

come on guys. he probably put a ton of work into this. at least give him respect for doing something himself. you can shoot him down when you physically build something better yourself. untill then try positive, constructive criticism.

to strenghten the rear end, i would do some sort of linkage to the seat tube/top tube junction to create seat stays.


----------



## BigBadHucker (Mar 31, 2005)

i would rather ride a road bike down a mountain instead of that


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

ironhorsebike1 said:


> ....untill then try positive, constructive criticism.......


what we have given is positive constructive criticism. if he follows suggestions, he is very likely to sell more.....


----------



## MattStewart85 (Jun 3, 2005)

ironhorsebike1 said:


> come on guys. he probably put a ton of work into this. at least give him respect for doing something himself. you can shoot him down when you physically build something better yourself. untill then try positive, constructive criticism.
> 
> to strenghten the rear end, i would do some sort of linkage to the seat tube/top tube junction to create seat stays.


I agree with iron horse, i think it looks cool and functional, but never 100% sure till i ride it


----------



## ironhorsebike1 (Dec 5, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> what we have given is positive constructive criticism. if he follows suggestions, he is very likely to sell more.....


some of us have


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Hi Felpur,

Specs:

Note: Ram "Custom" Bikes USA

Vertical Travel(Rear/Front): 228.6mm/184.77mm
Wheelbase: 45.5"
HT angle: 67.5 deg.
BB Height: 14.9"
Chainstay Length: 17.25"
Standover height: 30"
Rear shock: 9.5"x3"(stroke), Ti coil, Answer Metel
Rear hub: 165mm x 12mm
BB: 100mm(shell) x 148mm

Links are made of 7075 Alu.
Frame is made of CroMo

Weight: 45 pounds (as is)

It was my first time to the Sea Otter so I didn't race but next year I will try.

THANKS FOR THE GOOD WORDS.



Felpur said:


> AH! the infamous non-drive side...... Bike looks much cleaner now that it's been painted. What's the specs on it , wheelbase, geometry, head angle, seat tube angle, weight.. shock lenght...stuff like that.... .how did it/you do with the bike at sea otter?


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

cdub said:


> whats rear wheel travel?


228.6mm AKA 9"


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Renegade said:


> I believe the common expression that's used around here for what you're saying is, "looks flexy".
> I do like the simplicity of it's appearance.


With reference to the "flexy" idea, think about this.

8" rotor, no "schliiiiing" sound


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

COmtbiker12 said:


> Looks pretty sweet. What would you compare it to as far as how it rides?


Well I can't compare to many other bikes, but what I can tell you is how it feels.

For one, there is no brake jack, and no tire rub.
Secondly, the swingarm is stiff, think CroMo, therefore NO "flex."

I hope this helped. If you are ever in the Sacramento, Cali. area, let me know I can set up a ride time.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

JBsoxB said:


> looks flexy.......


With reference to the "flexy" idea, think about this.

8" rotor, no "schliiiiing" sound


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> if the bb really is connected to the swingarm, that thing would be crazy harsh on big hits........


Hi WCH,

How do you figure?


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi WCH,
> 
> How do you figure?


Umm, your entire body weight is acting against the suspension movement.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

El Caballo said:


> BB on the swingarm has nothing to do with brake jack.
> 
> Pivot location will, though. It's a low pivot, so it'll squat a lot less under rear braking than the typical high pivot DH frame. You can call this "brake jack" if you like. I'm guessing I'd want more squat, but I don't ride pure DH so I can't make that call.
> 
> Also, the BB might be on the swingarm, but it's so close to the pivot that it won't make much difference to the ride. Assuming an 19" swingarm and a pivot 1.5" away from the BB center, that's just under 8% of the rear suspension movement that your feet will "see" at the pedals. For a 9" travel frame that's 0.7" if you bottom it out.


Hi El Caballo,

Your knowledge of suspension design is extensive. Can I ask, do you have a technical background?

Everything you said would be correct, even the 0.7" BB vertical movement.

Thank you


----------



## imridingmybike (Jan 16, 2005)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi El Caballo,
> 
> Your knowledge of suspension design is extensive. Can I ask, do you have a technical background?
> 
> ...


JJ (Richard?)

Many here are interested in learning more about your bikes. Can you provide some close up shots of the BB/linkage area with description?

