Brant's new frame, but he won't say what it is yet.

View this post on Instagram

Nearly ready. @steveworland made me do it. #steelrhymeswithreal

A post shared by brant (@shedfire) on Jun 16, 2014 at 12:36pm PDT

The new On-One Jones…

An On One Mixte?

that is lovely.

650b+, 3 inch fat tyres and similar outside diameter to 29er

(Pure speculation here)

There’s a lot of tubes going on there, so won’t be light…very interesting though!

Desperately carving a new niche?

Gopping

Is it stainless, or just polished before painting?

953?

its a bike.

Looks worryingly like a 1990 Puch Pholcus

Would be nice if it was 953, I know Cotic tried it but they just snap apparently

Would be nice if it was 953, I know Cotic tried it but they just snap apparently

Wasn’t the problem with the cotic that they made it lighter than the 853 tubes but the same strength, so it was quite flexy, then did eventualy snap? Not an inherent problem of 953, just that for MTB tubesets there was no way to make it better than 853 as it’s already the optimum ammounts stiffnes to strength.

650b+, 3 inch fat tyres and similar outside diameter to 29er

(Pure speculation here)

Surly instigator got there first (on my list of “things to look out for in the sales because it’s not great VFM at the moment”)

Instigator is 26+ making it similar or slightly bigger than 650b. 650b+ would just be the same size as a normal 29er pretty much…

Gopping

Just one of the worst words. It’s awful.

650b+, 3 inch fat tyres and similar outside diameter to 29er

Boom tish.

There’s a lot of tubes going on there, so won’t be light…very interesting though!

Yeah. It’s going to be no lightweight.

A comment from this thread made me start thinking about this frame. So yeah – stays are unbraced until they meet the other top tube. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Seat tube is heavily bent over to see if we can induce some flex.

It’ll be a really interesting test of “vertical compliance”.

Someone’s meant to be making me a titanium one too.

Is it stainless, or just polished before painting?

0.9/0.6/0.9 chromoly, cleaned for welding.

Almost a soft-tail then? Nice!

It’ll be a really interesting test of “vertical compliance”.

Laterally stiff though? 😉

Jones-a-like attempt to get some actual vertical movement at the rear then?

I remember early alloy lugged carbin tubed Trek bikes had interesting flex in all directions. Super noodle was the nick name for my mates…

Jones-a-like attempt to get some actual vertical movement at the rear then?

I’m unclear how Jones does that, as those frames look quite triangulated and braced. I can see how the Jones seat tube could bend backwards and forwards.

Laterally stiff though?

We’ll see.

I’m unclear how Jones does that, as those frames look quite triangulated and braced. I can see how the Jones seat tube could bend backwards and forwards.

He’s got a video somewhere on his website showing apparent movement while riding, I can’t remember where the camera is mounted though.
Edit- Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo-bastzh7c

Wasn’t the problem with the cotic that they made it lighter than the 853 tubes but the same strength, so it was quite flexy, then did eventualy snap? Not an inherent problem of 953, just that for MTB tubesets there was no way to make it better than 853 as it’s already the optimum ammounts stiffnes to strength

Exactly, The advantage is you can make it lighter but it ends up being very flexy (very thin tubing is used with 853 as it is) and it did eventually snap, I beleive Cy has it on his wall somewhere.
Back to the on-one will be very interested in knowing how the vertical give experiment works out, and how much lateral flex it induces

My Cotic 931 hasn’t snapped but it is a little bit flexy-makes it more comfortable- I’m quite glad of that in my advancing years.
It isn’t lighter than 853 except for the lack of paint apparently
Ooops, edited as I realise it is 931 not 953

Ah so there are some (at least one) out there! Is it on Soul geometry? is it all 953 or just parts? (ie the Bfe with 853 in parts of it?)

Ah so there are some (at least one) out there! Is it on Soul geometry? is it all 953 or just parts? (ie the Bfe with 853 in parts of it?)

see edited version!

Back on topic, if the chainstays can flex enough, why not just do what softails used to and put an elastomer shock absorber in the seatstay?

Because complex tubing is more nice, and also more niche! 🙂

So just to clarify is the wheel size 650b+ ?

Back on topic, if the chainstays can flex enough, why not just do what softails used to and put an elastomer shock absorber in the seatstay?

Or make a carbon fibre frame with a proper shock that weighs less.

I dunno. It’s just an itch I wanted to scratch.

Leaving aside the meme, I’d be worried about torsion.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
Seat tube is heavily bent over to see if we can induce some flex.
It’ll be a really interesting test of “vertical compliance”.

Have you ever thought about FEA to see what happens rather than prototyping something that may be crap?

cor, a second jeff inspired copy, its nice to know his geometry has stood the test of time. It’ll all be 51-55 degree offset rigid forks next to mimic the truss fork geometry…..

😀

I’m quite surprised no one posted this yet with regards to this thread (or any other on-one/Planet X thread)

You wanted to scratch a Jones itch?

I have a hunch the seat tube won’t flex much.

And before any pedantic gits pick it up, yes I know offset is in mm not degrees…just a senior moment 😀

Amazing.

If Brant wont say what it is, then allow me… it’s a woman’s shopping bike and goes by the moniker La Menstrual Cycle.

Almost-soft-tail. I like it.