Kinda tempted by the silly price for the Mmmbop but kinda worried about the sizing.

There’s only one inch difference in the top tube length between the Small and Large but a whopping 4 inches difference in the seat tube. The seat tube angle change in the 3 also suggests that the reach is very similar between the 3 sizes.

Anyone managed to sit on all 3? I’m a gangly 6ft 1″ and would normally have a 24″ long virtual top tube but also prefer it to be lower than the 20″.

The seat tube angle change in the 3 also suggests that the reach is very similar between the 3 sizes.

No – the seat tube angle change (slacker on smaller, steeper on bigger) means the reach difference is quite a bit more than the top tube dimension suggests.

6’1″ – you need an 18in.

But the steeper seat angle pushes the saddle towards the bars?

cynic-al as i am (see what i did there) id imagine (well know from experience) that the designer would know the score on the angles of the dangles.

btw im 5 10 and brant directed me towards a 16 , i thought it would be too short but its defo not an 18 and it was too big for me

He’s just making the point that the seat angle changes with size, but the head angle doesn’t.

But the steeper seat angle pushes the saddle towards the bars?

what?

a steeper seat angle makes the reach longer for a given top tube length.

just increasing the seat angle, and keeping the top tube the same makes the reach longer.

76deg seat angle, 23.2in top tube, 17.5in reach.

72deg seat angle, 23.2in top tube, 16in reach.

OK I get that, with your defined term “reach” (not seen that before and don’t see it’s relevance to my point tbh). I was thinking of the actual top tube length, not the horizontal one, my original statement is not wrong in that context.

ps loving the branding 😀 but can you give it a cool colour please or I may sue 😡

aah, learn something every day. So reach is a horizontal measurement between bb and what, the headtube/top tube join?

I’d thought it was one of those undefined measurements approximating how far away the bars were.

The “reach” dimension above is an absolutely key one, as it determines how far the bars are away when you’re stood up.

As a designer, I twiddle with the effective top tube dimension and the reach and the seat angle to determine how the bike works when you’re in/out of the saddle.

Blue Pigs and mmmbop’s have steeper seat angles than Piglets to put you further forward to stop forks lifting on climbs.

Piglets also have longer top tubes to give you a more stretched out seated position.

OK I get that, with your defined term “reach” (not seen that before and don’t see it’s relevance to my point tbh). I was thinking of the actual top tube length, not the horizontal one, my original statement is not wrong in that context.

So long as you only ride sat down, you are correct. If you only ride sat down, you must be riding awfully dull things 🙁

Brant – Would an 18″ frame suit a 6ft 2, 34″ inside leg person?

Hi, I’m also struggling to find an MMMBop frame. I’m 6’3” with 34inch inside leg. Would/could I get away with an 18” frame?
cheers Evilsea

Evilsea I’m your size with a 20″ BluePig, it fits great. You might be quite cramped on an 18″.

In my personal opinion…. which I am entitled to because I have spent quite a lot of time money and effort on Brant type products……….. Brant has not got sizing down to a user friendly art unless you are a different size from ME.
I’m 6′ with a 31″ inside leg. 18″ is too big, 16″ is too small.

Not that I regret the experience… he produces worthwhile stuff… unless you are a victim of the chainsuck on the smaller On One frames which is not down to the frame at all… it’s all down to the way you change gear all of a sudden when you never had no problems on any other bike…. victim of circumstance, not bad design, shame!

billyboy – Member
Brant has not got sizing down to a user friendly art unless you are a different size from ME.
I’m 6′ with a 31″ inside leg. 18″ is too big, 16″ is too small.

TBH, I think everyone is a different size to you. I’m 5’7″ and I have a longer inside leg!

Not that I regret the experience… he produces worthwhile stuff… unless you are a victim of the chainsuck on the smaller On One frames which is not down to the frame at all… it’s all down to the way you change gear all of a sudden when you never had no problems on any other bike…. victim of circumstance, not bad design, shame!

Having owned and ridden both a 14″ and a 16″ Inbred, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about as I’ve never experienced chainsuck on either.

Probably no help at all to a person over six foot. I am 5’7″ (30″inside leg)and ride the 16″ version, 140mm fox vanilla, 50mm thompson 4x stem with easton high rise bars. I tend to ride out on the roads for up to 12 miles before going off road. Not as good on road as my 17″ orange P7, but once its pointing downhill, yahoo!! It really gives you confidence to push on. Fitted mine up with Shimano SLX brakes + 180 rotas. Brakes came with the non metalic pads. have always ran sintered on other bikes. Expected the organics to wear out quickly, not the case. I live in North yorkshire so the brakes do get a good work out.
If you are building one of these bikes up yourself run contiuous outer cable’s. The cable retention system is interesting to say the least.
Well worth the £154 CRC are asking

Brant has not got sizing down to a user friendly art unless you are a different size from ME.
I’m 6′ with a 31″ inside leg. 18″ is too big, 16″ is too small.

We have a new 17in size this year.