It looks interesting. If I remember correctly, you started out with a simple URT design, and have since graduated to this vpp style design - no?

Also, frame weight, price and options (do you do custom specs?)

Thanks, IRMB


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

ironhorsebike1 said:


> come on guys. he probably put a ton of work into this. at least give him respect for doing something himself. you can shoot him down when you physically build something better yourself. untill then try positive, constructive criticism.
> 
> to strenghten the rear end, i would do some sort of linkage to the seat tube/top tube junction to create seat stays.


Thanks for the constructive criticism, I will pass that on to him.


----------



## onionhead (Sep 3, 2004)

Definitely interesting.

I'm not really fond of it in the looks department, but I've seen much worse (and they're "popular" bikes too).

I understand the concerns about it as far as harshness goes... but a 9" hit isn't going to be pillowy soft either. I wonder what kind of feedback or feel you get from the pedals with the suspension in action. That would probably help on a frameset made for more technical-climbing in mind.

I would be a little concerned about bending the seatpost on a bigger hit, than the harshness in the pedals...


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> would love to see the close ups of the linkage


I hope this will do.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> what we have given is positive constructive criticism. if he follows suggestions, he is very likely to sell more.....


I believe that he is in the process of making an interupted seat tube design. In other words, what you guys/gals say is definetely making an impact.

Thank you


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Umm, your entire body weight is acting against the suspension movement.


Hi Sherpa,

The BB almost acts as the "main" pivot, therefore pedal feel on a 10' drop on this bike feels no different than a simple three point design.

The moment that is created, by your body weight, in the opposite direction of the axle moment, created by a bump, is a ratio that is undetectable by the lower link. In other words, your body weight, virtually, effects the suspension movement no more than if you were to stand 1" away from the center of a "teeter toter" and jump up and down.

I hope that helped.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi Sherpa,
> 
> The BB almost acts as the "main" pivot, therefore pedal feel on a 10' drop on this bike feels no different than a simple three point design.
> 
> ...


Yea, the movement may be undetectable by some, and for others it may be a deal breakers.

There are A LOT better suspension designs out there.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> think of this, your feet are now connected to a frame member that wants to cycle upwards while the suspension is active while you are pushing down on it while landing. very harsh on impacts compared to a bike where your feet are connected to the main frame that is pushing down while the swingarm is pushing up on hard hits....


It is like standing next to the center of a long "teeter toter" and jumping up and down.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

imridingmybike said:


> JJ (Richard?)
> 
> Many here are interested in learning more about your bikes. Can you provide some close up shots of the BB/linkage area with description?
> 
> ...


Hi IRMB,

No, I am not Richard. Try e-mailing him at [email protected]

He does still have a URT "soft tail" design, you can see it on www.rambikes.com

As far as custom specs, yes, he does. With my bike(pictured) all of those dimensions are mine, as well as materials used. You can make your bike as light or as heavy as you want.

Thanks


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

I dont think the designer was going for pleasing the fashionable dh'er with this frame. Seems practical and simple, but is truly unique and complex.

Nice bike..

Alot of you talk about how it looks, but careful on calling these guys out on the mechanical aspects of the frame.... There are truly some hardcore nerds behind the engineering of this design.. no offese at all...!!


It actually reminds me of a design I saw a year or so ago...forgot the name, I'll look it up tho.
It was outa central or norcal as a matter of fact....you?


----------



## imridingmybike (Jan 16, 2005)

TheSherpa said:


> Yea, the movement may be undetectable by some, and for others it may be a deal breakers.
> 
> There are A LOT better suspension designs out there.


As El Cabbalo succinctly stated:

"the BB might be on the swingarm, but it's so close to the pivot that it won't make much difference to the ride.... For a 9" travel frame that's 0.7" if you bottom it out."

I'm thinking that while the wheel has 9" of travel - this 9" is relative to the frame - the rider, connected to the bottom bracket has approximately 8.3" travel - as .7" is used up by their feet being connected to the swingarm.

I'm not sure this means the ride will be rough, but it might feel like it has a little less than 9" (but 8.3" ain't nothin to sneeze at)

If the rider is seated on the other hand, the full 9 inches are at their disposal (though possibly less likely to be used, as most riders stand up when the going gets rough).

As far as the suspension design goes, we've yet to hear anything about the wheel path, pedaling efficency etc...

