None of my bikes have a name and I don’t do handbags either! Anyway you didn’t answer my question: would you buy a bike called a “Lil-let”, or maybe a rufty-tufty name like “mrs tiggy-winkle”?
We have very successfully sold a bike called “pompino” for many years.
I’d buy a bike if it was called ‘I am the love child of Piers Morgan and Maggie Thatcher’ and was fluorescent puce and purple stripes……..as long as it fitted,had great geometry and grippy,supportive and predictable suspension.And I could afford it.And it was reliable.
I don’t give a left testicle what it it looks like or what it’s called because I can’t see myself when I’m riding it and I could’nt give a toss what other people think about it when I over take them (which I’d do a lot…because I am like…..awesome and stuff….not richmtbguru levels of awesome,more surfmatt driving god level stuff).
We have very successfully sold a bike called “pompino” for many years.
Jeffus +1 (but blue)
Northwind, cheeky but very very funny 🙂
Looks good hadn’t considered it before but at that price it would be very tempting, if its not too much of a porker, would I be right to assume this is the reason the Ragley full suss bikes never saw light of day?
Given its single ring – what size is the chain ring Ed Oxley’s pictured Codeine is running? I only run a double but I like climbing and really haven’t the legs for losing a granny ring
Good stuff that’s prob about my size with a recent lack of fitness.
Did we do headtube length and wheelbase yet.
Also are the reach measurements you gave correct. Seem a bit short compared to say a banshee prime with same seat angle and top tube length in a large/18″?
Numbers are correct. Banshee has very steep seat angle doesn’t it, which pushes everything forward.
We are happy with this set of numbers on ours. I am sure they are with theirs too.
I know the top tube length has been discussed, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up.
The geo just seem really different compared to, well, pretty much everything else out there. Is that entirely because of the straight seat tube?
I’m 6 ft, long legs and probably long arms. 430 reach sounds ideal to me but the TT is longer than I see on most xls! I’m sitting here, imagining something like a limousine looking frame. Feels like with on one I’m always in between sizing…
Do we have any wheel base measurements to come by?
top tube length is quite odd, but to a projected line, horizontally from the headtube backwards to the intersection of the projected actual seat tube centreline, the top tube is 620mm. But that’s all quite complicated and why reach is a better dimension.
Thanks brant! 46.65″ WB sounds really good at the 20in model.
On page 1, you wrote that the ETT would be 630mm on the 20in though. Which is correct?
On a sidenote, I get the feeling when looking at, and reading about, On-One bikes that people always go with a small size. My notion is that 620mm ETT and ~430-440 reach is pretty spot on for most 6 footers. While a large bike isnt cool, a small definetly isnt either.
On page 1, you wrote that the ETT would be 630mm on the 20in though. Which is correct?
I said that it was 630mm for a 73deg effective seat angle. But it’s not got a 73deg seat angle. I was giving a comparison of top tube length to seat angle, to show a given reach.
I am not a patient man (says he, sat next to a full build kit in a box) 😕
Whilst we’re in whine mode.I’ve got a fat front wheel ere an all (HINT HINT).
Carry on……