As I've said before, this design reminds me a lot of the maverick - which connects the BB to the swingarm via an intermediary link, and is something of a vpp.

Not to mention that it's steel, custom and ostensibly repairable.

I wouldn't rule this one out just yet.


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

hey johnny the frame craftmanship is nice. but urt is deader than well....um... dead. not being mean or nothing but there is a reason that trek and catamount could not get it to work right. urt sucks pretty hard. the best way i can describe its main shortcoming is that when you expect compression you get rebound (otb is the end result on a steep pitch). get that bb onto the front tri and it should kick ass single pivot swing link style.


----------



## imridingmybike (Jan 16, 2005)

dream4est said:


> hey johnny the frame craftmanship is nice. but urt is deader than well....um... dead. not being mean or nothing but there is a reason that trek and catamount could not get it to work right. urt sucks pretty hard. the best way i can describe its main shortcoming is that when you expect compression you get rebound (otb is the end result on a steep pitch). get that bb onto the front tri and it should kick ass single pivot swing link style.


I would disagree with your stating URT's are dead - I think they've simply morphed into the GT Idrive, Maverick and Schwinn/Mongoose designs.

The "sweet spot" designs of John Castellano are definitely dead though.


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

JSUN said:


> It actually reminds me of a design I saw a year or so ago...forgot the name, I'll look it up tho.
> It was outa central or norcal as a matter of fact....you?


Nevermind...
It was Steve DeLay.. SWD racing 
The fram was called a Crazy8, I think. It had a similar chainstay/swingarm.

Peep the link. http://www.swdracing.com/crazy8.html


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

imridingmybike said:


> I would disagree with your stating URT's are dead - I think they've simply morphed into the GT Idrive, Maverick and Schwinn/Mongoose designs.
> 
> The "sweet spot" designs of John Castellano are definitely dead though.


well if that frame is a copy of the idrive is should do just fine. but most urts lock out when out of the saddle so harshness is the end result. lets hope its not a castellano type design or someone will get hurt on it real quick.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

JSUN said:


> Nevermind...
> It was Steve DeLay.. SWD racing
> The fram was called a Crazy8, I think. It had a similar chainstay/swingarm.
> 
> Peep the link. http://www.swdracing.com/crazy8.html


Sorry, no, this is not Richard (Ram) or me


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi WCH,
> 
> How do you figure?


(edit: missed your response)


----------



## JBsoxB (May 18, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> I hope this will do.


don't flame me if i'm wrong, but, how does that work?

if the bb is on the swingarm (goes up when landing a hit), then wouldn't that mean that the suspension is somewhat useless?

wouldn't the bb have to be on the front triangle rather than the swingarm?


----------



## mr plow (Mar 22, 2005)

JBsoxB said:


> don't flame me if i'm wrong, but, how does that work?
> 
> if the bb is on the swingarm (goes up when landing a hit), then wouldn't that mean that the suspension is somewhat useless?
> 
> wouldn't the bb have to be on the front triangle rather than the swingarm?


Dude, look at where the BB actually is! At that end of the swingarm movement is less than 1% of total travel (or whatever the figure is). Read the posts on this thread, it has been explained by someone who actually is kinda smart. 
It may be an unconventional design but get over it!!


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

Kinda looks like one of Bret Foes early models.


----------



## RED5 (Jan 4, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Let me know what you think. Thanks


 Not finished yet, still needs cable guides.  So close.

But at least you painted this one. Good luck.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

dream4est said:


> hey johnny the frame craftmanship is nice. but urt is deader than well....um... dead. not being mean or nothing but there is a reason that trek and catamount could not get it to work right. urt sucks pretty hard. the best way i can describe its main shortcoming is that when you expect compression you get rebound (otb is the end result on a steep pitch). get that bb onto the front tri and it should kick ass single pivot swing link style.


Hi dream4est,

Everything you mentioned about URT designs was true. Those points have been addressed and eradicated with this design.

Thank you


----------



## Sin (Feb 28, 2004)

Looks like an ugly Rotec


----------



## Godzilla (Mar 31, 2005)

TheSherpa said:


> Yea, the movement may be undetectable by some, and for others it may be a deal breakers.
> 
> There are A LOT better suspension designs out there.


BWWWHHHHAHAHAhaha - nice non-response.

He countered your concern with a very clear and valid explanation of the concept, just admit it, "undetectable by some, and for others it may be a deal breaker" come on - I suppose you're suggesting that you'd fall under the "others" category?

I love it when average riders get hung up on some fine distinction between different designs in a given component, then pontificate about how "X" design is inferior to "Y" design, when the simple fact of the matter is that 97% of the riders out there would be hard pressed to name any difference between the two if it were somehow possible to do a blind comparison.

Even if I don't think that the frame is the prettiest thing out there, I'll readily admit that I think it's pretty cool that the guy thought he could do something better, and than made it happen. I have no idea how it rides, I've never ridden it.

When was the last time any of you hater types built a frame?


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Godzilla said:


> BWWWHHHHAHAHAhaha - nice non-response.
> 
> He countered your concern with a very clear and valid explanation of the concept, just admit it, "undetectable by some, and for others it may be a deal breaker" come on - I suppose you're suggesting that you'd fall under the "others" category?
> 
> ...


Well said.

Thanks


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

Ive been thinking about the design of this bike. It seems to me like it would ride with a more stable platform than any other SPV bikes. The pedaling does not induce any shock compression I could imagine, and since there is no pivot point between the bottom bracket and the rear axle, there is no 'chain grow' occurring wahtsoever. I could imagine it riding somewhat like a hardtail when it comes to standing and pedaling, but if you sit your but down, you activate the suspension. The design seems to suspend the bike more htan it does the rider.
Hey Johnny, do you think you could diagram the axle path in one of the bikes profile pictures? I'm just curious.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> your feet are now connected to a frame member that wants to cycle upwards while the suspension is active while you are pushing down on it while landing. very harsh on impacts compared to a bike where your feet are connected to the main frame that is pushing down while the swingarm is pushing up on hard hits....


It's not an either/or. Think about it this way:

You're riding a teeter. We all know that a teeter doesn't instantly smack down once you go 1/2 inch forward of the pivot: you have to get well past the center for it to move at all, and the farther out you get, the faster it moves. You can jump up and down all you want six inches from the pivot and the teeter won't go anywhere.

Same with putting a BB on the swingarm: if you put it right next to the pivot, your weight will have almost no effect on its motion. My estimates for this bike (from above) are about 6% of your weight, which is under 10 pounds for an average rider. You'll get a LOT more force than that just from chain pull on a high-pivot bike like a Bullitt.

The reason URT got a bad name was from the "sweet spot" designs, where the pivot was miles away from the BB. These lock out when you stand up -- for the same reason the teeter goes down when you get far enough out on it. The further out from the pivot, the more force.

The infamous "sweet spot" design.








The Klein Mantra:









Note the difference between these and the RAM bike.


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi dream4est,
> 
> Everything you mentioned about URT designs was true. Those points have been addressed and eradicated with this design.
> 
> Thank you


well i figured you guys had to have noticed any urt type issues right away. one drop or jump would be enough to notice the urt "rebound when supposed to compress" thing. i had a trek y bike in 1995-6. what a pos. a 24 lb bike that i thought was trick until i rode it. the shock would settle into 3/4 stroke for sag, then rebound when you hit something. i tried the catamount just to see if my frame was bogus and it did the same thing. i did ride the i-drive in 99 and noticed they had addressed that issue.
hey whats the top tube length on that white frame? just curious cause your wheelbase seems pretty standard for about a 22.5-23" tt.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi El Caballo,
> 
> Your knowledge of suspension design is extensive. Can I ask, do you have a technical background?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the kind words. I designed and wrote video games for many years, some of which contained very complicated and reasonably accurate motorcycle simulations. I'm not a physics major or MechE, but I've worked with them enough to understand the basics -- and, usually, to realize when I'm in over my head and need to call one up.

The nice thing about doing simulations is that it's obvious when your theory is wrong. We figured out a lot of ways that front/rear suspension and tire traction *don't* work. This skill is very useful in the world of mountain bikes, which is chock-full of marketing BS, bad physics, patents on both the above, and people repeating garbled versions of all three.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

dream4est said:


> well i figured you guys had to have noticed any urt type issues right away. one drop or jump would be enough to notice the urt "rebound when supposed to compress" thing. i had a trek y bike in 1995-6. what a pos. a 24 lb bike that i thought was trick until i rode it. the shock would settle into 3/4 stroke for sag, then rebound when you hit something. i tried the catamount just to see if my frame was bogus and it did the same thing. i did ride the i-drive in 99 and noticed they had addressed that issue.
> hey whats the top tube length on that white frame? just curious cause your wheelbase seems pretty standard for about a 22.5-23" tt.


TT(Top Tube) is 17.75"


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

El Caballo said:


> Thanks for the kind words. I designed and wrote video games for many years, some of which contained very complicated and reasonably accurate motorcycle simulations. I'm not a physics major or MechE, but I've worked with them enough to understand the basics -- and, usually, to realize when I'm in over my head and need to call one up.
> 
> The nice thing about doing simulations is that it's obvious when your theory is wrong. We figured out a lot of ways that front/rear suspension and tire traction *don't* work. This skill is very useful in the world of mountain bikes, which is chock-full of marketing BS, bad physics, patents on both the above, and people repeating garbled versions of all three.


YES!!!! The best part is going back through the old(c.90s) mags and seeing the "new" designs. Then find yourself looking at the "same" designs in today's mags but with new features. The rediculous thing is that people eat it and like it.

Well, I must commend you on your knowledge. Does your software arsenol include Solidworks? Solidworks allows you to design and build a, virtual, working rendition. That was the driving force in the R&D of that suspension design.


----------



## zedro (Jan 12, 2004)

JSUN said:


> Ive been thinking about the design of this bike. It seems to me like it would ride with a more stable platform than any other SPV bikes. The pedaling does not induce any shock compression I could imagine, and since there is no pivot point between the bottom bracket and the rear axle, there is no 'chain grow' occurring wahtsoever.


 the thing is its not all about chaingrowth and chain tension inducing suspension movement; those can be quite minor and easy to deal with. The major source of 'bob' is from the acceleration of the rear axle; URTs intrinsincly don not deal with this, their pivot point however does (this is why the URT myth was busted and they've since dissapeared). If this design wasent tuned with its squat characteristics in mind, then it would miss the principal effect of suspension design under power


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

zedro said:


> the thing is its not all about chaingrowth and chain tension inducing suspension movement; those can be quite minor and easy to deal with. The major source of 'bob' is from the acceleration of the rear axle; URTs intrinsincly don not deal with this, their pivot point however does (this is why the URT myth was busted and they've since dissapeared). If this design wasent tuned with its squat characteristics in mind, then it would miss the principal effect of suspension design under power


One thing I have noticed, just from this forum and one other, is that people are scared of the URT design because most can not "see" how the suspension works, especially with this design.

For you, all I have to say is that your concern was valid with such designs as the Mantra or any other "sweet spot" designs, but with this one; not valid at all. Don't worry, it will accelerate better than you think.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

I just noticed that the swingarm isn't on a single pivot. Look at the shock linkage: the swingarm has to be on a short link, or it couldn't actually move up and down without ripping the linkage off.

Therefore, there's a little bit of magic going on under the BB shell, and the virtual pivot location might not be as low as it appears. 

Based on this, I'm going to say that the designer of this bike is pretty smart and knows exactly what he's doing. I've never heard of RAM Bikes before this thread, and I've certainly never seen one before, but I would call it worth my time to take a test ride.

(Also note that the frame is steel, so that "weak looking" seat tube isn't going anywhere. I like a much steeper STA because it gives me a bigger range of seat positions -- but I don't do pure DH.)


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

El Caballo said:


> I just noticed that the swingarm isn't on a single pivot. Look at the shock linkage: the swingarm has to be on a short link, or it couldn't actually move up and down without ripping the linkage off.
> 
> Therefore, there's a little bit of magic going on under the BB shell, and the virtual pivot location might not be as low as it appears.
> 
> ...


Hi Caballo,

I am sure we can set something up. Where in the West Coast do you live?
Also, he has a more "freeriderish" type bike if you are not interested in a DH frame.

Note: With all the feedback from the forum on the seat angle, Richard(Ram Bikes owner/designer) has been hard at work designing a frame with an interupted seat tube. That would allow for any angle the customer could ever want.


----------



## Christopher Robin (Dec 1, 2004)

Holy ****!!! Listen to yourselves!!!

Thank god some of you are posting positive comments in order to provide constructive feedback to the company or guy that put effort into making the frame! Some of you are completely ****ing braindead! You're posting comments about the structure of the bike by LOOKING at a picture!!! It's like some of you have become ****ing engineers all of a sudden. 

BigBadHucker: You say "it's the ugliest bike you've ever seen"...you say "buy a real bike"...you say you'd "rather ride a road bike down a mountain." Who the **** are you?! What do YOU ride??? Post a pic of your Kona, or Brodie, or Cove bike and let people tell YOU what they think about your bike...if you even have one.


----------



## BringDaRukus (Jun 19, 2005)

TheSherpa said:


> Your an idiot.


His name is BigBadHucker... would you expect anything less?


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Christopher Robin said:


> Holy ****!!! Listen to yourselves!!!
> 
> Thank god some of you are posting positive comments in order to provide constructive feedback to the company or guy that put effort into making the frame! Some of you are completely ****ing braindead! You're posting comments about the structure of the bike by LOOKING at a picture!!! It's like some of you have become ****ing engineers all of a sudden.


A lot of the guys are enginerds.


----------



## FloridaFish (Mar 29, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> A lot of the guys are enginerds.


I take great offense to that comment. Engineers are people too.


----------



## zedro (Jan 12, 2004)

Christopher Robin said:


> Holy ****!!! Listen to yourselves!!!
> 
> Thank god some of you are posting positive comments in order to provide constructive feedback to the company or guy that put effort into making the frame! Some of you are completely ****ing braindead! You're posting comments about the structure of the bike by LOOKING at a picture!!! It's like some of you have become ****ing engineers all of a sudden.
> 
> BigBadHucker: You say "it's the ugliest bike you've ever seen"...you say "buy a real bike"...you say you'd "rather ride a road bike down a mountain." Who the **** are you?! What do YOU ride??? Post a pic of your Kona, or Brodie, or Cove bike and let people tell YOU what they think about your bike...if you even have one.


 ahhaha.....how come you never get this excited on Ridemonkey? and when was your last post on mtbr anyways, like 1999?


----------



## DHbiker (Apr 23, 2004)

BigBadHucker said:


> buy a real bike


Try building a bike.

BTW that bike sort of "looks" like a Canfield even though when you "look" closer it is different than one.

Chris Robinson... That was great.


----------



## Christopher Robin (Dec 1, 2004)

zedro said:


> ahhaha.....how come you never get this excited on Ridemonkey? and when was your last post on mtbr anyways, like 1999?


I don't know what happened...I just went blind with rage.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> I am sure we can set something up. Where in the West Coast do you live?
> Also, he has a more "freeriderish" type bike if you are not interested in a DH frame.


I'm East Bay. Sadly a new frame isn't really in the budget right now, but if I'm riding somewhere you're riding I'd love to try one out.

I'd be looking for something I can pedal uphill, i.e. more like 6-7", 35# or less, front derailleur or similar gear range.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Yes, this design will act differently from a Sweetspot URT. In those the BB was behind and below the Main pivot.

In the RAM bike the BB is ahead of the pivot point. Actually this pivot acts like a fulcrum and when you hit an impact your bb will go downwards while the swingarm travels upwards compressing the shock.

Still, it THINK it will lose some bump compliance when standing and the swingarm still has to counter your weight at some time of the stroke.

Interesting for say the least. I rode a couple URT's a la Trek Y. As long as you kept your weigh on the saddle, the bike was good. Once you put your butt 3 inches away from the sadle, it felt like a rigid (which was good back then as the tendency was to pedal standing mashing the pedals).

I think it's an interesting take on the URT, but it might have some drawbacks (as any design out there). A trail test should clear all doubts.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Warp2003 said:


> Yes, this design will act differently from a Sweetspot URT. In those the BB was behind and below the Main pivot.
> 
> In the RAM bike the BB is ahead of the pivot point. Actually this pivot acts like a fulcrum and when you hit an impact your bb will go downwards while the swingarm travels upwards compressing the shock.
> 
> ...


Let me know when and where.


----------



## gurp (Jan 20, 2004)

I like it, it looks nice and clean. For DH I would like to see a slightly slacker headtube (66deg or so) and a lower bottom bracket (14-14.5).


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Let me know when and where.


Thanks so much Johnny!

Unfortunately I live in mexico and getting to the west coast is outta the question for me now.

Thanks again.

I just hope some dudes might try it and post their honest, unbiased opinions here.


----------

